Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	write_n	write_v	young_a	33	3	6.8038	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77694	A key to the Kings cabinet; or Animadversions upon the three printed speeches, of Mr Lisle, Mr Tate, and Mr Browne, spoken at a common-hall in London, 3. July, 1645. Detecting the malice and falshood of their blasphemous observations made upon the King and Queenes letters.	Browne, Thomas, 1604?-1673.	1645 (1645)	Wing B5181A; Thomason E297_10; ESTC R200224	40,321	55

never so foolish and ridiculous and receive no present Answer to that which they have said They make that advantage of their getting Plutarch no Answer which Cato they say made when he could get no Statue who gave out that it was more for his Honour and Reputation that posterity should enquire why Cato had no Statue then why he had And therefore I shall take them all three in order as they lye beginning first with M. Lisles Oration whose masculine eloquence it seems was thought worthiest to enjoy the Mayden-head of the Citties Attention who bespeaks them in the manner following M. Lisle his Speech My Lord Major and you worthy Gentlemen of the Famous Citty of London I am commanded by the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled to observe to you some passages out of these Letters which you have heard They are passages of that nature though it be most happy to this Kingdom and Parliament to know them yet my very heart doth bleed to report them Animadversions Well said good obedient Oratour Higgin you have said nothing it seems but what you were commanded But I say not well done my Lord Major and you worthy Gentlemen of the famous City of London for you have done a thing which no body could command you you have resigned and given up your sences and your understanding here to three Brothers of the Observance as if you were able to marke nothing of your selves but what they Observe unto you What my Masters are the Walloones that came over lately crept already from the Campe into your Councell that a Common-Hall at London cannot understand English when they heare it Have you not only lost your Loyalty but your very Language that you must have an Interpreter to your own Mothers tongue take my word for it the Letters although they were not the old English foretoppe in their forehead of After my hearty commendations remembred unto you hoping to God that you are in good health as I am at the writing hereof yet they are writ in nothing but errand English The King and the Queen as much as you suspect them for superstition are not yet come to that height of Popery as to write their mutuall private Letters in an unknown Tongue For shame then be not such Wittalls to your own understanding as to say you know not English when you doe I can tell you the Cost of this Interpreter may chance prove greater then the Worship you see M. Lisles heart bleeds in the very begining of the businesse It was never known but Bloud would have Bloud you know and I feare your Hearts also that is your Purses will bleed before ever it be done There is so much of the Pharisee between you that if his Trumpet should goe before and your Almes should not follow after I would sweare one of you were very much out in playing of his part but M. Lisle is not out for he goes on Mr Lisle The first thing that I shall observe to you is concerning the King's endeavours to bring Forraigne Forces a Forraigne Prince with an Army into this Kingdom By His Letters to the Queen which you have heard read He endeavours to basten the Duke of Loraine with an Army into England It is well known to the Parliament that the Duke of Loraine is a Prince highly esteem'd at Rome the most complying with Iesuites of any Prince in Christendomes and yet the King writes to the Queen to hasten the Duke of Loraine to come with an Army into England Animadversions If the Major and his Brethren must observe and note this as a piece of Novelty which they knew not of before namely that the King did intend to bring in Forreigne Forces me thinkes the Exchange had been a fitter Theatre then the Guild-Gall to have call'd the Citizens together to have heard it and Mr Lisle's heart needed not to bleed for that But if they must observe and note this as a piece of Tyranny in the King as a breach and violation of any knowne Law in the Land and to that end it is most likely he would have them to observe it Then truly does Mr Lisle deserve to have his Nose bleed as well as his Heart he deserves to be well beaten for offering such a Cheat unto the Common People For Gods sake why may not the King bring over Forreigners when He shall be deserted and derelicted of his own Subjects Why may not the King invite Forreigne Forces hither now at the last for his Preservation and Reliefe whom the Rebels themselves have entertain'd already this two whole yeares and over for his Destruction and Ruine I cannot imagine why the worthy Citizens of London are to note and observe this as any unlawfull thing unlesse Mr Lisle will undertake to prove that the King by bringing in of such Forces into the Land does trespasse upon their severall Acts against Forreigners which are of so great force in London For I know no other Law written against which He does offend For I demand either it is lawfull for the King to defend himselfe by Force against those that doe rebell against him or it is not lawfull If they say it is not lawfull for him to defend himselfe by Force then have the Rebels the same argument against the King's raising of his Domestique Forces from amongst his owne Subjects here at home which they have against his bringing in of Forreigne from abroad For if it be not lawfull for him to defend himselfe by Force then is it not lawfull for him to raise any kind of Forces If they say it is lawfull for him to defend himselfe by Force then doubtlesse are all kind of Forces in themselves equally lawfull Because in this great Action of Defence no body but the King himselfe indeed is a proper Agent All others whether Persons or Things are but nearer or remoter Instruments used and employed by Him for his best advantage and therefore he that saies it is lawfull for the King to defend himselfe against Rebels with a native English or a Welch man but not with a Dutch or French man not with a Turke or Jew and thinkes he hath spoken high reason to the point that is in question He saies nothing more in effect then this That it is lawfull for the King to defend himselfe against the Rebels with an English Sword but not with a Spanish Blade or that it is lawfull for him to shoot powder at them which is made for him here in England but not to shoot that which is sent him hither out of France Or lastly that it is lawfull for him to charge the Rebels upon a Horse that hath been bred for him here at Brackley but not upon a Horse that hath been brought him over hither from Barbary For as all sorts of Weapons so all kinds of men are but the Kings Instruments in this great Action of his Defence and it is as lawfull for him to use the One for

cannot without Injury ever take it from them unlesse they themselves will And there is no question in the World but if the King had at that time gone over into Ireland and had assented either to a Toleration of the Catholique Religion or had given way to the Abolition of those Lawes then in force against Recusants upon any Tearmes whatsoever which the witt of man could imagine be most Honourable or Advantageous either to him or to his Kingdome he had done not only that which is unjust but that which is impossible as the Lawyers use to speake because eadem est impossibilitas Juris Naturae F. Con●●us That wich is impossible by Law is as farre from being done that is Lawfully done as that which is impossible by Nature For standing the condition of this promise which is the substance of it and standing the circumstances of Times Persons Places and such like which are subservient unto it The King could never doe it And therefore in the third place it is high time we should looke whether this Promise of not abolishing those Lawes now to them doe not bind and tye up that other Promise to abolish them which he since made unto my Lord of Ormond as being impossible to be performed by him without contradiction and the breach of his former Promise which is as impossible to Justice Now that the influence of this first promise upon the second promise is not such as renders that second promise either impossible or which is as bad unjust it may be these two severall waies demonstrated First by way of Annihilation and voiding of the first promise and secondly by Application of that first promise made in Generall to such severall particulars which could never reasonably be presum'd to be comprehended and contained therein Concerning the first of these the Civilians tell us that there are two waies how a man may H. Grotius not keep his promise and yet not be unjust The one is by defect of a Condition without which the party promising contracts no obligation and hither also they referre that case If the other party first doe not keep his word For the severall branches of one and the same Contract in the severall parties are but by the way of a Condition as if it had been formally thus expressed This I promise to doe if he will doe that And so this Promise of the Kings that he never would consent to the Abolition of the Lawes made in Ireland against Recusants either it had no Condition at all and then the King contracts no obligation thereby nor is bound to keep it or it was made on this Condition that His two Houses would first consent to this His present Expedition for Ireland and put the Mannaging and Trust of those affaires into His hands In which Condition they breaking first on their parts have left Him unobliged on His. The other way is by compensation and then they tell us that that which we have promised we may Lawfully not performe and yet not be reckoned unjust when that which we promise and performe not is but of equall worth if put into the Scales with some other thing of Ours which unjustly is detained from us and restor'd not And so if the King should breake this one promise which he made to them yet were he not unjust because he would still be behind hand with them for those iterated promises and repeated Oathes of Fidelity and Obedience of Subjection and Allegiance which they have made and made againe to Him and yet have broke them All. The second way to demonstrate that there is no Injustice or Contradiction in these two promises is by Application of that first promise made in generall to such severall particulars which could never reasonably be presum'd to be comprehended and contained therein when the promise was made And to this purpose observeable is that maxime in the Civill Law Promissio Generalis non trahitur ad ea ad quae verisimiliter promittens L. obligatione ff de pign Capit. si in specie interrogatus fuisset minime se obligasset that is to say No Generall promise is to be drawne and extended unto those things to which the party promising in all likelyhood if He had been then question'd in particular concerning them would never have been obliged and we apply it thus The King having a desire to passe over into Ireland and to suppresse the Rebellion there while it was young and being willing also to satisfy both His Houses that in the pursuance thereof He would use no dishonourable and unworthy meanes makes this solemne Profession that however the Rebells in Ireland might pretend that they rose only for Religion and that if they might be but permitted their Liberty of Conscience they would all be quiet yet He would never consent upon what pretence soever to a Toleration of the Popish profession there or the Abolishing of the Lawes now in force against Popish Recusants in that Kingdom This is the Generall Promise and to many particulars it may be drawne and applyed and to many it may not To those onely particulars saith the Law may it be drawne to which the King if He had been interrogated particularly concerning them would in all probability have oblig'd himselfe when He made that Promise as for example When the King made this generall Promise that He would never consent to abrogate those Lawes If the Lords and Commons had come to these particulars and said Your Majesty promises never to Consent to the Abolition of the Lawes against Recusants upon any pretence whatsoever but will you not consent to abolish them if you think you have good Reason Your Majesty promises never to Consent to it while you are Here But will you remember to performe that promise when you come There Your Majesty promises never to give Consent that is to doe it Willingly But will you not suffer your selfe so to come within the Rebels power that you must be forc't to doe out of Necessity To these particulars and many more like these because it is very probable the King would have oblig'd Himselfe knowing the clean Intentions of His Heart when He made this generall Promise Therefore this generall Promise saith the Law reacheth those Particulars and is applyable to them But then if the Lords and Commons hearing this generall Promise of the Kings that upon no pretence whatsoever He would abolish those Lawes had come to these particulars and said Your Majesty promises never to Consent to an Abolition of those Penall Lawes because you are confident we will assist you in reducing those Irish Rebels by Force if Faire meanes will not doe But if we should Rebell against you as well as They will you be obliged by this Promise then If we should drive you to those streights that unlesse the Catholiques of Ireland help you the Schismaticks and Brownists of England will dispoyle you of your Revenues and your Royalties