Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	charles_n	king_n	naples_n	2,223	5	11.5373	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26169	The fundamental constitution of the English government proving King William and Queen Mary our lawful and rightful king and queen : in two parts : in the first is shewn the original contract with its legal consequences allowed of in former ages : in the second, all the pretences to a conquest of this nation by Will. I are fully examin'd and refuted : with a large account of the antiquity of the English laws, tenures, honours, and courts for legislature and justice : and an explanation of material entries in Dooms-day-book / by W.A.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Reflections on Bishop Overall's Convocation-book.	1690 (1690)	Wing A4171; ESTC R27668	243,019	223

particular Consideration of him to the second Part. TO proceed to positive Law I shall shew how the Contract between Prince and People stood and hath been taken both before the reputed Conquest and since Where 't will appear 1. That Allegiance might and may in some Cases be withdrawn in the Life-time of one who continued King until the occasion of such withdrawing or Judgment upon it 2. That there was and is an establish'd Judicature for this without need of recurring to that Equity which the People are suppos'd to have reserv'd 3. That there has been no absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England from the beginning of the Monarchy but that the People have had a Latitude for setting up whom of the Blood they pleas'd upon the Determination of the Interest of any particular Person except where there has been a Settlement of the Crown in force 4. That they were lately restored to such Latitude 5. The People of England have duly exercis'd their Power in declaring for King William and Queen Mary and recognizing them to be Lawful and Rightful King and Queen 1. If the King not observing his Coronation-Oath in the main lose the Name of King then no Man can say that Allegiance continues But that so it was before the reputed Conquest appears by the Confessors Laws Vid. Leges Sancti Edwardi 17. de Regis Officio Nec nomen Regis in eo constabit where they declare the Duty of the King But the King because he is Vicar to the Supream King is constituted to this end that he should rule his Earthly Kingdom and the People of God and above all should reverence God's Holy Church and defend it from injurious Persons and pluck from it wrong Doers and destroy and wholly ruin them Vid. Bracton l. 2. c. 24. Est enim Corona Regis facere Justitiam Judicium tenere Pacem sine quibus non potest eā tenere which unless he does not so much as the Name of a King will remain in him c. To which Bracton seems to refer when he says The King cannot hold his Crown without maintaining Justice Judgment and Peace that therein consists his Crown or Royal Authority Hoveden shews how this Law was receiv'd by William 1. Hoveden f. 604. Rex atque Vicarius ejus Nota There was occasion for naming the Deputy by reason of the accession of Normandy requiring the King's Absence sometimes The King and his Deputy or Locum tenens in his Absence is constituted to this end c. in substance as above Which unless he does the true Name of King will not remain in him And as the Confessor's Laws have it in which there is some mistake in the Transcriber of Hoveden otherwise agreeing with them Pope John witnesses That he loses the Name of King who does not what belongs to a King which is no Evidence that this Doctrine is deriv'd from the Pope of Rome The Pope only confirms the Constitution or gives his Approbation of it Vid. The Case of Rehoboam inf in the Quotation out of Lord Clarendon f. 32. perhaps that the Clergy of those Times might raise no Cavils from a supposed Divine Right And to shew that this is not only for violating the Rights of the Church the Confessor's Laws inform us that Pipin and Charles his Son not yet Kings but Princes under the French King foolishly wrote to the Pope asking him if the Kings of France ought to remain content with the bare Name of King Lambert Qui vigilanter defendunt regunt Ecclesiam Dei Populum ejus By whom it was answer'd They are to be called Kings who watch over defend and rule God's Church and his People c. Hoveden's Transcriber gives the same in substance but through a miserable mistake in Chronology will have it that the Letter was written by Pipin and his Son to W. 1. Lambart's Version of St. Edward's Laws goes on to Particulars among others That the King is to keep without diminution all the Lands Honours Dignities Rights and Liberties of the Crown Barones Majores Minores Vita Aelfredi f. 62. Ego tria promitto populo Christiano meisque subditis c. That he is to do all things in his Kingdom according to Law and by the Judgment of the Proceres or Barons of the Realm and these things he is to swear before he is crown'd By the Coronation-Oaths before the reputed Conquest and since all agreeing in Substance every King was to promise the People three things 1. That God's Church and all the People in the Kingdom shall enjoy true (a) Nota Protection Peace 2. That he will forbid Rapine and all Injustice in all Orders of Men. 3. That he will promise and command Justice and Mercy in all Judgments And 't is observable that Bracton Bracton lib. 3. c. 9. who wrote in the time of H. 3. transcribes that very formulary or rather Abridgment of the Oath which was taken by the Saxon Kings In Bracton's time 't is certain the Oath was more explicit tho reducible to those Heads and 't is observable that Bracton says The King is created and elected to this end that he should do Justice to all Where he manifestly shews the King's Oath to be his part of a binding Contract it being an Agreement with the People while they had Power to chuse With Bracton agrees Fleta and both inform us Fleta lib. 1. c. 17. that in their days there was no scruple in calling him a Tyrant and no King who oppresses his People violatâ dominatione as one has it or violentâ as the other either the Rule of Government being violated or with a violent Government both of which are of the like import Mirror p. 8. The Mirrour at least puts this Contract out of dispute shewing the very Institution of the Monarchy before a Right was vested in any single Family or Person When forty Princes who had the Supream Power here chose from among them a King to reign over them and govern the People of God and to maintain the holy Christian Faith and to defend their Persons and Goods in quiet by the Rules of Right And at the beginning they caused the King to swear That he will maintain the holy Christian Faith with all his Power and will rule his People justly without regard to any Person and shall be obedient to suffer Right or Justice as well as others his Subjects And what that Right and Justice was in the last result the Confessor's Laws explain when they shew that he may lose the Name of King Vid. Seld. spicil ad Ead. merum f. 171. Dissert ad Flet. f. 591. Hoved. f. 608. Leges H. 1. confirming St. Edward ' s Laws Cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater meus emendavit consilio Baronum suorum Mat. Par. f. 243. Barones petierunt de Rege Johanne quasdam libertates Leges Regis Edwardi f.

part in the King If the King invade what is not his Right Page 344. he may be oppos'd with just Force because he hath not so far any Supremacy Cited in Christian Loyalty pag. 348. and this he thinks must take place tho it be said that the Power of War is in the King for that saith he is only to be understood of Foreign War when whosoever hath any part in the Supream Power cannot but have a Right to defend that part Object Mr. Falkner indeed excepts against this as erecting two distinct Governments each of which have a Supream Power of judging and executing Answ 1 Yet he agrees that this is warrantable in the Empire 1. Because it is allowed by its Constitutions and Capitulations But then he says If we look into the Records of the former Ages Page 349. we may thence discern that no Subjects whatsoever of this Realm had under any pretence an Authority to bear Arms against the King How far he is right in this Assertion I submit to their Judgments who shall impartially weigh the following Authorities 2. His other Reason of a Difference between the State of the Empire and of England is That the Princes of the Empire in their own Territories enjoy u Right of peculiar Soveraignty which alters not the case in relation to the Emperor for both they and their People are Subjects to the Emperor and the mischief of a Judgment left in Subjects is either equal both in one and the other or if there be any difference 't is greater in the Empire because tho the Latitude for judging may be the same the Princes there have the greater Opportunities of gathering strength against the Soveraign and consequently more Temptations to it than where all is more immediately under the Inspection and Influence of the Supream Governour Answ 2 But still it appears by what I have shewn out of Mr. Falkner that what he says must relate only to an ordinary Judicial Power or in ordinary Cases for if he allows it in extraordinary Cases even where the Prince is more absolute than he agrees the Kings of England to be à fortiori is this allowable here in such Emergencies Pag. 344 345. Wherefore notwithstanding his charging the two Jesuits Lessius and Becanus with an high strain of Treason and unchristian Disloyalty bating what they say in justification of killing a Prince by private Persons for their self-defence even while he remaineth a Prince I see not any material difference between him and them And being our Dispute is chiefly with Papists with others but as they are their Friends out of Folly or Design it cannot be improper to transcribe part of his Quotation from the two learned Jesuits agreeing almost word for word in these Positions Page 344. That a Prince who hath a just Title becomes a Tyrant with respect to the Administration of the Government when he designs in his Government and aims at his private Advantage and not the Publick Good and burdens the Common-wealth with unjust Exactions sells the Offices and Places of Judges and makes Laws to his own Advantage and not the Publick That when this Tyrant is no longer fit to be born this Prince is first to be depos'd or to be declar'd an Enemy by the Common-wealth or the Chief Estates of the Kingdom or any other who hath Authority and then he thereby ceaseth to be a Prince and it becomes lawful to attempt any thing against his Person and Life It being made a Question What was Bishop Bedell's Opinion of Subjects taking Arms against their Prince in Extraordinary Cases he having been said barely to represent the Defence made by others without interposing any thing of his own and the Learned Writer of his Life having declar'd it unlawful and impious for a Subject to resist his Prince in any Case whatsoever which he says he observes for fear the Bishop's words should be taken by the wrong Handle As if the Bishop gave no Intimation of his Mind herein to countenance resisting in any case whatsoever Life of Bishop Bedell p. 442. I shall take leave to give an account of the Bishop's Answer to Mr. Wadsworth who charges the Hugonots and Guises of France and Holland with raising Civil Arms shedding of Blood occasioning Rebellion Rapine Desolations principally for their new Religion The Bishop says Page 443. these poor People having endur'd such barbarous Cruelties Massacres and Martyrdoms as scarce the like can be shewed in all Stories are now accused as the Authors of all they suffer'd No says the Bishop they be the Laws of the Roman Religion that are written in Blood and the perfidious Violation of the Edicts of Pacification that have set France and Flanders in combustion And afterwards having enlarg'd upon the Fact he adds And tell me in good sooth Mr. Waddesworth Page 444. Do you approve such barbarous Cruelty Do you allow the Butchery at Paris What is this less than to say that no Man can condemn these poor Protestants without approving the Cruelties exercis'd against them The Bishop proceeds in their Vindication Do you says he Page 445. think Subjects are bound to give their Throats to be cut by their fellow Subjects or to offer them without either humble Remonstrance or Flight to their Princes at their meer Wills against their own Laws and Edicts You would know quo jure the Protestants Wars in France and Holland are justified I interpose not my own Judgment not being throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries but I tell you what both they and the Papists also both in France and Italy have in such Cases alledged First the Law of Nature which they say not only alloweth but inclineth and enforceth every living thing to defend it self from Violence Secondly That of Nations which permitteth those that are in the Protection of others to whom they owe no more but an honourable Acknowledgment in case they go about to make themselves absolute Soveraigns and usurp their Liberty Added in the Margin to resist and stand for the same And if a lawful Prince which is not yet Lord of his Subjects Lives and Goods shall attempt to dispoil them of the same The Passage above is to be considered as a Relation not as the Author's Opinion But yet for fear of taking it by the wrong handle the Reader is desired to take notice that a Subject's resisting his Prince in any Cause whatsoever is unlawful and impious under colour of reducing them to his own Religion after all humble Remonstrance they may say they stand upon their own Guard and being assailed repel Force with Force as did the Maccabees under Antiochus In which case notwithstanding the Person of the Prince himself ought always to be sacred and inviolable These are the Rules of which the Protestants that have born Arms in France and Flanders and the Papists also both there and elsewhere as in Naples that