Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	great_a	king_n	roman_n	1,975	5	7.7742	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52047	A plea for defensive armes, or, A copy of a letter written by Mr. Stephen Marshall to a friend of his in the city, for the necessary vindication of himself and his ministerie, against that altogether groundlesse, most unjust and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certain malignants in the city, and lately printed at Oxford, in their Mendacium aulicum, otherwise called, Mercurius Aulicus, and sent abroad into other nations to his perpetual infamie in which letter the accusation is fully answered, and together with that, the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments taking up defensive arms is briefly and learnedly asserted and demonstrated, texts of Scripture cleared, all objections to the contrary answered, to the full satisfaction of all those that desire to have their consciences informed in this great controversie.; Plea for defensive armes	Marshall, Stephen, 1594?-1655.	1643 (1643)	Wing M768; ESTC R15835	25,154	32

appeal and consequently against which there is no resistance So that if men would read this Text of the thirteenth to the Romans in plain English it amounts directly to thus much Let every soul in England be subject to King and Parliament for they are the higher powers ordained unto you of God whosoever therefore resisteth King and Parliament resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shal receive to themselves damnation I would desire no other Text but this to confound the great Chaplains and Champions of the Antiparliamentary cause or to strike terrour into their Loynes if their long conversing with God-dammee's hath not drawn such a Kawl over their hearts that to them damnation is ridiculous Object 3. But doth not Saint Peter say expresly the King is Supreme 1 Pet. 2. 12. Answ. 1. It may as well be translated Superiour as Supreme the same word in the 13 of the Romans is translated Superiour higher not highest 2. It is plain the Apostle is not there constituting Governments but giving direction to people to obey the Government they lived under and the Text hath as much strength to enforce subjection to Aristocracy as to Monarchy If the people of Pontus Asia Cappadocia Bithynia were under an absolute Monarchy as sometimes they were being petty Kingdoms crumbled out of the great Monarchy of Alexander and it may be did retain yet the same forme of Government if not of their own yet as lately received from the Romans all that can be enforced from thence is That the Apostle names the Kings of those particular Countries to be such as they were and commands subjection to them but no wayes tyes other kingdoms to be like unto them Object 4. But we in England by our oaths do acknowledge the King to be Supreme Answ. 1. We willingly grant Him to be Supreme to judge all persons in all causes according to His Lawes and the established Orders of the Kingdom but not at or by His absolute will or pleasure 2. Whoever considers the title scope and words both of the Oath and the Act of Parliament that enjoynes it will easily see that both the Act and Oath were intended in opposition to that Supremacie which the Pope sometimes challenged and usurped in this Kingdome of England and no more And this to be the true intent and meaning of it appears more fully by that explication or limitation of the Oath made the next Parliament 5. Eliz. Wherein it is declared That that Oath made 1. Eliz. shall be taken and expounded in such form as it is set forth in an admonition added to the Queens Injunctions published Anno 1. of Her Raign viz. To confesse or acknowledge in Her Her Heirs and Successors no other Authority then that which was challenged and lately used by King Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth And by this time you may see how little offensive these two so much boasted Texts are to our defensive Arms Object Other places of Scriptures the adversaries seeme not much to confide in therefore I will passe them over the more briefly yet let us a little consider of them Matth. 26. 52. They that take the sword shall perish with the sword Where Christ seems to rebuke Peter for using defensive arms against the officers that came with a pretext of authority to apprehend Christ Answ. 1. This is not a reproof of the sword taken for just defence but of the sword taken for unjust oppression and a comfort to those that are oppressed by it for Origen Theophylact Titus Euthimius interpret the meaning to be That Christ doth not rebuke Peter for using defensive Arms but to let Peter know that he need not snatch Gods Work out of his hand for God would in due time punish those with the sword that came thus with the sword against him and that these words are a Prophesie of the punishment which the Roman sword should enact of the bloudy Jewish Nation according with the like expression Revel. 13. 10. He that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword here is the patience and faith of the Saints that is This may comfort the Saints in their persecutions that God will take vengeance for them But secondly Suppose it was a reproof of Peters using the sword then the plain meaning is to condemn Peters rashnesse who drew his sword and never staid to know his Masters minde whether he should strike or not and so reproves those who rashly unlawfully or doubtingly use the sword Adde this That now was the hour come of Christs suffering and not of his Apostles fighting wherein Christ would not be rescued no not by twelve Legions of Angels much lesse then by the sword of man Therefore he saith to Peter Put up thy sword c. But intended not that it should alwayes be unlawfull for his people to use the sword in their just defence against unjust violence for then he would never have commanded them but a little before that he that hath two Coats let him sell one and buy a sword Object Eccles. 8. 2. c. I counsell thee to keep the Kings Commandment c. He doth whatever he pleaseth c. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him What dost thou Answ. 1. No man can understand it literally in all things as if every commandment of the King must be kept as if no actions of the King might be scanned nor reproved by any man as the Canonists say of the Pope That if he lead thousands to hel none may say Why dost thou so Surely if Saul command to murder the Lords Priests that commandment need not be kept If David lie with his neighbours wife Nathan may say Why dost thou so If Ahab murder Naboth and swallow his inheritance worship Baal persecute and kill the Prophets of the Lord Elijah may reprove him notwithstanding this Text Who can say unto him what dost thou Secondly The Text plainly enough interprets it self Keep the Kings commandment according to the oath of God stand not in an evil thing against him he hath power to do whatever he will Si scelus patraveris effugere non poteris If you commit evil you cannot escape punishment where the word of a King is there is power viz. to punish them that do evil and none to call him to account for doing it and who can say unto him What dost thou Object Another text is Proverb 8. 15. By me Kings reigne c. Whence they plead that because Kings and Princes receive their authority only from God and the people at the utmost only designe the Person but give him none of his power therefore they may in no case take away his power from him Answ. 1. It saith no more of Kings then of Nobles Senators and all other Judges of the earth for it follows By me Princes rule and Nobles even all the Judges of the Earth Secondly Although no such thing is in the Text

man I may not secure with a good conscience True it is if in case it do upon circumstances duely weighed appear that our receding from our right and not resisting wrong will tend to the promoving of a greater and a more generall good or the preventing of a greater and a more generall evill it is agreeable to right reason and our Saviours rule Mat. 5. 39. that we should both remit of our right and submit to wrong whether sued or ensued whether to superiours or inferiours or equals But that men should give a liberty of defence in Law and yet absolutely condemne defence against unlawfull violence is such an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} such an absurdity as you shall seldome meet with But give me leave to weigh it a little further if the Subjects defending themselves by Armes against the violence of oppressing Governours and their instruments be unlawfull either it must be because their Prince hath by conquest spoiled them of that liberty which God and nature gave them at the first Or secondly because they or their Ancestors having submitted by Covenant and Consent to him to bee their supream Ruler according to Law they must therefore be interpreted to have yeelded up all their Liberty so far as to be now unable with a good Conscience to defend themselves against his violence though contrary to Law Or thirdly because God hath lifted up Princes so far above all mortall men that all hands are by him bound from daring to resist them The first I finde not many pleading that peoples being conquered makes it unlawfull for them to defend themselves against the unjust violences of their Conquerours or his Successours Most of them grant that the peoples right is to designe the person of their Prince And indeed it is the most absurd reasoning in the world that because a strong robber hath over-powerd me in my house in conscience I am tyed to be his servant or slave for ever Because Eglon hath mightily oppressed Israel for eighteen years it is unlawfull for them to shake of● his yoke when they are able to resist him Certainly whatever of mine another takes by violence from me let him keep it never so long it is but Continuata injuria a continued wrong till I consent to his holding it And all reason allowes me to recover it again as soon as I can And I fear not to say that had William sirnamed the conquerour taken and held this Crown only by his sword and ruled over the Nation only by force and all his successors to this day had no other claim to it all the reason in the world would allow us to redeem our selves from that yoke if we were able But though the sword begin the Conquest yet many times the Consent of the people comes in and makes their Conquerour their lawfull King and then so far as by Covenant or Laws they agree to be under him for the publike safety and good they are bound up from any resistance But that their parting with some of their liberty for the publike good should upon the usurpation of him whom they have trusted deprive them of that liberty which they never parted with is most abhorring to reason Suppose a free man indents with another to be his servant in some ingenious employment as suppose to attend upon his person and expresly indents that his master shall not have power to command him to rub his horse heels or fill his dung cart or the like If now this master shall usurp and command him to such sordid employment and by force seek to compell him to them some shew of reason at least there would be for the servant to plead that his master had forfeited all his power over him and that he was free from his service and might go seek another master but no colour of reason that the servant hath now forfeited that immunitie from sordid and drudgery works that he first covenanted and must thenceforth lie at his masters feet as wholly prostitute to all his Imperious humours Secondly can it be imagined by reason that a people submitting to a lawfull government should thereby be necessitated to that which may overthrow the end of all government that is inability to provide for their common safety That whereas when they were free and under no government at all they might by the law of nature defend themselves against injury now having submitted though upon good conditions they are utterly disabled to defend themselves if he that should be their Protectour would prove their Murtherer If he who both in himselfe and instruments should be onely for the punishment of evill and the praise of them that doe well will goe or send or suffer a company of theeves or murtherers to goe in his name and spoile and destroy them that do well can their being subjects in reason deprive them of their defence allowed them by the law of nature yea were they not guilty of self-murther in suffering such a thing For instance some of our Historians relate of King John that hee was transported with so deep a hatred against his Nobles and Commons that he sent an Ambassadour to Miramumalin entituled the great King of Africa Morocco and Spain wherein he offered to render unto him his Kingdome and to hold the same from him by tribute as his Soveraigne Lord to forgoe the Christian faith which he held vaine and receive that of Mahomet like enough some Court Chaplain may be the Clerk that went on the errand might warrantize the Kings conscience and tell him that it was the more shame for them who profest the Christian Religion to compell him to it But whether the King did lawfully or not is not our question but whether the subjects might lawfully have resisted that attempt of his and have stood for their Religion Lives and Liberty Thirdly is it not quite contrary to reason that whereas Kings and Rulers nothing differing by nature from their meanest subjects were at first constituted and are still continued for the protection welfare benefit yea and service of the people and who therefore should value their prerogatives scepters and lives no further then they may advance the publick good yet if they degenerate and will be destroyers the people should suffer all to be spoiled as if Kingdomes and people had been created by God for the will pleasure profit yea and lusts of Princes As if a Pilot purposely appointed for the safe wafting over of passengers who in stead thereof will dash the ship against the rocks Or a Generall purposely chosen and to whom the Souldiers have therefore sworne for the safetie of the whole Army should yet turn the Cannon mouth upon his own Souldiers or deliver them all up into the hands of the enemy the passengers and souldiers yea the officers in the ship and councell of war in the Army should be morally disabled from doing any thing to prevent their own apparent destruction By this

A PLEA FOR DEFENSIVE ARMES OR A Copy of a Letter written by Mr STEPHEN MARSHALL To a friend of his in the City for the necessary vindication of himself and his Ministerie against that altogether groundlesse most unjust and ungodly aspersion cast upon him by certain Malignants in the City and lately printed at Oxford in their Mendacium Aulicum otherwise called Mercurius Aulicus and sent abroad into other Nations to his perpetual infamie In which Letter the accusation is fully answered And together with that the lawfulnesse of the Parliaments taking up Defensive Arms is briefly and learnedly asserted and demonstrated Texts of Scripture cleared all Objections to the contrary answered to the full satisfaction of all those that desire to have their consciences informed in this great Controversie HOSEA 4. 1 2 3. 1. Hear the word of the Lord ye Children of Israel for the Lord hath a controversie with the inhabitants of the Land because there is no truth nor mercy nor knowledge of God in the Land 2. By swearing and lying and killing and stealing and whoring they break out and bloud toucheth bloud 3. Therefore shall the Land mourn c. LONDON Printed for Samuel Gellibrand at the Brazen Serpent in Pauls Church-yard 1643. SIR YOur Letters brought not the first tidings of the continuance and encrease of those strange reports concerning me they filled the City even while I was there and I perceive pursue mee into the Countrey it is a lying spirit which God hath permitted to haunt me for my triall as it hath done others of his servants before me You know what a book Bolsec wrote of the life and death of M. Calvin Beza lived to write a confutation of a book written of his renouncing his Religion and turning Papist And concerning Luther the Priests had long reported that he had his call from the Devill and to confirm it filled Italy with a rumour of his death and that at his death he was carried away by the Devill soul and body which they good soules divulged not to discredite the man but in gloriam Iesu Christi to the glory of Christ and comfort of the godly The like usage my self have lately met with in some degree for being afflicted with a deep cold and distillation from my head upon my lungs and some feverish distempers my learned loving and carefull Physitian finding that the too importune visits of my many loving friends occasioned too much speech and thereby too much expence of spirits advised me to remove to the house of my Noble Lord of Warwick where I should have more ayre and lesse company hereupon a report was immediatly spread about the City that I was distracted and in my rage constantly cried out I was damned for appearing in and adhering to the Parliament and Kingdome in this defensive Warre which when I first heard I looked upon as a calumnie invented by some simple adversary though malicious enough to my person and ministery who finding it the readiest way to reproach me betook himself to this But afterwards observing how studiously it was maintained how laboriously propagated how banded from Court to City from City to Countrey from England to forraign parts Mercurius Aulicus printed it and a great Officer of State having sent it into other Kingdomes with his Letters assuring the truth of it and that not nine dayes no not a month did allay it I then perceived the plot was not so much to disgrace me for alas who am I that they should trouble themselves so much about me but through me to wound the Cause in which my poore labours have been engaged This rumour it seemes yet lives and as your letter confirmes encreases from my going down into the Countrey they have taken occasion not only to report me distracted but dead yea that I died crying out of my appearing in this Cause and this is so confidently reported by some that it is almost as confidently beleeved by others even thousands you say which makes you earnestly to presse me to write unto you whether I have not at least changed my former judgement about our defensive armes and this not as you professed to satisfie your self but that you might have something under my own hand to shew for the satisfaction of others Sir your ancient love to me and present desires to vindicate me from these aspersions but especially your care that the publick Cause might not suffer do all command me to be your servant in this thing I know it will satisfie you that I solemnly protest unto you that in all these fourteen weeks keeping in I never had an houres sicknesse nor lost a nights sleep nor had any distemper in my head nor saw any cause of sorrow for my adhering to the Parliaments cause but esteem it a great honour and mercy from God that he should move his Excellency my Lord to require my service in this great expedition and that I have even therefore exactly followed the Doctors prescriptions out of an earnest desire to be fitted for my work that I might returne to my most honoured Lord being fully resolved if God say Amen to it never to give it over untill either there be an end of that work or an end of my dayes This I think will satisfie you and it is possibly as much as you desire for the satisfaction of others to have this under my hand Take this concerning the cause and concerning the report spread of me what Luther said of those above mentioned concerning himselfe fateor testor hâc meâ manu c. I professe and testifie under my hand that I entertained this fiction of my distraction and death laetaque mente hilari vultu very chearfully But since your love hath compelled me to put pen to paper I shall compell you to read the largest letter that ever I wrote being resolved to give you a full account both of my ground and warrant of entring upon my office and how far I am from changing my judgement upon the present view of things When his Excellency vouchsafed to require my service for God knows I offered not my self in this great work there were but two questions besides my care to walk aright in my Ministry for my conscience to be resolved in First whether upon supposall of the truth of the Parliament votes viz. That his Majestie seduced by wicked Councell did levie warre against the Parliament the Scripture did warrant them to take up defensive Arms Secondly Whether the Parliament was not mis-informed about such his Majesties purpose and practice The first is a meere question in Divinity viz. Whether a people especially the representative body of a State may after all humble Remonstrances defend themselves against the unlawfull violence of the Supream Magistrate or his Instruments Endeavouring and that in matters of great moment to deprive them of their lawfull Liberties The second is a question meerly of matter of fact For the first Before the

by Edict of the Romane Empire and Licinius the Emperour of the East legum violator maximus contrary to Law and his Covenant would persecute the Christians they defended themselves by Arms and Constantine the great joyned with them And as Eusebius saith held it his dutie infinitum hominum genus paucis nefariis hominibus tanquam quibusdam corruptelis ê medio sublatis incolumes servare To deliver an infinite multitude of men by cutting off a fevv vvicked ones as the pests and plagues of the time The Christians living under the Persian King and vvronged by him sought for help from the Romane Emperour Theodosius and vvere assisted by him and vvhen the King of Persia complained that Theodosius should meddle in affairs of his Kingdome Theodosius ansvvered that he did not only protect them because they were suppliants but was ready to defend them and no way to see them suffer for Religion it being the same with their own It seems they thought it as lawfull to help an innocent people against the oppressions of their own Prince as for one neighbour to succour another against theeves and robbers The Macedonians obtained of the Emperour Constantius four thousand armed men to help them drive out the Novatians from Paphlagonia the Orthodox assisted the Novatians against the unjust violence and were armed falcibus clavis securibus with sithes clubs and hatchets and cut off almost all the Souldiers and many of the Paphlagonians At Constantinople the Orthodox defended Paulus his Election against Macedonius and his abettors though assisted with the Militarie Forces and the Historian blames them onely for killing the Commander Hermogenes Justina Valentinianus mother infected with Arianisme commanded to banish Ambrose but the people resisted and for a while defeated the plot of them who would have sent Ambrose into banishment The inhabitants of Armenia the greater professing the Christian Faith were abused by the Persians among whom they lived especially for their Religion they entred into a league with the Romanes for their safetie You see here are some examples where the ancient Christians used defensive Arms and I doubt not but such as are well read in the stories of those times might produce many more Ob. But there is one Doctour who goes about to prove by reason that oppressed Subjects should not defend themselves against their Princes though bent to subvert Religion Laws and Liberties because forsooth such resistance tends to the dissolution of Order and Government that is to disable Princes from subverting Religion Law and Liberty which is the very dissolution of all Order and Government tends to the dissolution of all Order and Government as if hindring a man from pulling down his house were the pulling down the house As if the hindring the Pilot from dashing the Ship against the rock tended to dash the Ship against the rock If any man else see any colour of reason in this reason I desire them to make it appear for for my part I can see none And indeed the case is so clear that most of them who cry down defensive Arms though they use such Scriptures and Arguments to work upon the consciences of people yet when they come to dispute it will hardly endure to have the Question rightly stated as being unwilling to dash against the rock of most learned Divines whether Protestants or Papists and I think of almost all Politicians but fall to discusse matters of fact charging the Parliament with invading the Kings just Prerogative usurping an exorbitant power and authority c. yea His Majestie in all his Declarations insists onely upon this never suggesting that in Conscience they are prohibited to defend themselves in case he should violently invade their Liberties yea expresly grants that there is power sufficient legally placed in the Parliament to prevent Tyrannie And therefore now I leave the case of Divinitie and shall more briefly give you an account what satisfied me in the second I mean matter of fact that His Majestie being seduced by wicked counsell did levie war against the Parliament My great evidence was the Parliament judged so the judgement of a Parliament of England was never questioned till now by a people of England all Patents Charters Commissions Grants Proclamations and Writs of the Kings of England receive their judgement and are often repealed and made null by a Parliament all controversies betwixt the King and Subject receive their finall determination in the Parliament the judgements of all other Courts are ratified or nullified by a Parliament I have heard some wise men say That a Parliament in England like Pauls spirituall man judgeth all and it self is judged of none and therefore if I should give you no other account of my entring upon my Office in the Armie which was not to fight nor meddle in the Councell of War but onely to teach them how to behave themselves according to the Word that God might be with them should I I say give no other account but the determination of that wise assembly I should be acquitted by indifferent men But although I had learned that no dishonourable thing should be imagined of that Honourable Assembly yet I held it my dutie not to yeeld blinde obedience or go by an implicite Faith but search whether the things were so and the rather because both sides have appealed to heaven to that God who no doubt in due time will clear the righteous cause And upon my search these things were quickly apparent It was very cleare that the persons too much prevailing with his Majesty had long before this Parliament a designe for over-throwing our Laws enslaving our Liberties and altering our Religion and it had so far prevailed that we were tantùm non swallowed up and when through the good providence of God this Parliament was called and many hopes conceived that now his Majesty seeing the mischief of adhering to such ill counsellours would for the time to come be wholly guided by the great Councell of his Kingdome alas it soon appeared that the same kinde of Counsellours were still most prevailing insomuch that soon after the pacification with Scotland the Northern Army should have been brought up to London as appeares by the very oathes of some who should have acted it a thing thou thought so pernicious that not only the chief Actors fled beyond the Seas but many reall Courtiers earnestly solicited their friends in both Houses that this their inexcusable errour might be passed over and now to begin upon a new score But that which made me the more suspect their prevailing with his Majesty was that the horrid Rebellion broken out in Ireland the Rebels pretending his Majesties and the Queenes Commission for their warrant it was at least three moneths after before they were proclaimed Traytours and when it was done no Copies of the Proclamations to be got for love or money whereas when the Scots were proclaimed Rebels and Traytours it must speedily be published in all the