Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	homage_n	king_n	scotland_n	5,122	5	9.5324	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

ponit secures arbitrio popularis aurae no King is so absolute to rule as he lists we abhor quicquid libet licet he is subordinate unto God and his Will and he ought also to walk according to the particular good Laws he hath made with consent of his people Digna vox est Majestate regnantis se alligatum legibus principem fateri and we doubt not our King doth and will do so but he is so absolute that if he deviate which God avert he is not under co-active power of Subjects that they should have Law-claim against him and in their Courts of Nature and Necessity as this man loves to speak pronounce judgement upon him to destroy him A Crown was never given him never accepted by him on such horrid termes far less that by virtue of this supposed tacite Covenant any minor meer private party of the people might without and against the great body have liberty to pull not only the King but all Magistrates out of their seat punishing them and possessing themselves in their rooms which is the expresse doctrine of Naph out-stripping his Master Sequiturque patrem non passibus aequis 4. There are several wayes of conveighances of Kingdoms Where there is freedom of election of the particular person to reign there may possibly be expresse limiting conditions allowing a reserve of Power to some not meer subjects to coerce and reduce in order diviating Soveraignty As in the Empire of Germany and Kingdom of Poland or if there be any like whose Kings are not veri nominis Reges but personated Kings and Monarchs as a p●inted man is not a man there is some likeness to a Kingship and Monarchy and some power over others given for executing the Laws But the Supreme Majesty doth not wholly reside in these more then in the mock Kings of Sparta when they were under the tutory of the Ephori But in the conveighances of many Kingdoms and all properly called Monarchies there is neither tacit nor expressed Covenants impowering others to be Judges over the King which is the design these Covenants are pleaded for how many Kingdoms are and have been attained to by conquest in a just War which is a sufficient title and no the right of robbers as some call it albeit there be direct opposition so long as there is power and a tacit dissent when their power is gone yet the conquest coming by a lawful and well grounded War the dominion and the authority even over the unwilling and repining subjects is lawful though it may be made surer by their after consent to submit And if this purchased power be hereditarily transmitted the successors receives power from their Parents not from the people nor is there any shaddow of tacit or express Covenant in this matter if ye Rule well we shall obey you otherwise not 5. If we look to our own Kingdom of Scotland from the beginning there will be found no such Covenant on which the constitution of the same is founded There are four or five remarkable instances concerning this Kingdom to clear the matter 1. Look to the foundation thereof in Fergus the first 330. yeares before Christs birth Buchannan himself cannot say that he is admitted King upon conditions the subjects indeed by their oath confirmed the Kingdom to him and his posterity but no oath was required of him nor of any of his successors till King James the sixth his time of which we shall anon hear Of this Fergus the black Book of Pasley as I have heard from credible Reporters saith Fergusius se Regem fecit 2. Fergus the second the 40. King the great restorer of our Nation who began to Reign Anno. Chr. 404. did by his valour under the conduct of divine Providence and by the help of Strangers Danes and others with some small remainder of Scots recover the Kingdom after that the whole Nation was banished and no Scots-man might abide in Scotland under pain of death he was not beholden to the people for the Kingdom nor had it by paction with them 3. Kenneth the first the 50. King Anno Chr. 605. who destroyed the Picts and enlarged his Kingdom by the accession of theirs purchasing more and better Lands then he had before which he distributed to his subjects he held not this purchased Kingdom of them by contract or paction to be subject to them on whom he bestowed the Lands thereof The 4. is Robert Bruce the 97. King Anno Chr. 1036. Whom our Lawes of Regiam Majestatem c. calls Conquestor magnus he re-conquered the Kingdom when it was almost wholly alienated and subdued by the English and but little reserved The English held it for many years And the Nobility of Scotland first at Barwick then at St. Andrews in plain Parliament swore homage and obedience to the King of England Yet that Prince having a prosperous gale of divine Providence assisting his Valour recovered the Nation out of bondage And who will assert there were pactions between him and the people to bring him under their coactive judicial Power A fifth instance there is right memorable in our own times It is known our Nation was totally subdued by the English and continued so for the space of ten years The representatives of Shires and Cities and Towns combined into a Common-wealth-government and sent their Commissioners to the meeting thereof at London where the Kings interest was disclaimed yet in a wonderful way God brought him in again and finding us at his coming a fully conquered and subdued Nation restored us to our freedom from the bondage of Forraigners If any will say that it was upon his account the Nation was brought to the suffering of that bondage and that there did ly bands upon him as our sworn King to free us when he should be in capacity to do it It may be answered 1. It is known that when the fatal stroke that sunk us into bondage was given there was an express disowning of his right by publick Judicatories of the Land in the quarrel with the English Sectaries before Dumbar 2. Whatever engagements were upon him for the good of the Nation Yet if these mens principles were to be followed they could had no force on him to move him to labour our vindication into liberty for do not they teach that in the mutual Contract and Covenant betwixt King and People the People are loosed from their duty if the King fail in his frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem And why then is not the King loosed if the people fail on their part It is known that although the Nobles and Body of the People were well enough affected to the King and cordially loved him when they were overpowered and could do nothing yet by their representatives he was disowned which in Law would be reckoned their own deed And if a sworn people desert and disclaim their King by their representatives may not the King also have the benefite of the