Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	daughter_n	king_n	son_n	8,631	5	5.2127	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58387	Reflections upon the opinions of some modern divines conerning the nature of government in general, and that of England in particular with an appendix relating to this matter, containing I. the seventy fifth canon of the Council of Toledo II. the original articles in Latin, out of which the Magna charta of King John was framed III. the true Magna charta of King John in French ... / all three Englished.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.; Catholic Church. Council of Toledo (4th : 633). Canones. Number 75. English & Latin.	1689 (1689)	Wing R733; ESTC R8280	117,111	184

nor unknown and upon occasion of which the States of the Empire have had an opportunity to declare make out their Rights and Pretensions One of the first Examples we find respecting this Matter is the Deposition of Lewis the Good in the Year 833. The Acts whereof we may see in Baronius Goldast du Chesne and le Comte Whereupon we may make these Reflections 1. That the Thing was done with the Consent of the Bishops and of all the Nobility 2. That the Estates above all accuse him for having broke his Coronation-Oath 3. That though this Lewis was afterwards restored to the Throne of the Empire yet those that restored him never contested the Power the State had to reject a Prince who overturn'd the Rules of Government but supposed only that he had not been duly convinced of the Crimes laid to his charge We have another Example in the Deposition of Henry IV. The Archbishops Bishops Dukes and Earls declare that they had not sworn to him till after he had engaged himself by his Oath to them to observe the Laws and the Capitulations of the Empire so that having now violated them they were set free from the Oath they had sworn to him and that they considered him as an Enemy against whom they would wage war to their last breath Lambert Schafnaburg One of the last Instances we find in the deposing of the Emperor Wenceslaus who was deposed by the Electors of the Empire in the Year 1400 after that he had been twice taken Prisoner and had been exhorted by the State to amend and take up from his irregular Actings Aventin lib. 7. Annalium Cuspinian in Vita Venceslai We may see the most part of these Articles and many more solidly confirmed in the Book of Carpsovius de Lege Regia Imperatorum Germaniae and in the Imperial Capitulations and other Laws which he has caused to be printed at the End of his Treatise CHAP. XIII That the Power of the Kings of Poland is Limited WE find the same Limitation in other States whether they be Successive or Elective I shall content my self to alledge only one Example concerning the Kingdoms that at present are Elective and that shall be of the Kingdom of Poland Poland from the Relation of Cromer gives us an illustrious Example of the Wisdom of Northern People in bounding the Power of their Princes After that the Family of Lech the first Founder of that Kingdom was extinct that State changed the Royal Government into that of XII Waywods otherwise called Palatines These Palatines abusing their Authority they re-established the Regal Government in favor of Cracus whose second Son was expell'd by the Polanders for killing his Elder Brother They afterwards chose the Daughter of Cracus for their Queen who 't is said having drowned her self to avoid Marriage the Polanders again established 12 Palatines as they had done before but afterwards suppressed them again because they found them insufficient to defend the Countrey and chose Premiel for their King. This is Lesko the 1 who lived about the year 750. It was not till the Year 965 that Miesco turn'd Christian and took upon him the Title of King of Poland which Title was confirmed by the Emperor Otho III to Bosletas his Successor His Successors having reigned until Lesko Surnamed the Black who was forced by Flight to quit the Kingdom because he was not able to resist the Tartars and died without Issue the Poles wearied with intestine Wars excited by the Ambition of their great Lords chose Premiel to be their King who being kill'd without leaving any Children behind him they made choice of Ladislaus who was afterwards desposed for Male-Administration by the States General Wenceslaus King of Bohemia who had been chosen in his stead dying in the Year 1305 Ladislaus was recall'd to the Government to whom Casimir his Son succeeded who in the Year 1370 designed for his Successor with consent of the States Lewis the Son of Charles King of Hungary by his Sister The Poles after the Death of Lewis chose Edwiga his Daughter upon condition that she should marry the Person whom the States should recommend to her for a Husband the Person recommended by them was Jagello Duke of Lithuania who had the name of Ladislaus given him by the Archbishop of Gnesna who anointed and Crowned after he had first baptized him He outliv'd Edwiga who died without Children and had for Successors the children of his fourth Wife who reached until Sigismund Augustus after whose Death the States chose in the Year 1573 Henry Duke of Anjou who after he had reigned four Months in Poland abandon'd the Kingdom to take possession of the Crown of France and was deprived of that of Poland by the States as may be seen from the Acts recorded by Historians This Vacancy occasion'd a Division in the States one part of them having chosen the Emperor Maximilian the Second and the other part Anne the Sister of Sigismund Augustus to whom they gave Stephen Battori Prince of Transylvania for her husband who Married the said Anne and was Crowned at Cracovia in 1576. After the Death of Stephen the States chose Sigismund Son of John III King of Sweden and of Katharine Daughter of Sigismund I. of that name King of Poland It is evident from this Abridgment 1st That the Poles always pretended to be the Masters that had right to give the Form to their State which seemed to them most comporting with the Good and Welfare of it 2ly That they took it for granted that they had Power to reject those Princes or Palatines whose Behaviour was contrary to the Publick Good for which they had raised them 3ly That they ever had an Eye to Succession so far as to bestow the Crown sometimes upon Daughters yet not thinking themselves bound to it but only so far as the good of the State did permit 4ly That they had regard to the appointing of a Successor when the States had first consented to it 5ly That the Flight or Desertion of their Kings has appear'd to them a sufficient Ground to proceed to a new Election in their stead and to reject them This is evident from the History of Lesko surnamed the Black and of Henry the III of France 6ly That the anointing and Crowning of their Kings was of no avail to dispense with their Oath in which they publickly declare That if they do not observe the Laws of the State the People are dispensed from their Oaths of Fealty they have sworn to them CHAP. XIV That the Monarchy of France is not an Absolute Empire but a Limited Royalty 'T IS not of to day only that some have imagined the Monarchy of France to be an unlimited Power and an Absolute Empire Bodinus was of that opinion before them but they that follow his sentiment understand nothing of that Constitution or if they do have a greater desire to flatter the unjust Pretensions of that Court than to maintain the

they were established upon some fundamental Laws or Customes And I very much question whether any such example can be produced no not in the Empire of the Turks which has been always lookt upon as the most Absolute and Despotical Government where the Sover●igns have attributed to themselves so vast and unbounded a Power and actually enjoy'd the same I know it is commonly apprehended that Conquerors such as Nimrod and many others did in so absolute a manner possess themselves of all the Rights of Sovereignty that there was nothing left to their Subj●cts of what Rank or Order soever But to declare my sense of this matter we are to observe First That Conquerors had no other aim but to rob other Sovereigns of their Power without changing any thing in the Government of the State they had invaded Secondly That those Invasions having no other foundation but a Conquest by force of Arms and Violence contrary to the Law of Nature which made Seneca call this sort of Conquerors Magnos furiosos Latrones great and furious Robbers these Conquerors easily perceived it was necessary for them to trim and rectifie this their unjust Power if they would have their Authority to be lasting whereupon they accordingly took care to moderate it by Conventions and Laws to the Justice of which the People gave their consent Thirdly That these Conventions and these Laws were to speak truly and properly the lawful Title of all the Authority their Subjects owned in them Fourthly That this consent of the Subjects always supposeth that the ends of Government be preserved except we should perswade our selves that there be Subjects Fools enough to consent to a Government whose aim should not be levelled at their Advantage and Prosperity 'T is horribly to delude ones self to found the Idea of an Absolute Government in all respects amongst Men upon a notion of the absolute Empire God has over all his Creatures for is it not evident that this Divine Empire supposeth an immoveable Justice and infinite wisdom and a most tender love for his Creatures which are the Essential Attributes of God and which cannot be found in any mortal Man But some it may be will tell me That I contradict the Stile of Holy Scripture in denying that Tyrants can lawfully enjoy so absolute a Power when the Prophets tell us concerning some Kings That God gave them such absolute Power as we find it exprest in particular concerning Nebuchadnezzar Dan. 5.18 19. But the answer to this Objection is obvious First That which ought to be referred to God's Permission only is not to be attributed to a concession of the Deity which latter is only sufficient to establish a lawful Right for otherwise we must say That God had given a just right to the false Prophets to deceive Ahab by their lying Oracles If this be not the case let any Man answer me these Two Questions First Whether Nebuchadnezzar sinned in using this absolute Power which he had without any consent or concurrence of his Subjects in killing them without cause and contrary to the Laws of Justice and Equity Secondly Whether God could justly punish Nebuchadnezzar as he did for making use of this Tyrannical Power which he had suffered him to invade Nemini injuriam facit qui jure suo utitur He that makes use of his own Right injures no body is a Maxim of Law. Secondly Otherwise we should be fain to suppose That those who at any times have raised themselves against Tyrants had been great Criminals whereas the Holy Scripture doth set them forth for Heroes such as Ehud who have undertaken to rid the World of their unjust oppression by killing them Possibly it may be further objected to me That by these assertions I oppose the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament which equally command all both Jews and Christians to submit themselves to the Powers that had conquered them and particularly to the Power of the Romans who pretended to be absolute over all their Subjects But it will be found that there is nothing at all of any contradiction between that which I maintain and what is here objected The Jews being conquered by Nebuchadnezzar were become the Slaves of that Monarch and owed him all manner of obedience which Bondmen do to him who has saved their Lives when it was in his power to kill them And for the rest the Scripture does not determine whether the Tyrannical power they attributed to themselves be lawful or no. Sure it is that an unlawful and Tyrannical Sovereign may rule legally in several respects in which case it imports little to those who are subject to it contrary to their wills whether the Power under which they are be lawful in all respects or not Let this therefore be laid down for a certain truth That every lawful power is necessarily limited by Laws That these Laws are the foundation of the Government from which the Sovereigns cannot depart without overturning the Society for the subsistence of which the Political Government was at first instituted by God. But this is not the only kind of limitation which may be observed in the Powers that govern Societies As God has not prescribed any sort of Government in preference to others the Wisdom of Men have diversly limited the way and constitution thereof Most People finding by Experience That Monarchy though it have many advantages before other Governments is apt to degenerate to Arbitrary Power thought it fitting that the greatest Lords of the Community should concur with the King in the exercise of his Authority others again were of Opinion That the People ought to have the chiefest share in the Government forasmuch as the main end of the Government is to make them happy These different apprehensions of Men have established the several forms of Government the aim of those who contrived those different forms being only to prevent oppression and injustice which directly cross the end of Government CHAP. V. Concerning the Extent of the Power of Sovereigns WHat I have here set down concerning the Nature of Governments the most Absolute of which are not unbounded by the Laws of God by the Laws which constitute the Right of Nations by the fundamental Laws of the State and more particularly by Bounds prescribed to the Authority of Sovereigns sufficiently shews what is the just extent of Sovereign Power and how far Men are obliged to yield Obedience to it Indeed forasmuch as Authority and Obedience are relative terms which reciprocally establish or overthrow one another it is easie to judge That Obedience cannot be due to Authority but in proportion to the extent of the Authority Paternal Authority in the manner as God had established it under the Law could not inflict Death upon a Son but in the presence of the Judges and upon the hearing of Witnesses The Authority of a Judge cannot be discharged but in the due Forms of Judicature and according to the Laws he cannot punish a Criminal