Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	henry_n	king_n	york_n	3,078	5	9.8520	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

ever yet understand You pretend you can shew their books and Sermons for it but I am very confident you can shew none 2. I observe you promise in your book more then you make good you promise as if you would shew severall bookes and Sermons of the subscribers yet you quote but one viz. Mr. Loves Sermon at Vnbridge now because you single him out from among his Brethren I shall therefore speak the more in his vindication 1. I perceive you quote Mr. Love no lesse then ten times in your Clerico-Classicum yet never mention him at all in your Pulpit Incendiary so that it seems you could not them rake together so much matter against him as to make him a Pulpit Incendiary 2. I took notice further that you quote him in the front spice of your book as if what you had alledged from him would have made much for your cause for bringing the King to Capitall punishment his words you quote are these Men of blood are not meet persons to be at peace with til all the guilt of blood be expiated avenged either by the sword of the Law or the law of the Sword else a peace can neither be safe nor just Chr. Love in his Englands distemper pag. 37. Answ. To which I have four things to say 1. There is no mention at all of the King either in that passage or any other part of his Sermon that Hee should be cut off 2. Mr. Love doth clearly expresse himselfe whom he means by those men of blood viz. not the King but as he saith pag. 32. of Englands distemper Many malignant humors are to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdome before we can be healed 3. T is true Mr. Love then was and still is of that mind that those who were the chief instruments to engage the King in the late bloody War should be cut off either by the sword of the Law in a time of peace or if not reach them that way by the law of the sword in the time of war and this he and all others who approved of the Parliaments taking up of defensive arms and have taken the Covenant are bound in their places and Callings to indeavour after according to the fourth Article of the Covenant wherein we are bound that malignants may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offence shall require or deserve or the supream Iudicatories respectively or others having power from them for that effect shall judg convenient Yet 4. Mr. Love doth well consider that in that very part of the Covenant where we promise to endeavour to bring Delinquents to condign punishment we promise to preserve the person of the King as Artic. 3. and 4. Yea those Mr. Love deems should be brought to condigne punishment whom the Covenant describes to be malignants and evill instruments viz. such as hinder the Reformation of Religion divide the King from his people and have not you done that or one of the Kingdomes from another or that make any factions or parties among the people of all which your selfe and the men you plead for have been most notoriously guilty as wel as the malignant therefore deserve to be brought to condign punishment as well as they As for that other passage of Mr. Loves in pag. 32. of his Sermon which you quote It will search to the quick to find out whether King James or Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would ear●h to the quick whether Rochell was not betrayed and by whom It would goe to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Mr. Love in his Englands Distemper pag. 23. To this I have 3 things briefly to answer for his vindication viz. Mr. Loves desire is that the earth should not cover the blood of the slain but that the shedders of blood should be all made manifest he often wisht that the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland the Betrayers of the Protestants in Rotchell the Conspirators of King James or Prince Henrys death if they did come to an untimely end might be found out 2. I demand of you is there any clause in that Sermon or any tendency that way to charge the King with the death of King Iames or Prince Henry or with the blood of Rochell or Ireland 3. If he had charged all that blood upon the King which he did not yet there is not the least intimation in all his Sermon that you should bring the King to Capitall punishment Now that Mr. Loves judgment was utterly against cutting off the King I shall produce anon a book of his long since in print against that horrid attempt Was it not yet more of your ingenuity and candor to assert several notorious falsities and untruths as to instance pag. 6. of your Vindication in the margin where you say the Agreement of the people was the same for substance with that of the Armies and declared against by the Parliament in Decemb. 1647. there is one untruth again you say that one of the Souldiers was shot to death for promoting it this is first a most notorious untruth and secondly a most injurious charging the Army with the blood of that man the man that was shot to death was not at all so much as questioned for promoting that Agreement but being sent with his Company by the Generall to New-castle did with others make a mutiny resisted and beat their Officers tooke away the Colours from their Ensigne beat him with his own Colours for which this fellow that was sh●t to death was condemned c. Answ. 1. You who are so pragmaticall as to fasten falsities and untruths upon the Ministers will shew your self to be I say not the father of lies yet a son of falsehood 2. It seems you are put to your shifts in searching out any accusation against the subscribers for from their Representation you run to their Vindication and leap as far as the sixth page at once and therein it seems can meet with nothing for your purpose in the body of their book that you are forc't to pitch upon a small marginal note which I need not answer yet I shall and I hope clearly evidence that they speak truly but you falsly for you say it is said in the marginall note that the Agreement of the People is the same for substance with the Agreement of the Army I affirm 't is true though you say 't is false I have compared the one and the other together and find them for substance the same only I must confesse the late Agreement hath more pernicious passages in it then the former Agreement of the People had which was voted by the Commons assembled in Parliament 9. November 1647. to be destructive to the being of Parliaments and to the fundamentall Government of the Kingdome And afterwards in December 17. 1647.

Here Mr. Love doth accuse Court-preachers Parasities of flattery bu● is there the least word here of accusing the King of blood-guiltinesse The second place where he makes mention of the King is in p. 19. and there he saies nothing but this Is not our King the head divided from his Parliament the Representative body of this Kingdome and is not one member divided from another and doth Mr. Love in this accuse the King of blood-guiltinesse These are the two places where Mr. Love speakes about the King I am sure there is not one word else touching the King in all his Sermon As for your false charge against Mr Love that he intimated unnatural horrible bloud-guiltiness in the King as if he had been guilty of K. James his death Prince Henrys death the blood of the Protestants in Rochell and the Rebellion of Ireland and al the Protestant blood there this you say in p. 23. of his Sermon To this I have two things to answer in his behalf 1. I need not become his Advocate the Sermon may plead for him that made it al that Mr. Love saies is this It would search to the quick to find out whether King James and Prince Henry his son came to a timely death yea or no It would search to the quick to know whether Rochell and all the Protestants in it were not betrayed into the hands of their enemies and by whom it would go to the quick to find out whether the Irish Rebellion was not plotted promoted and contrived in England and by whom Is here the least charge against the King cannot a man speak of King Iames or Prince Henries death but must it bee interpreted that he said King CHARLES had a hand in it cannot a man wish that the betrayers of the Protestants in Rochel the contrivers of the Rebellion in Ireland may be discovered but must all the guilt of that blood be needs laid upon the Kings head 2. But suppose he had intimated that the King was guilty of blood-guiltynesse which he did not yet is there not the least intimation of that for which you alledg him viz. to prove that it was his decl●red judgment that the King was to be put to death you labour to stain his reputation but you do no way strengthen your own assertion I am sure Mr. Love declared his judgment against putting the King to death long before the Armies attempt to bring him to tryall as appears by that book mentioned before entituled Works of darknesse brought to light printed about two years since You say that Mr. Love made the King the Troubler of England as Achan was of Israel and hath these words p. 32. It was the Lord that tr●ubled Achan because he troubled Israell Oh that in this our State Physitians would resemble God to cut off those from the land who have distemperd it M●lius est ut pereat unus quam unit as Immedicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est ne pars sincera trabatur Answ. 1. Did not your heart give your hand the lye when you wrote these words doth not your Conscience tel you that there is not the least syllable in Mr. Loves Sermon tending to this that the King was the Troubler of England as Achan was of Israell 2. Doth not Mr. Love clearly expresse himself whom he meant by those Achans who were to be cut off and that but three or four lines before those words you quote of Achan where he saith that there are many malignant humers to be purged out of many of the Nobles and Gentry of this Kingdom before we can be healed but there is not in that place nor in 13 pages before any one word about the King and what is said of him in p. 16 and 19. is not in the least disparagement to his Royall person and authority as I made appear before 3. The phrase by any grammaticall construction cannot be referred to the King for hee wisht that the State Physitians would resemble God to cut off those from the land that had distempered it now had it been meant of the King he would have wisht that they would have cut him off not those off that distempered it As for those Latin sayings Melius est ut pereat unus quam unitas and Imm●dicabile vulnus Ense recidendum est ne pars sincera trabatur these expressions cannot bee referred to the King unlesse something spoken either before or after of which there is not a word doth inforce such an inference Besides Mr. Love doth well know that although the cutting off one Malignant member may preserve the body yet the cutting off the head though there may be Malignant humours in it is not the way to save the body but to destroy it You goe on But yet more plaine pag. 37. men who lye under the guilt of much innocent blood saith Mr. Love are not meet persons to be at peace with till all the guilt of bloud be expiated and avenged either by the sword of the Law or law of the sword Answ. 1. But yet more plaine say you truely you had need of something more plaine say I before you will be able to make it appeare that ever Mr. Love did plead for killing the King 2. It seemes this is the plainest passage in the Sermon but doth this ●peak what you assert that the King must be punished according to his demerits Is there any clause to this purpose in the words you quote 3 Mr Love doth well consider that in the same Article or part of the Covenant wherein we promise to bring Delinquents to punishment we engage our selves to preserve the person of the King 4 I do verily beleeve Mr. Love is still of this minde and I have some cause to know it that the guilt of that innocent bloud which hath been spilt must be expiated and avenged on some of the chiefest Incendiaries either by the sword of the Law in a time of Peace or if that cannot reach them by the Law of the sword in a time of Warre and what is this more then we are all ingaged to by Covenant to bring Delinquents to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judi●atories of both Kingdomes or others having power from them for that effect shall judge convenient But for you to wrest and torture his words as if he meant that the guilt of the bloud shed could not be expiated unless KING CHARLES were executed I am perswaded there was never such an expression from his mouth nor motion in his heart The second Author you alledge is Mr. John Knox who in his book● called the Appellation c. affirms say you that the people may depose their Princes and punish him c. Answ. 'T is true Mr. Knox spake more freely in this point then any Scottish Divine that I know of before or since yet let me tell you that what he

9 10. and the men of Bethshemesh 1 Sam. 6. 13 14. 19 20. with many others to satisfie you herein that honest intenteons cannot justifie sinfull actions Besides this plea were somewhat the more tolerable if the intentions of the Army had been for publick good but if we may guesse at their intentions by their own expressions in print they will then appeare to bee more sinfull treasonable and irreligious Were not their intentions exprest in their Remonstrance Novemb. 16. 1648. and other papers of theirs as against an accomodation with the King upon any tearms at all p. 57. though never so safe or just for the taking away the Kings life p. 62. that the Prince and Duke of York be made incapable of government that if they come not in render themselves that they stand exiled for ever dye without mercy if ever found or taken in this Kingdome pag. 62. that a Period be put to this Parliament that the supream power be put into the hands of the people pag. 65 66. that in stead of this all future Parliaments there may be a new kind of Representative that all professing faith in God shall have a Toleration whatever his opinion be that the Magistrate meddle not with matters of Religion these and such like are the declared intentions of the Army which must justifie all their irregular and unjustifiable procedings by this it appears that the ends they aim at are no more justifiable then the means they use Now whether such intentions can justifie their irregular actions let the world judg so that I may say of them as one did of men of the Popish Religion if these bee Saints who bee Scythians if these be Catholicks who be Caniballs 3. For the extraordinary necessity the Army pleaded for I have but three things to say in way of answer 1. T is apparent by what was mentioned before that the end the Army aimed at were no more justifiable then the means they used now what can be more unreasonable then to make necessity a plea to justifie not only irregular actions but corrupt ends also 2. The godly in former ages had a more conscientious tendernesse then to make necessity a plea and patron of impiety they thought it better to suffer the greatest evill then to commit the least sin Ferenda est magis omnis necessitas duam perpe●randa est aliqua iniquitas said Aug. in Ps. 73. yea it was a Maxime among the primitive Christiane Nulla est necessitas delinquendi quibus una est necessitas non delinquendi 3. I am of the same mind with the subscribers viz. that the necessity pleaded for is either meerly pretended or else contracted by their own misscarriages And this I am induced to beleeve because at one time they plead a necessity for treating with the King as they confest in a Letter to the House of Common● July 18. 1647. And at another time plead a necessity for their violence 〈◊〉 the Parliament because they did 〈◊〉 with the King must not this be a pretended necessity In one Remonstrance in June 23. 1647 they say There can be no peace in this Kingdome 〈◊〉 and lasting without a provision for the Rights Quiet and 〈◊〉 of His Majesties Royall family And in mother Remonstrance of November 16 1648. they declare that it can neither be just before God nor safe for the Kingdom to have any accommodation with the King upon any terms at all that shall imply His Restitution c. but that he must be brought to tryall and judgment for treason and blood he was guilty of Is not this ground sufficient to suspect that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended or contracted when they have done the quite contrary this year to what they did the last yet plead a necessity for doing of both though never so contrariant the one to the other So much at present to this plea of necessity I shall have occasion afterwards to speak more to this point I observe by pag. 16 17. that you are not content to vent your passions against the Ministers of London only but also against the secluded and imprisoned Members of Parliament whom you falsely accuse for countenancing the tumultuous violence of the Apprentices imbezling the 200000 l. appointed for the relief of Ireland corresponding with the revolted ships the Scots Army and the Insurrections in Kent c. For the taking off those scandalls from those renowned Gentlemen I referre the Reader to that clear and satisfactory Vindication of the imprisoned and secluded Members of the House of Commons printed January 20. 1648. Hoping that the Lord will bring forth their righteousnesse as the light and their just dealing as the noon day You have been as full of changes as the vannes of your steeples one while stirring up the people against the King and for the Parliament witnesse many of your Sermons preacht before the Houses and elsewhere Answ. 1. With what face dare you who have been tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrin accuse so many grave and godly Ministers of ●icklenesse who have still kept their first stedfastnesse turning neither to the right hand nor to the left Indeed you and your teachers have been as changeable as the Vannes but the Ministers of London as fixt and immoveable in their principles as the Steeples themselves 2. If you mean by stirring up the People against the King and for the Parliament that the ministers did being called thereunto plead for the lawfulnesse of defensive arms against the King with his forces this I grant for they were bound by a Solemne Oath to assist the Forces raised by the Parliament against the Forces raised by the King without their consent But if by stirring up the people against the King you mean the bringing of the King to capitall punishment or the taking away of his life then I flatly deny that any of the subscribers did stirre up the people to that end or that they have any books or Sermons in print to that purpose I am sure many of them in their Bookes and Sermons did expresse their utter abhorrency of any such intendment I 'le instance but in two of the subscribers though I could mention many more the one is Mr. Case who though he were a zealous Anti-cavalierist yet no Anti-carolist in a Fast Sermon before the House of Commons 26. October 1642. pag. 11 12. hath these words It is and hath been from ancient times the cursed policy of desperate malignant Courtiers and Counsellors when they would arme Princes and Potentates against the poore people of God to possesse their ears and hearts with this prejudice that they are enemies to Monarchy With such jealousies did the enemies of God and his people in the neighbour Nation of Scotland labour to possesse his Majesty towards those his loyall Subjects there they were represented to His Majesty as Traitours and Rebels that intended nothing else but to un-Crowne and