Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	parliament_n	power_n	sovereign_a	2,128	5	9.5338	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79833	The golden rule, or, Justice advanced. Wherein is shewed, that the representative kingdom, or Commons assembled in Parliament, have a lawfull power to arraign, and adjudge to death the King, for tyranny, treason, murder, and other high misdemeanors: and whatsoever is objected to the contrary from Scripture, law, reason, or inconveniences, is satisfactorily answered and refuted. Being, a cleer and full satisfaction to the whole nation, in justification of the legal proceeding of the High Court of Justice, against Charls Steward, late King of England. The first part. / By John Canne.	Canne, John, d. 1667?	1649 (1649)	Wing C440; Thomason E543_6; ESTC R204183	32,291	40

change upon their persons neither set them at any distance touching subjection to the Law either active or passive more then they were before their personal estate was the same still as before neither are they exempted from corporall punishment if they break the Law more then any other men 2. objec It is further objected Exod. 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Again Ecc. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thoughts and curse not the rich in thy bed-chamber If Kings may not be curs'd much less put to death by their Subjects Answ 1. The first text is not properly meant of Kings but pertains rather to Judges and other sort of Rulers and so the Jew Doctors understand the place 2. Solomon well explains the place Prov. 17.26 It is not good to strike Princes for equity that is evil speaking of Magistrates for well doing is a wicked and vile thing Hier. in hunc ver ● 3. The other text by some is applyed unto Christ the King of his Church But take it literally because Kings may not be curs'd which is prohibited under pain of condemnation will it therefore follow that Kings may be theeves murderers traytors tyrants and commit any wickednesse and not be cal'd to an account by such who are above them and have a lawfull Power in their hands to punish them 4. The place comprehends Rich-men as well as Kings and therefore it may be as well concluded from it that no man if rich may be punished for any crime or fault whatsoever 5. Both these if rightly applyed are altogether for us for whosoever whether King or Prince shall curse and revile the Supream and Soveraign State of the Land and that for well doing as call them Rebels and Traytors and violently seek to destroy them he absolutely violateth this Law Thou shalt not revile the gods It is true there is here no punishment set down for him that should thus rail But seeing as one writes on the place Willet Qu. 57. he that railed on his father and mother was to die for it Exod. 21.17 much more worthy of death was he which should curse the fathers of the Countrey 3. objec I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evill thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say to him What dost thou Ecc. 8.2,3,4 Hence the Royallists argue If the word of a King must stand and his power not to be resisted how can his Subjects lawfully touch his Person Answ 1. To keep the Kings commandment must be understood of things just and lawfull otherwise as the Apostle saith We must obey God rather than man It is well laid down by Philo Philo de vita Mosis Regis officium est jubere quae oportet fieri vetare a quibus abstinere debet caeterum jussie faciendorum interdictio cavendoru m proprie ad Legem pertinet Atque ita consequitur ut Rex animata sit Lex vero sit Rex justissimus The office of a King is to command those things which ought to be don and to forbid those things which ought to be avoyded But the command of things to be don and the forbidding of things not to be don properly belongeth to the Law And so it followeth that a King is a living Law and the Law is a most just King 2. The oath of God here is the oath which is taken in the name of God and whereof God is made a witnesse The meaning is the King is so to be obeyed as that God is not to be disobeyed and that the oath made to the King is so to be kept as that the oath made to God be not broken Hence Tremellius reads it sed pro ratione juramenti Dei but with regard to the oath of God shewing that Subjects are by their Allegeance and Covenant no further obliged to observe the Laws of earthly Princes then are agreeable to Gods commandments 3. Whereas it is said He doth whatsoever pleaseth him this must be understood only of a good King and just cōmands as if it were supplyed with whatsoever pleaseth God not licet si libet as if all were lawfull whatsoever a King should do but the genuine sence of the place is stand not in an evill matter for the King hath power to do whatsoever he pleaseth in way of justice to punish thee if thou continue obstinate in evil courses to forgive thee if thou confesse submit and crave pardon of him for the same 4. Who may say to him what dost thou that is reprove or censure him for doing justly as Job expounds it Chap. 34 18. and so must the place be understood to wit that no man may presume to question the Kings just actions warranted by the Law of God and men but otherwise Kings may and are to be reprehended as we have sundry examples for it in Elias reproving Ahab Elisha Jehoram Nathan David John Baptist Herod 1 Sam. 13.13 2 King 3.14 Jer. 1● 28. chap. 22.3 Ho. 5.1.2 Yea not only so but to be resisted withstood and opposed in their unrighteous courses Hence Augustine and Ambrose do affirm Augu. in Psal 82. Amb. in Offic. when Herod and Pilate condemned Christ and caused him to be put to death howsoever the people lamented it were sorry for him and sorely bewail'd his death yet were they all punished and why so because when they were able and might have taken him out of the hands of unjust and wicked Magistrates and so preserv'd his life they did it not in this regard they wrapt themselvs in the same guilt of blood and became murderers of him But lastly This text intends only private men not a Parliament the supreamest Judicatory and Soveraign power in the Kingdom for in this High Court the Kings Person is no other than another subject I say it again to this Court He personally stands as a single man to be questioned censured punished as the Crime and Cause shall be And in truth here lies the stone at which many have stumbled much like to that long controversie between us and the Church of Rome about Petros and Petra Peter and the Rock We distinguish them taking the person of Peter to be one thing his faith or Christ another Whereas the Papists will allow of no such distinction So the Title and Office of a King is one thing the Person another and howsoever the former comes not into question yet the latter may But many by mixing and confounding things together which should be severed and distinguished apprehend not how the Person of the King and not the Title and Office of a King can be questioned censured and punished Hugo Grotius putting down seven cases in which the people may have most real action against the

to save any man who should commit such crimes as by the Law of God and nature deserveth death I say such a power the people never had never gave him and so consequently a King hath it not 3. The Law saith Illud possimus quod jure poscimus Again it is no power which is not a lawfull power and therefore if a King murder the innocent and do acts of sinfull iniustice this tyrannicall power is not from God otherwise then by way of permission as a power to sin in devils and men is and therefore such a power is restrainable and punishable by the subiect as being a power I say not from God at all 4. Note the conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown For soedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit vis alteri in alterum a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another I ask then why a subject breaking his covenant with the King by treason or rebellions should be punished for it justly and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant and murdering the innocent should not be punished likewise Specially seeing it is acknowledged That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi Rutl plea for the people quest 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jur l. ille a quo 13. S. 5. If the King turn a paricide a lyon a waster and a destroyer of the People as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land if any thing should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by law it must be either because he hath not a superior but God or nemo potest a se ipso cogi but this ground is false and absurd for a politick society as by natures instinct they may appoint a head or heads to themselves so also if their head or heads become ravenous wolves the God of nature hath not left a perfect society and free people remedilesse but they may arraign and punish the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 6. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt two equals yea or superiors and inferiors the one hath some coactive power over the other If the father give his bond to pay the son a thousand pounds as his patrimony though before this ingagement the father was not oblieged but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is so oblieged to his son to pay a thousand pound that by the Law of Nations and the civil law the sonne hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father though his superior to pay him so much of his patrimony Even so though it should be granted which I shall never grant that the King stands superior to his Kingdom and States yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom as ours have don he must by that come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum what any man doth promise falleth under debt If the Covenant be politique and civil then the King must come under a civil obligation to perform the covenant and though there be none on earth superior to King and people to compel them both to perform what they have promised yet de jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance And this is cleer 1. By the law of Nations if one nation break covenant with another though both be Independant yet hath the wronged Nation power de jure to presse performance and to force the other to keep covenant or punish them for violation 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant described by Solomon Pro. 6.1,3 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth and art taken with the words of thy mouth The meaning is by a word of promise and covenant the creditor hath coactive power though he be an equal or an inferior to the man who is surety even by law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the debtor that he may force the creditor to pay If then the King giving not granting he were superior to his whole Kingdom come under a covenant to them to preserve their rights lives liberties but contrarywise destroys their persons goods cities by sword plunder and fire by his commissions granted to inhumane malignants and bloody Irish they have power to compel him to give satisfaction 3. The law shall warrant to loose the vassal from his lord when his lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in L. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quoest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Boltol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de Offic. Magist Imperatores Reges esse Primarios vassallos imperii Regni proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium aut Regnum committant feudo privari proinde ut alias vasallos 14 obie I find this to be a main objection That there is no law for subjects to put their Kings to death for any crime It is saith Bodin a great difference to say that a King may be lawfully slain by a strange Prince or by his Subjects It is no commendation or grace given to the law that it should be like the spiders web that catcheth the little flies and lets the greater escape But to answer 1. It is an error and a great mistake to say that the Commons in the house of Parliament or the representative Kingdom are subjects to the King This I utterly deny to wit as they are Judges there to be subjects to the King neither doe they Judicially convent his Person before them censure and iudge him to death quatenus as subiects but thus He being a minister a steward or servant of the people and they representing the whole body of the people doe call him to an account not as Subiects to him but indeed as his lord and master and so have a Soveraign power to iudge him to death if his crimes deserve the same 2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cause Ibid. for he confesseth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an absolute Soveraign but the Soveraignty is either in the people or Nobility in such a case saith he there is no doubt but it is lawfull to proceed against a Tyrant in way of justice and to put him to death and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius That

the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarchs but the Supreame Soveraignty resided in the people is a thing certainly known and so abundantly proved by other hands as there cannot be any shew of reason brought against it 3. Seeing the King is under law and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in iustice against him hence it will necessarily follow that the King by law may lawfully be put to death for the law saith the highest or supreamest Judge upon earth cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him A. de le l. non ideo minns Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17 And the reason is he is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil And if the judgment be the Lords not mans not the Parliaments as indeed it is not he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guilty except the would take upon him to be wiser then God respect persons in judgment and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now sure it is God only univocally and essentially as God is judge and God only and essentially and all men in relation to him are ministers legates deputies servants I say in relation to him equivocally and improperly Judges and meer created and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Judge so the Supream Councel of State and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder Treason and other high misdemeanors would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges and go contrary to Law so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do if he were sitting on the throne or bench 4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free which indeed are not Laws as Prickman proveth D. c. n. 78 but some circumstances belonging to the Laws Nevertheles if a king commit murder adultery theft and be a traitor a waster and destroyer of his people their goods lives Laws Liberties contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant in this case I confidently affirm there is no law that hath reason equity or justice for its bottom and ground against the putting of such a King to death by the great Councel of State as we have formerly shewed above him And the reason is cleer for the people have no power to make a law that the King shall not dy by the hand of Justice what wickednesse soever he should commit 5. I would gladly be informed by any Iurist or Statist If a Tyrant without a title may be killed yea by a private man why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom may not lawfully be put to death Ut L. vim F de Justit jure ubi plene per omnes For the first the law gives it and it is so generally held by Vasquez Barclay and others Vasq l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont Monar l. 4 cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter observe what Royalists themselues acknowledge Winzetus against Buchan saith of Nero Wintzet adv Buc. p. 275. that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himself excidit jure Regni lost all right to the kingdom And Barclay saith a Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himself of the right to the Crown So Grotius Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A wil or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one 6 The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reason for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part But here perhaps it will be objected cut off a mans head and the life of the body is taken away so the King being the head destroy him and the whole body of the Common-wealth is dissolved I answer God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth as it is adequate correlate 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another the worser for the better but the natural body without the head cannot live Lastly Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books where the King is said to be the only Supream Governor of this Realm hath no Peer in his Kingdom ought not to be under man Soveraign power of Parl l. 1. p 104 105. Thus answereth 1. That the meaning of al these books is the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly distributively as single men but if we take them collectively in Parliament as they are one body and represent the whole kingdom then they are above the King and may yea ought to restrain and question his actions his male-Administrations if there be just cause 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer to wit in distributing justice that is he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom but as the Law as any in receiving justice And for the Oath of Supremacy it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority formerly usurped in this Realm and not at all to be referred to Parliaments or their jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath which had its creation and authority from the Parliament 15. Obje Some say For people to adjudge their King to death is without example either in Scripture or humane history Answ 1. We argue this negatively this is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo. It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo. It is not lawfull It followeth not I read not in all the word of God of a man put to death for lying with a beast for witchcraft for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God yet these things are written and are all divine precepts 2. Physitians say that that Physick which only stirs the humors and doth not carry them away leaves the body worse then it found it so

King to accuse and punish him Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. The second is He may saith he be punished as a private man 4. Objec That place in Psal 105.14.15 is usually objected Touch not mine anointed This by Royallists is applied to Kings as a prohibition that no man touch them so as to hurt their Persons Answ 1. The words in the Prophet do not at all concern Kings but were spoken directly and immediatly of the Patriarks their wives families walking as strangers from Nation to Nation the which is evident by vers 6. by the whole serious of the Psalm which is historical some places of Genesis to which the words relate Gen. 12. 10. to 20. ch 20. 26. 1. to 29. and the general confession of all Expositors on the place The Cavalliers had in one of their Colours which was taken by the Scots at the battle of Marston July 2. Anno 1644. the Crown and the Prelates mitre painted with these words Nolite tangere Christos meos so that it seems the antichristian mitre claims here a share with the crown But 2. Admit this Scripture should be so meant which is not so yet nothing can be hence rightly gathered that Kings should be exempted from Arrests Imprisonments or Sentence of death it self For 1. If we take it spiritually for the internal oyl of the Spirit as this annointing is common to subjects as wel as Kings so it must follow necessarily that in their persons they are no more exempted from arraignment and capital censures than other men 2. Admit it be meant of an actual external Anointing yet that in it self affords Kings no greater priviledge than the inward unction of which it is a type neither can it priviledge them from the just corporal sentence of all kinds and this is manifest in Sihon Og Adonibezek Eglon Agag Joram Ahaziah Jehoaz and others who by Princes and subjects of another nation were apprehended and slain and justly as all grant without exception Besides Kings who are subordinate homagers and subjects to other Kings and Emperours though annointed may for treasons and rebellions against them be lawfully judged to death and executed as appears by sundry presidents in our own and forraign Histories Yea the Roman Greek and Germane Emperors have been Imprisoned Deposed and some of them judicially judged to death by their own Senates Parliaments and States for their oppression and tyranny So the ancient Kings of France Spain Arragon Brittain Hungarie Poland Denmark Bohemia India c. that justly notwithstanding any pretence of being anointed Soveraigns And it is by Grotius confessed Grot. de Jur. bel pac l. 1 cap. 4 That the People may punish the King to death for matters capital if so it be agreed on betwixt king and the people as in Lacedemonia 3. If the Scope and Sence of this Text be duly weighed it is so far from affording Kings any corporal immunities or exemption from punishment as it cleerly speaks the contrary For the words are not spoken of Kings but by God Himself spoken unto Kings that they should not touch his Spiritual anointed Saints men consecrated unto him by the oyl of the Spirit But you wil say What if they touch Gods anointed even spoil and murder them for his sake I answer The Law Gen. 9.6 excepteth none the dearest that nature knoweth are not excepted Who so sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed The Supream Court of Justice is here highly concerned Thus saith the Lord Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people 1 King 20.42 5. obiect Davids often sparing of Saul though in his hand is often object And Dr. Gauden in his late Letter to his Excellency saies You cannot be ignorant of Davids both consciencious and generous respect to Sauls safety and life whom he leaves to Gods justice by no usurpation of power successes or opportunities of revenge page 7. Ans 1. There is nothing from Davids carriage towards Saul in this particular but to bring it into a short account is thus Subjects ought not wilfully or purposely to murder or offer violence to the person of the King specially in their cold blood when he doth not actually assault them nor have a lawful power judiciously to proceed against him 2. But more particularly I answer The difference was but private and personal between Saul David David being Sauls private subject servant and son-in-law not publick between Saul and his Parliament or Kingdom Now many things are unlawful in private quarrels which are just and honourable in publick differences Saul intended no Arbitrary government nor to make Israel a conquered people nor yet to cut off all the godly under the pretence of hereticks and sectaries neither to destroy laws liberties and Parliaments nor came Saul against these Princes Elders and People who made him King only David's head would have made Saul lay down his arms 3. Howsoever some reasons may be given wherefore David spared Saul as 1. Being his father-in-law and lord too and so it would have been thought somewhat an unnaturall act in him and savoured too much of private revenge and ambition aspiring to the Crown before due time 2. By his lenity to convince Saul and reclaim him from his bloody pursuit and cleer his innocency to the world And lastly Manifest his dependance upon God and his special promise that he should enjoy the crown after Saul by divine appointment neverthelesse if these and other Scriptures be well perused Saul and David soldiers if not David himself conceived that David might with safe conscience have punished him as well as pittied him 1 Sam. 24.10.11 12.17.18 26.23.24 Expedient I confesse it was for the considerations mentioned to spare him but whether the thing in soro Dei and in it self altogether unlawful had he slain him specially after he had killed the Priests and destroyed both men and women children and sucklings in Nob 1 Sam. 22.18.19 I leave to the judicious Reader to think of 6. Objec That place 1 Sam 8.9 and ver 11. is much alleadged to prove both the absolute power of a King and the unlawfulnesse of resistance a Grot. de Jur. bel pac lib. 1. c. 4. n. 3. Hugo Grotius b Barcl cont mon l. 2. p. 64. Barclay c Arnis de fur 6. Mai. c. 1. n. 3. p. 157 158. Arnisaeus d Dr. Fern 3. p. Sect. 2. p. 10. Dr. Fern and others argue thus that by this place The People oppressed with the injuries of a tyrannous King have nothing left them but prayers and tears to God and will have us distinguish inter officium Regis potestatem between the Kings office and the Kings power and it cannot be ver 9.11 the custome and manner of the King but must be the