Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	die_v	king_n	scotland_n	3,606	5	8.4993	4	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

other places long before you made your Spirituall Snapsa●k yet you told the Souldiers that without Contradiction they did fight for the King to rescue his Royal Person out of the hands of Malignants and re-instate Him in His Royal Throne and dignity if true Religion commands that the King should be put to death what Religion then were you of when you said the contrary 4. Whereas you af●irm that if the King be a murderer true Religion commands that Hee be put to death To this I have 3 things to say 1. T is unknown to mee that ever the King murdered any in His own Person what blood was spilt was in a Military way wherein he did contest for His seeming right 2. The word of God which is the rule and standard of true Religion doth not afford one instance that ever any King was judicially tryed or put to death for the spilling of blood 3. If you stand so precisely upon this that the murderer shal surely be put to death th●n are you bound to put every man to death that bore Arms for the King they were guilty of blood as well as Hee yea was not the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen guilty of death if so according to your Principles did not true Religion command you to put them to death as well as the King If Kings may be dealt withall in a judiciary way why are they so angry that the late King was brought to condigne punishment if they say no Court by the Lawes of the Land had any auth●rity to judge Him then it would he worth our enquiring whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his hands upon him for the murtherer must not be suffered to live but must surely be put to death the land must not be defiled and polluted with blood Answ. 1. If Kings may be dealt withal in a judiciary way c. here you beg the question taking that for granted which was denyed by the subscribers had you produced any one instance in the Word that any Kings were judicially tryed and put to death by their Subjects or that there is any known Law of this l●nd that the Kings of England should be arraigned and executed it would the more advantage your cause 2. Because you ask why were the Ministers so angry that the late King what brought to condignpunishm●nt I must answer you they exprest no anger but a holy indignation against so horrid a fact and had they not reason Considering 1. That o●e end of the War was to preserve the Kings person 2. Many s●bsequent O●th● Protestations and Declarations of the Parl●ament for the preservation of His person also 3. He was the f●st Protes●ant King in the world so put to death by His own S●●ject● 4. That you could not put to death the King of England but must kil the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as tru● right in Him as their King as this Kingdom had 5. That Hee had granted more for the good of the Kingdome then any King that sa●e upon the English thron 6 The house of Commons if free and full which now they are not have no power to take away the life of any man much lesle the li●e of the King if they cannot administer an Oath how can they take away the life of any man seeing no man 〈…〉 but by the oath of two or● three witnesses These and such like considerations might stir up a holy indignation in the Ministers against bringing the King to capitall punishment 3. If the Ministers say there is no Court by the laws of the land that hath any authority to judg the King then say you it would he worth our inquiring after whether every man even to the last man left was not bound to lay his hand● upon him All I shall say to this inquiry of yours is to propose to you 3 other enquiries viz. 1. Whether was every man in Israel even to the last man bound to kill Saul a bloody King if you answer affirmatively I am su●e you answer falsly for David said who can stretch forth his hand against him and bee guiltlesse 2. If the Adulterer by the law of God was to bee put to death as well as the murderer and there is no Court by the laws of the Land that hath authority to put him to death whether is every man in the land even to the last bound to lay hands upon the Adulterer if you say yea I am sure some of your greatest Grandees would not be long lived if you say no tell me a reason why you hold your self bound to do so to the one and not unto the other 3. If it be true that it is not the condemnation but the execution of blood-guilty persons that makes satisfaction for the blood they spilt and keeps the land from being defiled then I demand whether every man in the nation according to your principles is not bound to lay their bands upon the Lord Goring and Sir John Owen to put them to death seeing those that are in power will not doe it I might adde a fourth enquiry viz. to know whence you had this notion that if Courts of Judicature will not put a Murderer to death that then every man even to the last man is bound to do it● I am sure the Scripture affords you no such notion Paul puts the sword only into the hand of the Magistrate and saith that he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill If this loose Principle of yours should take place that any man may kill a Murderer if the Magistrate doth not I fear there would be a hundred murders committed by private men before one will be legally punisht by the publick Magistrate Pareus hath a good note on those words He that sheddeth mans blood by man shall his blood be shed Vt homicidae plectantur capitaliter per hominem non sane quemvis sed gladio divinitus armatum hoc est per magistratum alioqui homicidiorum licentia daretur in immensum si intersiciendi homicid as potest as cuivit esset that is that the murderer be put to death by ma● t is not meant truely by every man but by him that is armed by God with the sword that is by the Magistrate else a Licence of murder would be given beyond all measure if the power were in the hands of any one to kill the Murderer But to end this by what you have here said I do plainly pe●ceive that if no body would have put King Charles to death you would have been the Executioner You goe on That the people say you ought to punish● their King according to their demerits hath been the declared judgment of many Protestant Divines Answ. Before I come to clear those Authours alledged by you in particular I shall give you these advertisements about your quotations in the generall 1.

Many of the authors you quote do you belie in affirming that they plead for the killing of Kings by their Subjects which they never did thus you wrong ●ez● Zuinglius Pareus Mr. Rutherford Mr. Pryn and Mr. Love as I shall evidently make appeare anon 2. In your list of Protestant Divines I find one Popish Priest whom you cal Junius Brutus aliàs Parsons the Jesuit as I shall prove when I come to answer your allegation of him 3. I have good reason to beleeve that you borrowed most of your quotations not from the Authors themselves but from a Popish writer supposed to be Toby Matthews his lies and slanders against Protestant Divines you take up for undoubted truths He railes on Bez● p. 82. and saith that the book entituled Vindiciae contra tyrannos by Junius Brutus was his p. 105. against Zuinglius p. 81. p. 115. against Knox p. 134. and Goodman his associate p. 134. brands Pareus in p. 225. rails on the Wieliffs and Waldenses p. 250. These are most of the Authours quoted by you whom he represents unto the world as Rebells against murderers of Kings Princes yea doth impudently affirm that the Protestants have deposed more Kings in 60. years then was by the means of Catholicks in 600. Ibid. p. 226. Now is it for your credit to gather such broken scraps and tortured collections from so infamous an Author That which induceth me to beleeve that you had these quotations not from the Authors themselves but from that Popish writer is this 1. In reading those Authors I find some of them to be of a quite contrary mind to that which you alledg them for 2. Those very men and that matter almost in terminis is quoted by that Popish writer and may not this give some ground to beleeve what I assert 4 You must needs be put to a penury of proofs when you pretend to alledg Protestant Divines yet among them mention Mr. Prynne a Lawyer but no Divine and Junius Brutus a Jesuite but no Protestant surely either your memory must be short or your reading but small 5. In some of your quotations you only name the men but do not mention the page where such a passage is to be found Thus you deal with Zuinglius Pareus Dudly Fenner and Rutherford which makes me think you never read their books or else that you intended to pervert their words and put your Reader to more pains before hee shall find out your abuse of the Authors 6. Though some of the Authors alledged speak high of punishing Tyrannicall and idolatrous Kings yet none of them unlesse the Jesuite under the name of Junius Brutus ever gave the least intimation of spilling the blood of a Protestant King 7. One solid Argument had stood you in more stead then a hundred quotations not mens sayings but their reasons are to be regarded 8. There is no opinion so grosse but there may be some particular men who will labour to maintain it t is true some particular men may plead for the putting of Kings to death but is this the received opinion or declared judgment of any of the Reformed Churches could you shew that which I know you cannot it would be of more weight with me 9. Although some of the Authors speak high in this point yet none of them come up to the present case There were so many considerable and concurrent circumstances in the case of the king that varyed it much from the case of Kings in former times the businesse is so circumstantiated that were all the Authors alledged by you alive none of them I verily beleeve nor any Casuists in the world would give their consent to the taking away the life of our King as the case stood with us For 1. Hee was a Protestant King 2. The end of the Parliaments War against the Forces raised by him was to preserve His person as appears by their many Declarations in that behalf 3. Many Oaths and Covenants made to the most high God for the preservation of His Royall person 4. The King of England could not be put to death but they must kill the King of Scotland and Ireland also who had as true a right in Him as this Kingdome had 5. That he granted more for the good of the Kingdome then ever any King that sate upon the English Throne 6. That Hee never personally shed blood 7. That the Army must first force the Parliament before they could kill the King which wil be to after ages a lasting monument of the Parliaments Renown and the Armies Reproach 8. That the House of Commons if they sate free and ful which now they do not have no power by law to erect a new Court to take away the life of any man much lesse the life of the King 9. That the General his Officers declared in their Remonstrance June 23. 1647. that they did clearly professe they did not see how there could be any peace to this Kingdom firm and lasting without a due consideration of and provision for the Rights Quiet Immunities of His Majesties Royal family c. these and such like circumstances considered can it be imagined that any could have their hands in the Kings blood unless they were led more by passion then reason by design then conscience Thus having given you these advertisements touching the Authors by you alledged in the general I come now a to particular survey of the severall authors brought by you to maintain your King-killing Doctrine You begin with Mr. Love and so will I of whom you say that in his Sermon preacht at Uxbridg and printed having spoken before of the blood-guiltinesse of the King yea intimated u●●aturall and horrible blood-guiltinesse in Him as if Hee had been guilty of King James his death and Prince Henries death the blood of the Prot●stant● in Rochell and the Rebellion of ●reland and all the Protestant blood-shed there p. ●3 of the said Sermon stiled Englands distemper Answ. 1. That Mr. Love hath his Sermon printed which was preacht at Vxbri●ge is true but that hee spake therein of the blood-guiltinesse of the King is utterly false I have read over his Sermon from the beginning to the end and can find no mention of the King throughout his Sermon but in two places and there too without the least reflexion or accusation on the King the first place is in p. 16. where he saith that the rising though now falling Clergymen would serue up Prerogative to the highest peg by which means they have crackt it at least the credit of it affirming that Kings might do what they list that the lifes ●ives liberties and estates of Subjects are to be disposed by the King according to his own will yea have they not taught the people that if the King require the life of any or all his subjects they must lay their necks to the block they must not defend themselves by force of Arms in any case

Westminster whom I could name but that naming men now in the House would be accounted breach of priviledg when pulling Members out hath been esteemed none did imploy Walker the Mercury man who writes the Perfect Occurrences to get this booke being translated into English to be printed it seems themselves were ashamed of it suspecting that it might bee known to be Parsons the Jesuite if it had continued still under the name of Junius Bru●us and therefore they did make a new Title to this book which is this Four great Questions concerning the Tryall of the King as it was delivered to the Colonells and Generall Officers of the Army and presented to the High Court of Iustice appointed by an Act of the Commons of England for Tryall of the King I only mention this that it might appeare unto the world that the Bookes Principles and Counsells of the Jesuites had a great concurrence with if not influence upon the late Transactions of the Army and High Court in putting the King to death You goe on and discerning a scarcity of Protestant Divines you are beholding to Popish Presidents to help you out you say Christierne lost the Crown of Denmapke c. Answ. True he did so but yet he did not lose his life but you have made King Charles lose his Crown and life together Christierne was only restrained as a Prisoner but not adjudged to dye Besides the Kings of Denmarke come in meerly by election but the Kings of England by a rightfull succession So that your instance of Christierne will not advantage you a whit Edward the second say you lost the crown of England for the same mis-government as our late King lost His Crowne and head Answ. 1. This was in the time of Popery are Popish practices good patterns for Protestants to walk by 2. Edward the second did not lose His Crown by a judicial Deprivation but by a constrained Resignation 3. He was never legally arraigned and brought to tryall in Parliament for his life 4. T is to be observed that Mortimer who had the chief hand in deposing King Edward the second was in the Parliament of 4 E. 3. condemned and executed as a Traitor and guilty of High treason for murdering Edward the second at Berkely castle although he was deposed It may be after Parliaments may call some of you to account for the Kings death That superiour Magistrates may be put to death by the inferiour because Domestick Tyrants are chiefly to be represt was the opinion of Pareus in his Commentary on Judges Answ. Indeed in his Comment on the Romanes he saith that in case of necessity the inferiour Magistrate may lawfully defend himself against the superiour but hath not a word in his Comment on the Iudges that I can find that superiour Magistrates may be put to death by the inferior Surely Pareus would not say one thing in his Comment on Iudges and the quite contrary in his Comment on the Romans He saith expresly that Christians no lesse then others ought to be subject to the Powers not only when believers but when Infidel●s as all the powers then were not only to the me●k and just but to the froward and unjust c. T is true Pareus pleads for defensive arms in case of necessity and so doe I but yet hee never went in so high a strain to plead for the killing of Kings and Princes yea when Pareus speaks of defensive arms hee doth it with abundance of wisdome and caution Subditi saith he non privati sed in magistratu inferiori constituti adversus superiorem magistratum se Rempublicam ecclesiam seu veram Religionem etiam armis defendere possunt His positis Conditionibus cum superior ma●istratus degenerat in Tyrannum 2. Aut ad manifestam idolotatriam atque blasphemias ipsas vel subditos alios suae fidei commissos vult cogere c. The sum of what he saith is this that it is lawfull not for private men but for the inferiour magistrates to defend the Church and Common-wealth against the superior Magistrate yet he laies down 6 conditious or limitations provided that the Superiour Magistrate degenerates into a Tyrant that He compells His Subjects to manifest idolatry and blasphemy and that they keep themselves in the bounds of selfe-defences according to the Laws c. Now can it be imagined that Pareus should lay down so many cautions to justifie a defensive war in his Comment on the Romans and yet affirm that the superior Magistrate may be put to death by the inferiour It makes me think that you never read Pareus his works or if you did that you intended to be lye him as you have done many others Besides Pareus never made a Comment upon Iudges all his life after hee was dead there was found some short notes written in his own Bible only for his own private use which his son Philip Pareus did lately put among his other works That famous Dudley Fennor affirms that an evill Prince may bee taken away in a time of peace or by warre which they may do who are either Ephori or ordinum omnium conventus saith he Answ. 1. You use still your wonted stratagem to alledg Authors mention their names but give no notice in what page that passage is which you quote of theirs which must argue either your ignorance of such mens works or else a purpose in you to deceive the Reader and abuse the Authors you quote 2. Though I am not bound to answer you in every Author you quote at large yet for disputes sake I shall yeeld to your weakness t is true Dudly Fennor hath some such words in his Sacra Theolog. cap. 13. de Politeia civili p. 80. though you pervert them wofully you had shewed your ingenuity had you quoted all that Dudly Fennor spake touching the point in hand He doth distinguish of a Tyrant there is Tyrannus sine titulo and tyrannus exercitio Tyrannus sine titulo est qui imperium ad se absque legitimâ ratione rapit huic quisque privatus resistat si possit è medio tollat that is A Tyrant without a title is such a one who by force and fraud hath got the Government of a Kingdome into his hands when he hath no legall claim thereto now such a one saith he any private man may resist and take him out of the world Put case O. Cromwell or any other man who hath no legall claime to the Crown should by force and fraud usurpe to himself the Kingdome such an one is Tyrannus fine titulo and if you wil follow Dudly Fennor he gives liberty that any private man may resist such a one yea if he can take him out of the world I hardly beleive that Dudly Fennors doctrine whom you call famous would please at White-hall Again when he comes to speak of a Tyrant not in title but in the exercise of