Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	father_n	king_n	servant_n	3,226	4	6.7708	4	false

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

to suffer Tyrannous Violence Or how doth any resist unlawfully though by Armes when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave Authority to use against him nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto Answ 1. Seeing your Argument from those word words the Ordinance God would if it were good allow private mento resist I pray you by what authority of Text or Context doe your Patrons forbid Resistance to be made by private men but allow it to Magistrates or the infetior powers is it from the consideration of those to whom the Apostle wrote who had not then any Magistrates of their own profession among them though that be no good ground to raise that distinction of private men and publique in the point of resistance for the Apostles reasons against resisting of Higher powers doe concerne all times yet will the consideration of those persons to whom and of those times in which the Apostle wrote give us authority to stretch the prohibition to the refusing to suffer Tyrannous violence for we must conceive that he gave them instruction which did neerely concerne them which might in some reasonable manner direct them which was agreeable to Saint Peters advice 1 Ep. 2. cap. which was consonant to the practice of the Apostles and all other Christians of those and the following primitive times but the instruction that the Apostle here gives them cannot be such unlesse it forbid the refusing to suffer under the Tyrannous violence of those times 2. Answ If he that resists by Armes doth not resist unlawfully as you say when unlawfull violence is offered him which God no where gave authority to use against him where hath God I pray you given authority to Parents or Masters to use unjust violence to their Children or Servants yet is not their resistance unlawfull for though God has not given those authority to doe it yet has commanded these to suffer it if done The like may be said of Kings and Subjects for has not God put Kings Fathers Masters all in one Commandement enjoyned this duty and reverence to them under one word Honour and S. Peter next to the feare of God has placed Hon●ur the King and advises Christians to suffer though wrongfully under the then Tyrannous Governours and froward Masters Did not God put his People under this Subjection when he put them under a King 1 Sam. 8. where this immunity of their Kings from their resistance forceable Coer●ion is called Ius Regis not because God gave them power and right to use unjust and oppressing violence but because if they did so they were by the Law and Ordinance of God secured from the violence of the People and reserved for the judgement and vengeance of God that ordained them and set them over his people as appeared above in the former Section But they goe on and seeme to conceive that by the powers not to be resisted the Doctor meanes onely the Supream and those that Act his will but denies the like security to subordinate Magistrates if they be Tyrannous without any command from the Supream pag. 6. Answ The Doctor by maintaining the Supream power might not be resisted by the Subordinate powers under Him did not thereby imply that these might be resisted but still the higher spower is not to be resisted by those that are under it But if he say that neither Supream nor Subordinate may be resisted then may every meane Officer ruine the whole neighbourhood and so the blessed Ordinance of God in Magistracy shall turne to the greatest Curse to mankind so they pag. 6 Answ There are superiour powers that can protect so that if the subordinate power doe wrong the complai●t lies still to the higher power if the Supream or highest be engaged in the Violence the redresse is to be sought by petition suite if not succeed the complaint lyes to heaven resistance is not the remedy They conclude Therefore as the Apostle in the following verses doth banish Tyranny out of the context describing every where a righteous Magistrate so is Tyranny banished out of the interpretation of this Text which allowes him that is a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured and not resisted even with Armet though it doth secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance under the heavyest penalty of Damnation pag. 6. Answ It is true that the Apostle banishes Tyranny out of the duty of a Magistrate by the following verses but it is also true that he banishesresistance out of the duty of Subjects by the former verses He describes a rightcous Magistrate but could he then exemplity were the Governours then such If not such as they were not then would this Text according to the interpretation of these Divines give but a lame direction to the Christians how they should carry themselves towards the then unjust Governors nor would this text which forbids resistance at al secure those Governors from their resistance nay I would faine see what any Jesuite can say or desire more from this text then that it gives a Tyrant no security that he shall be endured Lastly if the penalty of Damnation laid upon the people will secure a just ruling Prince from all resistance as they tel us why should not damnation laid upon every unjust oppressing Prince secure the people from Tyranny one would thinke it most equall that the Highest Power should have the greatest security and so God in his wisdome thought fit when he put his people under Kings without power of Resistance as was she wen in the former Section and will be a forceable reason against resistance in the next Section Now let us consider this Text with application to those Times and to the Powers then ruling upon that consideration it was inferred that Tyrannous oppressing Princes are not to be resisted by Arms that the Apostles reasons taught us that for the good which is generally received by Ruling powers we must beare with them though abusing their Authority as the Emperours then did which also took away their distinction of resisting not the power but the abuse of the power These Divines in Answer to it spend many pages from page 22. to 28. and againe from 47. to 51. where after some thing said of small moment concerning the Kings Supremacy and the Roman Senate page 22.23 of which I have had and shall have presently occasion to speake upon more weighty consideration brought by the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy They tell us First The Doctors vaine Confidence will appeare in thinking he has made voyd the distinction of Refisting not the power but the abuse of it for when he grants that active obedience is to be denyed to the illegall Commands of the Prince he distinguishes himselfe hetweene the Power and the abuse of it and why may not wee distinguish upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second verse as well as he does upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in

pleases him h● could have preserved David from Sauls fury as he did Eliah from Ab●bs which was after a more private way but he thought more fit to let David be strengthned by the accession of much people as a praeludium to their falling off from the house of Saul into him Lastly if this way of preservation by bends of armed men were ordinary as these men will make it then may one single Subject as David was draw armed men together be Captaine over them and lead them up and down for his owne their preservation that do adhere unto him which if they will not a low then must there be in Davids example something more then ordinary And here I must challenge not onely the Reason of the Author of the Treat of Monarchy who cals it a shuffling Answer to say Davids example was extraordinary pag 5.7 but also his Ingenuity who confesses that the people under the Israelitish Monarchy might not resist and had no other me●nes to helpe themselves but cryes to God pag. 58. and yet urges the example of Ionathans rescue of Davids raysing Forces of his intent to defend Keilab for the defending of armes taken up and used by Subjects in making resistance He deales with us herein as the Popish writers doe in the point of Invocation of Saints they acknowledge the Fathers of the Old Testament were not then in a condition to be invocated yet doe they alleadge Testimonies out of the old Testament for the proofe of that point to deceive the unwary Elisha●s example was altogether impertinent yet from thence occasion was taken to speak of Personall defence upon which these Pleaders ma●e a long and ted●ous Reply page 14 15 16. The substance of which is delivered in the Reasons which the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy makes for resistance● and therefore because this Reply of theirs is no way strengthened by Elisha's example but is altogother rationall we will deferre the examination of what is materiall in it to the last Section To conclude It was a generall collection but yet a very forcible Argument against resistance that among so many Prophets bitterly reproving wicked Kings for subversion of Religion justice there was not one that celld upon the Eiders of the pe●ple for this duty of making Resistance The Pleaders reply scarce like Reverend and learned Divines That in the times of good Kings we find the Princes Elders and Nobles very Corrupt who then can marvail if they were starke naught where the King was maught or why should it be expected that the Pro●hets should call upon them to resist the King being on his side and be●on theirs● pag 20. Answ If it were the Duty of those Elders and Princes as these pleaders doe conceive it was with force to oppose the exorbitances of those Kings then was it the duty of those Prophets to admonish them of it and the more cause had the Prophets to recall them to it the further they were from it the desperate condition of such Princes and El●ers might take away hope of prevailing could not excuse the Prophe●s silence and neglect We conclude therefore that the Scriptures of the Old Testament doe not give any Warrant by precept or example for the Armes Resistance of Subjects now against their Soveraigne SECT VIII Of Resistance sorbidden in the 13. to the Romanes IN the new Testament that of the 13. to the Rom. is most considerable the ful examination of which wil also 〈◊〉 other places which may seeme to concerne the point in hand lest Servants and Subjects upon the doctrine of Christion Liberty should conclude themselves free from Masters and Gove●nors who then were cruell for the most part and Tyrannous the Apostle doth often call servants to a continuance of their obedience and here Subjects to the duty of subjection without Resistance as likewise S. Peter doth 1 Ep. cap. 2. The place is confiderable first in it selfe as it teaches the Institution and the End of Government by that the Power and Authority by this the duties of Governors are seen from both the duty of Subjects in yeelding Subjection and forbearing Resistance is inferred Secondly 〈◊〉 is considerable in relation to those times as it is applyable to the then governing powers and to the Christian Subjects to whom S Paul then wrote and thence we must conclude if we will think S Paul wrote pertinently and meant that those he wrote to should receive direction by what he commended to them that however the Governours then were not answerable to the End of government and were farre from the duties there specified yet had they the Power and Authority and those duties which are there enjoyned for the yeelding of Subjection and forbearing of resistance were to be performed by their Subjects then living under them The Reverend Divines have written such for the explication of this place to bring it to their pu●pose and have in severall places of their book e●forced the same things upon the Reader to perswade or weary him What they have ma●●riall I shall examine First They observe that it is Higher Powers in the plurall not Higher Power as the Doctor say they usually had it and in this they suspect a great fraud Page 3. take it to be a dangerous fallacy in the present question as if the King only were not to be resisted page 9. when as we may not resist the meanest Officer not a Constable arresting us or distraining our goods ibid Answ A dang ●●ous businesse I promise you and such an one as it concerned these Learned Divines to give the Reader so often warning of as they do but to answer the● once for all The Higher power in the Singular was commonly used not in alleadging the Text as if it were so in the Apostle but in the applying of it to the present case which laying the Hypothesis or Question between the powers themselves in this poynt of Resistance or Armer might very well allow the King to be deciphered by the Higher power or the Supream in relation or opposition to other Governours under Him although they also be Higher powers in respect of the people under them and not to be resisted by their inferiours It is but what themselves have expressed in the same page 3. By Higher powers are meant All in Civill legall Authority which in Saint Peters phrase is of the King as supream or Governours for these are higher then the People though lower then the King the very same thing intended and spoken by me But these men when they have gotten a seeming advantage and thinke the People cannot see the vanity of it never know when to have done with it Secondly They obseive that it is Power in the abstract which notes the Authority wherewich the Person is invested and not the person in the Concrete lest that might be understood of his personal commands beyond or against his authority which the Apostle doth greatly prevent by using