Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	day_n	king_n	wales_n	2,304	5	9.9362	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57691	The bounds & bonds of publique obedience, or, A vindication of our lawfull submission to the present government, or to a government supposed unlawfull, but commanding lawfull things likewise how such an obedience is consistent with our Solemne League and Covenant : in all which a reply is made to the three answers of the two demurrers, and to the author of The grand case of conscience, who professe themselves impassionate Presbyterians.	Rous, Francis, 1579-1659.	1649 (1649)	Wing R2013; ESTC R15008	51,239	74

have not our Antagonists whether they would or no observ'd them in these cases of worldly rights and interests to have as oppositly yet as peremtorily differ'd one from another as people of any family ever did The Devill not being able to get the Text on his side by his wiles oft got the commentary so that we are to be excus'd if we hold many things in Church-men to be but as an Apohrypha at best which yet for esteem sake is alloted a place before anything else next after the genuine Text Having thus openly stated the scruples of my own and of many more consciences and to take off maskes not from the faces but from the consciences of these three and the multitude of other Scotch Casnists who have talkt so speciously for our Covenant Vindication of an Heirs just Title our submitting to it and joyning with others immediately least right suffer wrong one day I cannot I say but aske the same men plainly What difference in effect they find● betwixt the Titles and right of the Prince of Wales and of the n●w King of Scotland notwithstanding all their obligation of Covenant to submit to him as such It is not enough by Covenant to preserve an aery Title onely to a Prince and by the same Covenant to suspend all the rest of his solid power and right certain●ly his Royall commands notwithstanding all this talke are no more obey'd in Scotland now then the Episcopall commands of our Countryman the Bishop of C●alcedon are now obey'd in Turkey But what hinders him from exercising any Kingly right in Scotland as yet The Covenant which is not yet satisfied How is it then that some of our Presbyterians say that the same Covenant indispensably opens the doore to him here If the ●ing aske the Scots why they put the Law of the Covenant so to his obedience 〈◊〉 the first thing which determines all his other rights afterwards They can onely say that they swore it in his Fathers raigne and it is now eternall Though I censure nothing here yet I cannot but conclude-hence That they of themselves as well as our Parliament have made a Law above all other Lawes and more then a reformable Magna Charta For the Government of the Kingdome which may be exercised according to it without Kings and against Kings The first thing which was ever offer'd to him from the Kingdome of Scotland was an authority by far transcending his own viz. that of excommunication For as their late proceedings with him at the Hagu● shew hee was by that subtilty tryed whether he would refuse first to acknowledge Iames Graham alias Montrosse or that great power of the Churches by which he might be awed to greater things afterwards To backe this likewise the Commissioners of the Synode said p. 22 that they negotiated with him in a capacity altogether distinct from the Commissioners of Parliament as being persons commissioned by the Kirke which is commisioned with a Iusdivinum Our Bishops certainly never undertook such a jurisdiction supremacy and unlesse these had witnessed so much of themselves to all the world no one would believe that in such a poore Country and so much forme of Religion there could be such high passions of ambition Besides if it be a true rule That he who is the maker ought to be the interpreter of a Law then let all the world observe one thing That the Kirk having made the Covenant as the principle of all supream rights both of State and Religion then they alone ought to give the interpretation of it from time to time as they de facto did not onely last yeare contrary to the interpretation of their owne Parliament but also for many yeares together have peremptorily prest it upon ours So that it makes a fundamentall change of Government there though differently from what our Parliament hath made here the jus publicum both of Religion and security of State with them lying in the Covenant and that lying in the brests of Churchmen chosen by one another and our's lying in the power of Laymen chosen by the People and judging by the Common Lawes of equity and necessity and of the word of God It were in vaine to say the Kirke onely recommends their interpretation to the State For last yeare they did it with a Penalty upon the Parliament their whole Army and the body of the people which obey'd them if it be a penalty to bee given to the Devill and to bee put into a State of eternall death Wherefore they there are or else none are anywhere the true judges of right who make themselves judges of wrong and of punishment To conclude how practicable soever the Covenant was at first or how erroneously soever we may now conceive it to be extinct or to be a principle fitted to justify a change of Kingly Government which was actually made first of all by it and their Presbytery in Scotland yet it being originally but a Politicall or condition all Oath relating to our former Unions when Warre w● and to our cooperation under our respective Magistrates only not in a way contrary to the fifth Commandment and that all the Magistracy which we enjoy and by whom we are now fully possest if they have not laid it aside yet call us not out to act the remaining part of it and that it interprets not it selfe so that each private man is not made by it his owne Magistrate and that there is no penal Article in it obliging us private men to pursue a publique Warre upon the Magistrates or any other mens bare neglect or misinterpreting it to themselves who therefore can contrary to all this peremptorily warrant us now yea necessitate us to begin or assist to the desolation of warre and bloodshed upon it especially seeing it is made very dubious at least whither we be now tyed to it at all or no Further more how good so ever it was at first yea though that other Nation had not given it it 's mortall wound when they attempted to give us ours both in England and in Ireland which was the cause of this effect of change of Government here yet if when it was in force it should any other way have received a bad tincture of passion or ambitious policy among our selves why might it not by our Magistrates order have been as well carried out of our Churches as the brazen Serpent was out of the Temple after it was unhappily perverted to its wrong end If otherwise and that it must at all hazards be indirectly made a snare to peaceable consciences even after it is extinct as hath been proved I shall desire any pious spirit to judge whither it doth not in such a case deserve much of Campanellas censure which he gave upon the Spanyards India Treasury that it was gotten in blood sailes home in a sea of blood and never rests till it be all laid out in

him yet he allowed him to break the childs vow for giving him a sacrifice and both to be guiltles and then why may not we be now absolved if our publique Parent judges it not fit that wee should be any longer tide formally to a conditionall Oath though it have relation to some sacred things You will say no because the Parent did not as a party solemnly concurre to the Childs vow and having never consented he might the better dissent but our publique Parent did concurre at a party to our Oath The Parliament and People tooke the Covenant joyntly together and it is said that if the Father heare the vowes and contradicts them not in the same day then he confirms them and cannot break them without iniquity To this I reply First that v. 16 it is said the Childe is free after the dissent of the Parent and that the Parent is charged with whatsoever was amisse in him which is excuse enough for us of the people Secondly the difference is great in a maine point of the paralell because after the concurrence of the Father to the childs vow for sacrificing something to God that might be compleated in the Temple without his further helping it on but we cannot doe any thing in our case without the cooperation of our publique Parent all along neither can he do any thing without the concurrences of many other possible but uncertaine conditions and if he in effect finde those conditions have come contrary to his publique endeavours what may we doe will it be enough for us to rest in having attempted the utmost of our private endeavours with him or will you authorize every man upon private judgement or interpretation to begin a warre in his own sence A League or Pact authorized betwixt private Neighbours over a whole Nation or over part of it is not as a League betwixt Prince and Prince because these have conditions exprest how and when to begin warre upon one another in case their Leagues be broken But there is no such thing exprest in terminis in that Covenant which we have made one with another and which we made subordinately to our Magistrate so that if we or the Magistrate faile we are equally left to Gods justice solely and to the forfeiture of our own penalties due to him and every one is to answer for his owne deficiency in his own Station And being left to our selves againe we are left to act onely so much of our Oath or of the ancient end of it as we were bound to before we swore which is a great deale because we were bound by precept before wee were by promise all the dayes of our lives to do our utmost for the glory of God and the good of our neighbour Secondly Princes or States who by the supremacy of their powers are able to make Lawes for their separated Kingdomes when they unite their supream Powers they are able to make a common Law for all their Kingdoms together which is called a League or Compact But a law when it comes to be broken which is a publique thing and therefore of every mans interest may be vindicated publiquely by Warre and by those who have a posse regni But I cannot say the same may be done for the Covenant for quo jure can it be done The Scots indeed by one way of arguing make it greater then a Law and by another make it lesse which is when they one while affirme it unalterable and unreformable as a divine text and another while confesse it was not made by the joynt concurrence of all those who with them are essentiall to the making a publique Law I conceive we may safely say it is of a Constitution inferriou● to that of a Law and therefore its obligation is lesse though its penalty be greater to the failers in it It was made use of only as a convenient instrument or meanes for the better attaining some lawes as its end A Law it was not because it was not made by all the then Legislative powers of the Kingdome For the Kings concurrence in England if not in Scotland was then held requisite for passing a Law and he ever dissented from this Covenant Halfe the inferiour sort of the People have not any Interest in it nor have taken it And not having any obligation to it how I pray you can they justly be drawne into the Penalty due to it as they must all be if a Warre which is effectually a Penall thing be begun though by a part of the Nation for the nature of Warre is such that it puts a whole Kingdome into imminent danger of desolation though but begun in a part and by a party of it Thus far I have endeavoured to shew the true fast and loose of all promissory Oaths and how their obligations cease according to the nature of the things which they are affixed to The Author of the grand case of Conscience p 1. Objects That if inconvenience may break a promise or disengage an Oath then many may be cheated and David was much mistaken Psal. 15.4 Who saith he shall dwell in Gods Tabernacle who sweareth to his own hinderance and changeth not I answer David speaks here of an Oath violated by a change onely in the Promiser who by his Oath hath past a right to another and therefore can no longer dispose of it againe the party to whom he swore may dispose of it as he pleaseth and may dispense him of it because no man hath a right to make another man keepe his owne longer then he please himselfe It is a duty to pay a debt but not to receive it Finally this is nothing to those cases where the change is not in us but in other persons and in things which relate principally and conjoyntly to the fulfilling of the Oath or Promise For if I promise Titius a sword at such a time and he then chance to be mad an accident not exprest betwixt us at first am I bound to put it into his hands in this change because I was the first promiser Wheras it is said that the obligation of somethings end because they can be no longer kept as that of the Kings person c. He ans. p. 11. That if men shall by violence put an end to the thing that thereby the obligation may end too that is a breach of Covenant A woman promiseth to be faithful to her husband so long as he lives but if she to marry another kills him she breaks her promise I grant it easily that they who use violence to break lawfull contracts sin grievously which is a thing now confest in every Church of Scotland but what is that to those who use no violence to breake them at all nor can helpe it when it is done although many be undone by it One thing I most earnestly desire to learne in this question propounded I guesse concerning the