Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	act_n	king_n	time_n	1,609	5	3.5743	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

Westminster whom I could name but that naming men now in the House would be accounted breach of priviledg when pulling Members out hath been esteemed none did imploy Walker the Mercury man who writes the Perfect Occurrences to get this booke being translated into English to be printed it seems themselves were ashamed of it suspecting that it might bee known to be Parsons the Jesuite if it had continued still under the name of Junius Bru●us and therefore they did make a new Title to this book which is this Four great Questions concerning the Tryall of the King as it was delivered to the Colonells and Generall Officers of the Army and presented to the High Court of Iustice appointed by an Act of the Commons of England for Tryall of the King I only mention this that it might appeare unto the world that the Bookes Principles and Counsells of the Jesuites had a great concurrence with if not influence upon the late Transactions of the Army and High Court in putting the King to death You goe on and discerning a scarcity of Protestant Divines you are beholding to Popish Presidents to help you out you say Christierne lost the Crown of Denmapke c. Answ. True he did so but yet he did not lose his life but you have made King Charles lose his Crown and life together Christierne was only restrained as a Prisoner but not adjudged to dye Besides the Kings of Denmarke come in meerly by election but the Kings of England by a rightfull succession So that your instance of Christierne will not advantage you a whit Edward the second say you lost the crown of England for the same mis-government as our late King lost His Crowne and head Answ. 1. This was in the time of Popery are Popish practices good patterns for Protestants to walk by 2. Edward the second did not lose His Crown by a judicial Deprivation but by a constrained Resignation 3. He was never legally arraigned and brought to tryall in Parliament for his life 4. T is to be observed that Mortimer who had the chief hand in deposing King Edward the second was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed as a Traitor and guilty of High treason for murdering Edward the second at Berkely castle although he was deposed It may be after Parliaments may call some of you to account for the Kings death That superiour Magistrates may be put to death by the inferiour because Domestick Tyrants are chiefly to be represt was the opinion of Pareus in his Commentary on Judges Answ. Indeed in his Comment on the Romanes he saith that in case of necessity the inferiour Magistrate may lawfully defend himself against the superiour but hath not a word in his Comment on the Iudges that I can find that superiour Magistrates may be put to death by the inferior Surely Pareus would not say one thing in his Comment on Iudges and the quite contrary in his Comment on the Romans He saith expresly that Christians no lesse then others ought to be subject to the Powers not only when believers but when Infidel●s as all the powers then were not only to the me●k and just but to the froward and unjust c. T is true Pareus pleads for defensive arms in case of necessity and so doe I but yet hee never went in so high a strain to plead for the killing of Kings and Princes yea when Pareus speaks of defensive arms hee doth it with abundance of wisdome and caution Subditi saith he non privati sed in magistratu inferiori constituti adversus superiorem magistratum se Rempublicam ecclesiam seu veram Religionem etiam armis defendere possunt His positis Conditionibus cum superior ma●istratus degenerat in Tyrannum 2. Aut ad manifestam idolotatriam atque blasphemias ipsas vel subditos alios suae fidei commissos vult cogere c. The sum of what he saith is this that it is lawfull not for private men but for the inferiour magistrates to defend the Church and Common-wealth against the superior Magistrate yet he laies down 6 conditious or limitations provided that the Superiour Magistrate degenerates into a Tyrant that He compells His Subjects to manifest idolatry and blasphemy and that they keep themselves in the bounds of selfe-defences according to the Laws c. Now can it be imagined that Pareus should lay down so many cautions to justifie a defensive war in his Comment on the Romans and yet affirm that the superior Magistrate may be put to death by the inferiour It makes me think that you never read Pareus his works or if you did that you intended to be lye him as you have done many others Besides Pareus never made a Comment upon Iudges all his life after hee was dead there was found some short notes written in his own Bible only for his own private use which his son Philip Pareus did lately put among his other works That famous Dudley Fennor affirms that an evill Prince may bee taken away in a time of peace or by warre which they may do who are either Ephori or ordinum omnium conventus saith he Answ. 1. You use still your wonted stratagem to alledg Authors mention their names but give no notice in what page that passage is which you quote of theirs which must argue either your ignorance of such mens works or else a purpose in you to deceive the Reader and abuse the Authors you quote 2. Though I am not bound to answer you in every Author you quote at large yet for disputes sake I shall yeeld to your weakness t is true Dudly Fennor hath some such words in his Sacra Theolog. cap. 13. de Politeia civili p. 80. though you pervert them wofully you had shewed your ingenuity had you quoted all that Dudly Fennor spake touching the point in hand He doth distinguish of a Tyrant there is Tyrannus sine titulo and tyrannus exercitio Tyrannus sine titulo est qui imperium ad se absque legitimâ ratione rapit huic quisque privatus resistat si possit è medio tollat that is A Tyrant without a title is such a one who by force and fraud hath got the Government of a Kingdome into his hands when he hath no legall claim thereto now such a one saith he any private man may resist and take him out of the world Put case O. Cromwell or any other man who hath no legall claime to the Crown should by force and fraud usurpe to himself the Kingdome such an one is Tyrannus fine titulo and if you wil follow Dudly Fennor he gives liberty that any private man may resist such a one yea if he can take him out of the world I hardly beleive that Dudly Fennors doctrine whom you call famous would please at White-hall Again when he comes to speak of a Tyrant not in title but in the exercise of

ever yet understand You pretend you can shew their books and Sermons for it but I am very confident you can shew none 2. I observe you promise in your book more then you make good you promise as if you would shew severall bookes and Sermons of the subscribers yet you quote but one viz. Mr. Loves Sermon at Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no lesse then ten times in your Clerico-Classicum yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cause for bringing the King to Capitall punishment his words you quote are these Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with til all the guilt of blood be expiated avenged either by the sword of the Law or the law of the Sword else a peace can neither be safe nor just Chr. Love in his Englands distemper pag. 37. Answ. To which I have four things to say 1. There is no mention at all of the King either in that passage or any other part of his Sermon that Hee should be cut off 2. Mr. Love doth clearly expresse himselfe whom he means by those men of blood viz. not the King but as he saith pag. 32. of Englands distemper Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed 3. T is true Mr. Love then was and still is of that mind that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace or if not reach them that way by the law of the sword in the time of war and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after according to the fourth Article of the Covenant wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve or the supream Iudicatories respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judg convenient Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider that in that very part of the Covenant where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment we promise to preserve the person of the King as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condigne punishment whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evill instruments viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion divide the King from his people and have not you done that or one of the Kingdomes from another or that make any factions or parties among the people of all which your selfe and the men you plead for have been most notoriously guilty as wel as the malignant therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they As for that other passage of Mr. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote It will search to the quick to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would ear●h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed and by whom It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Mr. Love in his Englands Distemper pag. 23. To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication viz. Mr. Loves desire is that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest he often wisht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henrys death if they did come to an untimely end might be found out 2. I demand of you is there any clause in that Sermon or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King which he did not yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon that you should bring the King to Capitall punishment Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly against cutting off the King I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print against that horrid attempt Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to assert several notorious falsities and untruths as to instance pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin where you say the Agreement of the people was the same for substance with that of the Armies and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth again you say that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting it this is first a most notorious untruth and secondly a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man the man that was shot to death was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement but being sent with his Company by the Generall to New-castle did with others make a mutiny resisted and beat their Officers tooke away the Colours from their Ensigne beat him with his own Colours for which this fellow that was sh●t to death was condemned c. Answ. 1. You who are so pragmaticall as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers will shew your self to be I say not the father of lies yet a son of falsehood 2. It seems you are put to your shifts in searching out any accusation against the subscribers for from their Representation you run to their Vindication and leap as far as the sixth page at once and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book that you are forc't to pitch upon a small marginal note which I need not answer yet I shall and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly but you falsly for you say it is said in the marginall note that the Agreement of the People is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army I affirm 't is true though you say 't is false I have compared the one and the other together and find them for substance the same only I must confesse the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament 9. November 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome And afterwards in December 17. 1647.

saith will not reach to such a case as ours For 1. I read in his b●ok called the Appell●tion of John Knox pag. 78. that he pleads onely for the punis●ing of such Kings as are Idolaters and Tyrants against God and his known truth now our late King was not such a one Secondly he speakes of such Kings as were rashly and unadvisedly chosen by the People now our King was not meerly elective but had a title to the Crowne by succession and a just Hereditation Thirdly I do not read in his Book called the Appellation c. that he contends for bringing Kings to a judiciall Tryall and taking away their lives but onely in generall of punishing and deposing them Now what is said here by way of answer to what you alledged out of Mr. Knox may serve also for an answer to Goodman whom you call the great associate of John Knox The third Author you quote is Doctor John Ponnet in his Books called A Short Treati se of Politique Power Cap. 6. pag. 45. Answ. 'T is true Dr. Ponnet is of large principles in this point yet 1. 't is to be observed that when he made his booke it was in the reign of Queen Mary Ann. 1556. and so spake of Popish not Protestant Princes yea it was during the time of his banishment out of England at which time his discontent might make him to bee led more by passion then reason 2. Though hee holds it lawfull for a People to depose and kill a Tyrant yet he gives not this power abslutely to a particular party but to the body of the People The body saith he ●f every State may if it will yea and ought to r●dresse and correct the vi●●● of their Heads and Governours I am sure you cannot say the body of this State was for the execution of the King there were an hundred against it to one for it Yea 3 Though hee goes further that private men may kill a Magistrate yet he holds it with some speciall limitations In some cases private men saith he may kill their Magistrates as when a Governour shall with his sword run upon an innocent or go about to shoot him with a gun or if he should be found in bed with a mans wife or ravish a mans daughter or go about to make away his Country to Forraig●ers Now can you prove the King to be guilty of such things as these If not your quotation of Ponnet doth not reach our case To close this I would aske you Are you of Dr. Ponnets mind that any private man may kill a Tyrant do you thinke that Moses his practise in killing the Aegyptian and Ehud slaying Eglon is to be imitated by every private man It seemes you do so why else do you urge these instances out of Doctour Ponnet to justifie your King-killing Doctrine If you do I feare you will often times follow the Devils instigation to murder the innocent when you thinke 't is the impression of Gods spirit on your heart to do justice on the guilty Oh take heed that you be not given over to beleeve lies and then to worke wickednesse with greedinesse Before I leave this unsafe assertion in Dr. Ponnets Booke of which you approve viz. that private men may kill a Tyrant I desire that this might lye sadly on your heart suppose you should think such a Magistrate to be a Tyrant and a murderer and because none wil put to death that Tyrant therefore you hold your selfe bound to do it suppose againe another thinkes him to be a just Magistrate whom you slew and kils you that killed him and a third kils him that killed you and so ad infinitum Is not this the way to make us Cains not Christians one unto another and in the end not to leave so many men in the world as Cain did when he slew his brother A fourth Author you quote is Junius Brutus supposed by good Authors to be Beza's workes in his booke called Vindiciae contra Tyrannos c. Answ. 1. Indeed if you count the Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthewes to be a good Author who made that book intituled the Image of both Churches Jerusalem and Babylon by P. D. M. He saith it was Beza's works pag. 105. and yet herein he was no more ingenuous then you were for saith he if it was not Beza's it might be Hottomans pag. 107. and pag. 111. Do you deale candidly with so Orthodox a Divine as Beza was to receive the slanderous reports of Papists against so zealous a Protestant The same Author who said that Beza made that booke called Vindiciae contra tyrannos affirmed also that Beza usurpt another mans parish that hee was the husband of another mans wife c. the one is as true as the other 2. It may bee made demonstrable that Beza was not the Authour of that book which goes under the name of Junius Brutus for can it be imagined that so sober and learned a man as Beza was should be so inconsistent to his owne principles to write one thing in one book and the quite contrary in another throughout all the veins of his writings he calls for subjection to Magistrates but not a word of deposing or murdering of Kings which is the whole drift of that book called Vindiciae contra tyrannos I could produce multitudes of places out of Bezaes works utterly repugnant to what is in Junius Brutu● take for presnt one or two Nullum aliud saith he rememedium proponitur privatis hominibus tyranno subjectis preter vitae emendationem proeces lachrymas that is there is no other remedy left to private men being subject unto a tyrant besides amendment of life prayers and teares Yea Beza was of this judgment that though private men might disobey the sinful commands of a Prince yet he was utterly against taking up of Arms T is ane thing said he not to obey Magistrates and another to resist or take up Arms which God doth not permit thee If Beza was against private mens taking up of defensive arms can it be imagined that he would plead for offensive Arms against the life and person of a King Indeed Beza hath a learned Tract extant de Haereticis a Magistrati● puniendis but not a word de Magistratibus ab Haereticis puniendis Beza did hold that Magistrates should punish Hereticks but never held that Hereticks should punish Magistrates 3. This Iunius Brutus whom you say good Authours affirm to be Bezaes works is indeed and intruth no other then the work of a Jesuite I have it from good hands that Parsons the Jesuite was the Author of that booke there are now some alive that can witnesse it that one Rench a Printer was condemned to be hanged for printing it and another book of the same mans under the name of Doleman And here I cannot but give the world notice that one of the good members now sitting at