Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
prince_n duke_n king_n poland_n 2,753 5 11.6962 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A56168 An appendix to the late answer printed by His Majesties command, or, Some seasonable animadversions upon the late observator and his seaven anti-monarchicall assertions with a vindication of the King and some observations upon the two houses. Parker, Henry, 1604-1652. 1642 (1642) Wing P397; ESTC R30081 17,360 23

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

AN APPENDIX TO THE LATE ANSWER Printed by His Majesties COMMAND OR Some seasonable ANIMADVERSIONS upon the late Observator and his seaven Anti-monarchicall ASSERTIONS TOGETHER With a VINDICATION of the KING And some OBSERVATIONS upon the TWO HOUSES Printed Anno Dom. 1642. Seasonable ANIMADVERSIONS upon the late Observator and his seaven Anti-monarchicall ASSERTIONS IT is usuall I know for Books to have Prefaces and Playes Prologues but whosoever peruseth this must expect nothing but concise reasons forasmuch as Vnusq●isque suo sensu abundat so let him reflect and censure of this at his pleasure The Observator pag. 1. saith That power is originally inherent in the people c. To this the answer is that power is in God primariò per se according to that of the Apostle Rom. 13. and in the King or people but onely secundariò derivativè Power or Dominion is not a gift of Nature that is to say naturally inherent in us for if it were then might all men have equall power for that by nature we are all equall but power is a gift of God to Nature and is gratia gratis data and yet power is congruous in nature as was the power of King and office of Priesthood in Melchisedec for surely he had them both given or appointed to him by God being by interpretation King of Righteousnesse and King of Peace Heb. 2.7 And therefore it is not likely that he usurped to himselfe the Regall title of King no more then he did of being Priest and yet it was very probable that it was also agreeable in Reason and Nature and although not tyrannicall yet peaceable Kingly reigne and sacred Priesthood did fitly belong to him for he is by most Divines thought to have been Sem the eldest sonne of Noah and by the law of Nature of Moses and of most Nations the eldest is to inherit so that what was the right of Adam Seth and Noah might belong unto him by birth-right although it may be God confirmed it unto him extraordinarily But to returne power and dominion is derived from God and congruous in Nature but the power is in the people onely when they are absolutely free to chuse to themselves what forme of government they please as were the Jewes before they subjected themselves to Kings being formerly freed from the bondage of Egypt by the finger of God The Romanes when they erected their Senate and Consuls having rebelliously for it was no better shaken off the yoke of Kings The Venetians when they first instituted their Common-wealth But in Monarchies where the people have been brought into subjection either by the sword as in Turky Persia and the like or by innate and prescribing and prevalent authority as in Florence or by both as in France and Castile in these Dominions power is not inherent in the people but in the Prince And although some hereditary Monarches are more limited then others as is the King of France more then the great Turke and the King of England more then the King of France yet is their power derived immediately from God and inherent in themselves not in the people for those limitations are in conquered Nations but mere donatives of grace proceeding from the Prince or his Successors to the people touching certaine immunities and priviledges so that the Prince his power is the efficient cause of them and such immunities or priviledges are but as materiall effects Now as it is most improper to say that the effect should cause his owne cause so is it to say that a priviledged people should cause the Princes power or that Power should remaine originally in such a priviledged people Some Nations elect their Kings or Princes and restraine them far more by conditionall inaugurations then hereditary Monarches are or ought to be restrained or limited Yet have not such Nations power in themselves totally but onely partially that is they have power to conditionate with their Kings or Princes how farre forth they will be subject and by what Rules they will be governed but they have not power to conditionate with their Kings or Princes that they will only be subject at their owne pleasures and as themselves shall thinke good that is to say if they please at any time to assume more liberty unto themselves and to alter and disanull former Constitutions of Government that they may do it without the consent of their Kings or Princes This they cannot doe without treason to their Crownes or Diadems For although the persons of such Princes be elective yet is their power permanent jure constituto Coronae which though they claime not as from progenitors yet are they invested therewith as from Predecessors And therefore being enthroned they enjoy their dignities by prescription that is to say what belonged to their Predecessors belongeth in the same manner to them being once invested nor can such Nations revolt from their elected Princes without being reputed Rebels Now of this nature are the Kings of Poland Hungary and some other to speake nothing of the Duke of Venice for he is meerly titulary and a cypher and such Kings first and principally claime their authority from God the author of all power who enspheareth them in the Orbe of dignity above others And secondly they acknowledge it from the generall consent of the Nation which made choyce of them and over which they rule And surely such was the right and title of Saul the first King of Israel for he was appointed by God 1 Sam. 9.17 then anointed by Samuel Chap. 10. v. 1. afterwards approved by the people ibid. vers. 24. And finally confirmed in his Kingdome Chap. 11. vers. 14. And in the same manner was David likewise established in his Kingdome so that their first and chiefe claime was immediately from God and their second from the consent of the people Nor is it of any consequence to alleadge as the Observator seemeth to inferre pag. 1. that those Kings had an extraordinary Institution from God and therefore they might more lawfully claime their right as appointed and appropriated to them by God For to such Allegation it will be answered That there is no power but of God Rom. 13. So that whether God institute Kings by extraordinary or ordinary meanes it maketh no matter For although Saul and David were instituted extraordinarily by Gods speciall appointment yet most of the Kings of Judah and Israel reigned afterthem but by ordinary succession had they not therefore the same power that Saul and David had Surely the Scriptures tell us they had The Priests and Prophets in the old Law had an extraordinary vocation especially the Prophets the Priests or Ministers of the Gospell have but an ordinary vocation are they therefore defective in power to those of the old Law or have they not their vocation from God because they have not extraordinary calling Surely no For how could Sacraments be administred and the word preached So is it with Monarchs