Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	edward_n	king_n	prisoner_n	3,115	5	8.4781	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

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