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	king_n	name_n	2,838	5	4.9619	4	true

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

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

Many of the authors you quote do you belie in affirming that they plead for the killing of Kings by their Subjects which they never did thus you wrong ●ez● Zuinglius Pareus Mr. Rutherford Mr. Pryn and Mr. Love as I shall evidently make appeare anon 2. In your list of Protestant Divines I find one Popish Priest whom you cal Junius Brutus aliàs Parsons the Jesuit as I shall prove when I come to answer your allegation of him 3. I have good reason to beleeve that you borrowed most of your quotations not from the Authors themselves but from a Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthews his lies and slanders against Protestant Divines you take up for undoubted truths He railes on Bez● p. 82. and saith that the book entituled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus was his p. 105. against Zuinglius p. 81. p. 115. against Knox p. 134. and Goodman his associate p. 134. brands Pareus in p. 225. rails on the Wieliffs and Waldenses p. 250. These are most of the Authours quoted by you whom he represents unto the world as Rebells against murderers of Kings Princes yea doth impudently affirm that the Protestants have deposed more Kings in 60. years then was by the means of Catholicks in 600. Ibid. p. 226. Now is it for your credit to gather such broken scraps and tortured collections from so infamous an Author That which induceth me to beleeve that you had these quotations not from the Authors themselves but from that Popish writer is this 1. In reading those Authors I find some of them to be of a quite contrary mind to that which you alledg them for 2. Those very men and that matter almost in terminis is quoted by that Popish writer and may not this give some ground to beleeve what I assert 4 You must needs be put to a penury of proofs when you pretend to alledg Protestant Divines yet among them mention Mr. Prynne a Lawyer but no Divine and Junius Brutus a Jesuite but no Protestant surely either your memory must be short or your reading but small 5. In some of your quotations you only name the men but do not mention the page where such a passage is to be found Thus you deal with Zuinglius Pareus Dudly Fenner and Rutherford which makes me think you never read their books or else that you intended to pervert their words and put your Reader to more pains before hee shall find out your abuse of the Authors 6. Though some of the Authors alledged speak high of punishing Tyrannicall and idolatrous Kings yet none of them unlesse the Jesuite under the name of Junius Brutus ever gave the least intimation of spilling the blood of a Protestant King 7. One solid Argument had stood you in more stead then a hundred quotations not mens sayings but their reasons are to be regarded 8. There is no opinion so grosse but there may be some particular men who will labour to maintain it t is true some particular men may plead for the putting of Kings to death but is this the received opinion or declared judgment of any of the Reformed Churches could you shew that which I know you cannot it would be of more weight with me 9. Although some of the Authors speak high in this point yet none of them come up to the present case There were so many considerable and concurrent circumstances in the case of the king that varyed it much from the case of Kings in former times the businesse is so circumstantiated that were all the Authors alledged by you alive none of them I verily beleeve nor any Casuists in the world would give their consent to the taking away the life of our King as the case stood with us For 1. Hee was a Protestant King 2. The end of the Parliaments War against the Forces raised by him was to preserve His person as appears by their many Declarations in that behalf 3. Many Oaths and Covenants made to the most high God for the preservation of His Royall person 4. The King of England could not be put to death but they must kill the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as true a right in Him as this Kingdome had 5. That he granted more for the good of the Kingdome then ever any King that sate upon the English Throne 6. That Hee never personally shed blood 7. That the Army must first force the Parliament before they could kill the King which wil be to after ages a lasting monument of the Parliaments Renown and the Armies Reproach 8. That the House of Commons if they sate free and ful which now they do not have no power by law to erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the life of the King 9. That the General his Officers declared in their Remonstrance June 23. 1647. that they did clearly professe they did not see how there could be any peace to this Kingdom firm and lasting without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights Quiet Immunities of His Majesties Royal family c. these and such like circumstances considered can it be imagined that any could have their hands in the Kings blood unless they were led more by passion then reason by design then conscience Thus having given you these advertisements touching the Authors by you alledged in the general I come now a to particular survey of the severall authors brought by you to maintain your King-killing Doctrine You begin with Mr. Love and so will I of whom you say that in his Sermon preacht at Uxbridg and printed having spoken before of the blood-guiltinesse of the King yea intimated u●●aturall and horrible blood-guiltinesse in Him as if Hee had been guilty of King James his death and Prince Henries death the blood of the Prot●stant● in Rochell and the Rebellion of ●reland and all the Protestant blood-shed there p. ●3 of the said Sermon stiled Englands distemper Answ. 1. That Mr. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preacht at Vxbri●ge is true but that hee spake therein of the blood-guiltinesse of the King is utterly false I have read over his Sermon from the beginning to the end and can find no mention of the King throughout his Sermon but in two places and there too without the least reflexion or accusation on the King the first place is in p. 16. where he saith that the rising though now falling Clergymen would serue up Prerogative to the highest peg by which means they have crackt it at least the credit of it affirming that Kings might do what they list that the lifes ●ives liberties and estates of Subjects are to be disposed by the King according to his own will yea have they not taught the people that if the King require the life of any or all his subjects they must lay their necks to the block they must not defend themselves by force of Arms in any case

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

his government he doth not plead for popular tumults but saith which you have unworthily left out that such a tyrant may be punisht but yet only by them qui ea potete donati sunt who are indued with such an authority now that is most true that if the laws and constitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be such that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant in such a case 't is unquestionably lawfull And if you can shew that the House of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land to condemn and execute any man much lesse the King I shall then be silent When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people fit Deo auspice saith Zuinglius Answ. 1. Here you name the man and mention the words but quote not the place where such a passage is to bee found in Zuinglius his works who hath four large volumes extant I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader 2. T is true there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you yet I must tell you as the Devill did with that scripture he quoted to Christ so do you with Zuinglius words viz. leave out the most considerable clause and grosly pervert the meaning of his words which I shall evidently demonstrate His words are these When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people it is done God disposing it Now you have left out these words of the whole or better part of the people It may be your conscience told you you that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King and therefore you have done it without them never desiring their consent so that what Zuinglius saith will not justifie your practice which was done by the lesser and not the better neither of the people Besides you grosly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant which he was utterly against as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound T is true he was for the deposing of Tyrants so it were done by the whole or better part of the people but yet against the killing of them as he saith expresly Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare non est ut ●umtrucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet quia in pace vocavit nos Deus sed aliis viis res tentanda est c. that is after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture t is not that thou mayst kill him or raise war or tumult against him because God hath called us in pea●e but the thing is to be assayed by other wayes c. Yea t is further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant viz. to be such an one qui vi regnum accepit per ambitionem irrumpit who hath gotten a Kingdome by force and breaks it by ambition There is no doubt but such may be deposed yea destroyed too if the people have strength to do it See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland called Lex Rex and especially in Mr. Pryns works c. Answ. 1. You still use your old device name the man but not quote the place I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex yet this I will maintain that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall punishment I am sure in many places he is against it in answering that objection which Royalists made that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be resisted To which he gives this answer David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON and in another place he saith one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right and a little after he saith any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodyer and more tyrannous man then Saul in p. 233. he saith That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others if therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because His Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex Rex Is it like that Mr. Rutherford if hee be the Author of it should plead for putting the King to death in one place yet declare himselfe against it in so many places throughout his book 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion I need say nothing in his vindication he is alive and now among us more able then I to vindicate himself 't is true in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D●cemb 4. 1648. he saith expresly that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home in foraign parts in an extraordinary way by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad whether Protestants or Pap●sts c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King c. And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted most of them make against you none speak for you I leave the Reader to judge As you quoted some few Authours who seemingly might speak for you but really against you I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation against killing Kings in the generall but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular as the Ministers beyond the Seas the Ministers of Scotland the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire and of many other places of the