Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	duke_n	king_n	lancaster_n	6,663	5	11.7227	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86280	Certamen epistolare, or, The letter-combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr. Baxter of Kederminster. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon. And 4. J.H. of the city of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr. Fullers late Appeal.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Bernard, Nicholas, d. 1661.; Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.; Harrington, James, 1611-1677.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1687; Thomason E1722_1; ESTC R202410	239,292	425

betwixt him and King Hen. the 6. nor in any one of his many Children though Edmund his third Sonne was made Earl of Rutland which Title had been formerly conferred on Edward Duke of York in his Fathers life time And though I give no credit to Ralph Brook whom I have found to be as full of Errors as our Author himself yet the Authority of Augustine Vincent shall prevail for the present and so let it go But then our Author might have found in the Animadversions that admitting Richard Duke of Yorke to be Earl of Cambridge he must have been the seventh not the eighth Earl of it as he saith he was and then that Errors lies before our Authors Doors as before it did And then again whereas our Authors tells us p. 2. fol. 49. that it is questionable whether his Father that is to say Richard of Conningburg Earl of Cambridge were Duke of York I must needs look upon it as a thing unquestionable and so must all men else which are skilled in Heraldry that Richard being executed at Southampton by King H●n the 5. before Edward Duke of York his elder Brother had been slain at the Battel of Agen-Court 25. But whereas our Author thinks it not onely difficult but impossible to defend a Title of the House of Lancaster to the Crown of England except I can challenge ●the priviledge of the Patriarch Jacob by crossing my hands to prefer the younger child in the succession before the Elder p. 2. fol. 43. admitting Richard the Second to resign the Crown or dying without children by course of nature For I behold Hen. of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster as Cousin German to that King and consequently his nearest Kinsman at that time wherein Edmund Mortimer Earl of March in whom remained the Rights of the House of Clarence was but Grandchild to the Lady Philip Daughter and sole Heir of Lionel Duke of Clarence and consequently more remote by two degrees from King Richard the Second then the other was By which proximity of blood as Edward the Third laid claim to the Crown of France and Philip the Second carried the Crown of Portugal and Robert Bruce the Crown of Scotland against the Balions so I am confident of some ability to prove that Henry of Bullingbrook Duke of Lancaster had a better Title to this Crown then the house of Mortimer For thoughby the common Law of England he may find it otherwise yet there are many things in the common Law which cannot extend to the succession of the Kings of England as in the case of Aliens which was that of King James or in the case of Parseners as in that of the two Daughters of King Hen. the 8. or in that of the half blood in the case of the sisters of King Edw. the 6. and finally in that of the tenure by curtesie in the case of King Philip the 2d of Spain admitting that Queen Mary had been Mother of a living Child And now I am fallen on these matters of Heraldy I will make bold to take in a Remembrance of the House of the Mountagues descended in the Principal branches of it from a Daughter of King Edw. the Third concerning which our Author tells us that I have made up such a heap of Errors as is not to be paralelled in any Author which pretends to the emendation of another p. 2. fol. 37. How so because forsooth I have made Sir Edward Mountague the Grand-child of the Lord chief Justice and the first Lord Mountague of Broughton not to have been the elder Brother of Henry Earl of Manchester and James Bishop of Winton but their Brothers Son But first this Error was corrected in a Postscript to the Examen Historicum before he could accuse me of it and consequently he doth but Actum agere and fit a Plaister for that sore which had before been cured by a better Chyrurgion Secondly This can be at the most but a single Error in case it had not been retracted and therefore no such heap of Errors as is not to he paralelled in any other And Thirdly It appears by another passage in this present Appeal p. 2. fol. 96. that he had seen the Postscript to the said Examen which rendereth him the more inexcusable by raising such an out-cry on no occasion In which passage he taxeth me with sallery in my third endeavour touching the late Barons of that House in making the said Sir Edward Mountague to be Lord Mountague of Broughton in Northamptonshire which acknowledged for one of his Mannors but not his Barronie For I knew well that Broughton and not Broughton gave the nomination to this branch of that Family having never heard before of any Estate they had in Broughton And therefore I must needs charge this Error which he so triumpheth at as one of the Errata's which were made at the Press though not observed when the sheets were read over to me and so not Printed with the rest Less candidly deals he with me in another place about the mistaking of a number that is to say 1555. for 1585. p. 1. fol. 41. The Errors being meerly pretal as is own phrase is And this he could not chuse but see though he can winck sometimes when it makes best for his meeting of that precedent once again on a more particular occasion then was given at the present where the time thereof is truly stated and where he spends some few lines in relation to it so that the motion was direct not Retrograde but that he had a mind to pull me a little back seeing how much I had got the start of him in the present race And as for the Error in the Errata I know not how it came but a friend of mine in reading over the first sheets as they came from the Press had put a Quere in the Margin whether Melkinus or Felkinus and that afterwards by the ignorance or incogitancy of my Amanuensis it might be put in amongst the rest of the Errata which is all that I am able to say as to that particular 26. Our Author had affirmed that St. Davids had been a Christian some hundred years whilst Canterbury was yet Pagan The contrary whereof being proved by the Animedvertor he flyes to Caerleon upon Vsk p. 2. fol. 29. by which instead of mending the matter he hath made it worse Mistaking wilfully the point in difference between us For if the Reader mark it well the question is not whether St. Davids or Canterbury were the Ancienter Archi-Espiscopal See or how many hundred years the one was elder then the other but for how long time Canterbury had continued Pagan when the other was Christian which he acknowledgeth to be no more then 140 years as was before observed by the Animadvertor And though Caerleon upon Vske had been an Archi-Episcopal See some hundreds of years before that honour was conferred on the City of Canterbury yet Canterbury might be be Christian as soon as

who on the rooting out of the Hereticks should possess the same to the end that he might keep it in the holy Faith But this was with a salvojure a preservation of the Rights and Interests of the Lords in chief if they gave no hindrance to the work And with this clause that it should after be extended to those also which had no Lord Paramount superiour to them According unto which decree the Albigenses and their Patrons were warred on by the Kings of France till both sides were wearied with the War and compounded it at last upon these conditions viz. That Alphonso younger brother to King Lewis the 9. of France should marry Joan daughter and heir to the last Raimond and have with her the full possession of the Country after his decease provided also that if the said parties died without issue the whole estate should be escheated to the Crown as in fine it did An. 1270. 39. This the occasion of the Canon and this the meaning and the consequent of it but what makes this to the Deposing of Kings and such supreme Princes as have no Lord Paramount above them For if you mean such inferiour Princes as had Lords in chief your argument was not home to the point it aimed at If you alledge that Emperours and Kings as well as such inferiour Princes are hooked in the last clause of viz eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos qui dominos non habent principales I answer with the learned Bishop of Rochester in his book De Potestate Papae ● 1. c. 8. clausulam istam à Parasito al quo Pontificiae tyrannidis ministro assutam esse that it was patched unto the end of the decree by some Parasite or other Minister of the See of Rome And this he proves by several reasons as namely that Christian Kings and Emperours are n●● of such low esteem as to be comprehended in those general words qui dominos non habent principales without being specially designed and distinguished by their soveraign Titles Secondly that if any such thing had been intended it is not likely that the Embassadors of such Kings and Emperors who were then present in that Councel would ever have consented to it but rather have protested against it and caused their Protestation to be registred in the Acts thereof in due form of Law Thirdly In one of their Rescripts of the said Pope Innocent by whom this Councel was confirmed in which ●e doth plainly declare That when inferiour persons are named or pointed at in any of his Commissions majores digniores sub generali clausula non intelligantur includi that is to say that persons of more eminent rank are not to be understood as comprehended in such general clauses Adde hereunto that in the manner of the proceeding prescribed by this Canon such temporal Lords as shall neglect to purge their Countries of the filth of Heresies were to be excommunicated by the Metropolitan and other Bishops of that Province per Metropolitanum ceteros com provinciales Episcopos as the Canon hath it before the Pope could take any cognizance of the cause And I conceive that no man of reason can imagine that the Metropolitane and Provincial Bishops could or durst exercise any such jurisdiction upon those Christian Kings and Emperours under whom they lived I grant indeed that some of the more turbulent Popes did actually excommunicate and as much as in them lay depose some Christian Kings and Emperors sometimes by arming their own Subjects against them and sometimes giving their Estates and Kingdomes to the next Invador But this makes nothing to your purpose most of those turbulencies being acted before the sitting of this Councel none of them by authority from any Councel at all but carried on by them ex plenitudine potestatis under pretence of that unlimited power which they had arrogated to themselves over all the world and exercised too frequently in these Western parts 40. Such is the Argument by which you justifie M. Burton in his first position viz. That the Popish Religion is Rebellion and may it not be proved by the very same argument that the Calvinian Religion is Rebellion also Calvin himself hath told us in the closes of his Institutions that the 3 Estates in every Kingdome Pareus in his Comment on Rom 13. that the inferiour Magistrates and Buchannan in his book Dejure Regni that the people have a power to curb and controll their Kings and in some cases as in that of Male-administration to depose him also which is much as any of the Popes Parasites have ascribed unto him If you object that these are only private persons and speak their own opinions not the sense of the Churches I hope you will not say that Calvin is a private person who sate as Pope over the Churches of his platform whose writings have been made the Rule and Canon by which all men were to frame their judgments and whose authority in this very point hath been made use of for the justifying of Rebellious actions For when the Scots Commissioners were commanded by Queen Elizabeth to give a reason of their proceedings against their Queen whom not long before they had deposed from the Regal Throne they justified themselves by the authority of Calvin whereby they endeavoured to prove as my Author hath it That the Popular Magistrates are appointed and made to moderate and keep in order the excesse and unrulinesse of Kings and that it was lawful for them to put the Kings that be evil and wicked into prison and also to deprive them of their kingdoms Such instances as this we may find too many enough to prove that none of the three above mentioned though the two last were private persons delivered their own opinions only but the sense of the party The Revolt of the Low-Countries from the King of Spain the man●old embroilments made by the Hugonots in France the withholding of the Town Embden from its natural Lord the Count of Friesland the commotions in Brandenburg the falling off of the Bohemians from the house of Austria the translating of the Crown of Sweden from Sigismond K. of Poland to Charles Duke of Suderman the father of the great Gustavus the Armies thrice raised by the Scots against King Charls and the most unnatural warrs in England with the sad consequents thereof by whom were they contrived and acted but by those of the Calvinian Faction and the predominancy which they have or at the least aspired unto in their several Countries The Genevians having lead the dance in expelling their Bishop whom they acknowledged also for their temporal Prince the daughter Churches thought themselves obliged to follow their dear Mother Church in that particular and many other points of Doctrine sic instituere majores posteri imitantur as we read in Tacitus 41. But against this blow you have a Buckler and tell me that if any Protestant Writer should teach the same that

civitates regibus parebant c. At the first saith he Cities were Governed by Kings and so still at this day are such Nations as descended of men accustomed to the King by Government For every houshold is governed by the eldest as it were by a King and so consequently are the Colonies or Companies multiplyed from thence governed in like sort for Kindreds sake Which words of Aristotle seconded by the general practice of all Nations I look on as a better Argument of the Original institution Divine Right of Kings that great Philosopher in the 4th Book of his Politicks cap. 2. giving unto the Regall Government the attribute of Divinissima or the most Divine then to fetch either of them from the institution of the first King among the Hebrews so that you might have spared the labour of showing the inconsequences of arging from a contingent case to a matter of absolute necessity as from the making of the first King amongst the Hebrews to the necessity of making Kings in all other Nations unless you could have found some adversary to contend withal And with like thrift you might have saved your self the trouble of proving that the words of Moses in Deut. 17. v. 18. touching recourse to be had unto the Judge which should be in those dayes in some certain cases inferred not a necessity of having any such supream Judge as God raised up from time to time to govern and avenge his people in their greatest misery unless you have met with any which I know not of which trust as much to that Text of Scripture for those supream Judges as you rely upon it for the Court of Sanhedrim of which more anon The corollary wherewithal you close this passage I like well enough had you grounded your discourse on some clearer Text For I conceive as well as you that those Judges are not necessitated by the will of God but foreseen onely by his providence not imposed by the Law but provided by i● as an Expedient in case of necessity 22. But before I come to examine the Text of Scripture on which you ground both the Authority of the Sanhedrim and those supream Judges which governed in their several times the affairs of Israel I must first see what form of Government it is which you chiefly drive at and in comparison whereof you so much vilifie and condemn the Regall And fi●st the Government you drive at mus● be plainly Popular and such Popular estate call i● Timocraty or a Democratie or what else you please into which the old Agrarian laws must be introduced for the better settling of equality amongst the people And such a Common-wealth as this you fancy to be most agreeable to the natural liberty of Mankind and Divine institution There is nothing say you more clear nor certain in Scripture then that the Commonwealth of Israel was instituted by God p. 14. and settled on a popular Agrarian p. 12. And that the Restitution of their Common-wealth was fore-signified in these words of the Prophet Hosea I will be thy King cap. 13. 10. But if you have no better grounds for the Institution then for the Restitution of this Common-wealth they are too weak for foundation of so great a building The Prophet speaks in that place particularly to the house of Ephraim v. 1. the people of the Realm of Israel v. 9. as appears more distinctly by their kissing the Calves the Golden Calves of Dan and Bethel v. 2. Of whose reduction to their native Country after their being carried away captive by Salmanasser King of Assyria there is nothing signified in the Scripture in the way of prophesie nor no relation of it as a matter of Fact Nor can you show me any clear and evident text by which I may be sure that this Commonwealth was instituted by God considering that Moses during the whole time of his life governed authoritatively and supreamly without any appeal unto the people or unto any other power either co-ordinate with him or superior to him which I believe is more thenyou can show me in any Duke of Venice or any State-holder of the Netherlands or any other Prince in a Common-wealth which onely serve as second Notions in a State to put their business into form and give date to all publick instruments as the Keepers of the Liberties not long since in England Nor do I finde that Josuah abated any thing of that power which Moses had advising sometime with the Elders of the people but not governed by them so that the first Government amongst the Israelites had more in it of the Regal then the popular Forms to which they did desire to return again upon the apprehension of the Anarchy and confusion under which they lived when there was no King in Israel as in other Nations And as for your Agrarian laws your Popular Ballance as elsewhere upon which this Commonwealth is supposed to be settled I conceive it will be very hard for you to prove that also For though the Land of Canaan was divided by Lot amongst the Tribes yet neither had the Tribes themselves their equal portion nor every family in those Tribes their equal shares in those unequal portions with one another some of the Tribes enjoying little or nothing of the lot which had fallen unto them and some of the Families of those Tribes being scattered up and down the Country as Jacob had prophesied of Simeon in the Book of Gen. which utterly destroyes that popular Agrarian on which this Common-wealth is supposed to be founded and in which you say they might have continued but that they desired to have a King like other Nations 23. Your second Argument for a preferring a popular Estate before a Monarchy is derived from reason and that reason grounded on the natural liberty of all mankind which cannot better be preserved them in popular Governments God never required as you say of any Man or any Government that they should live otherwise then according to their estate that there are rules in Scripture to show the duty of a servant to such whose wants have made them servants but that there is no rule in Scripture that obligeth a man unto the duty of a servant which can live of himself And finally having askt this question whether God hath less regard of a Nation then he hath of a man you tax the Israelites for making themselves servants by desiring a King to be set over them when they might have continued as they were in a free condition But first that natural liberty of Mankind which our great Polititians so much talk of hath no ground in nature for as servants are bound by positive Lawes to obey their Masters so women are bound by the law of Nature to submit themselves unto their Husbands and children by the same law to be obedient to their parents This if the Scripture had not taught you you might have learnt from Aristotle as he did from Homer