Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	edward_n	king_n	william_n	1,778	5	7.8362	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58387	Reflections upon the opinions of some modern divines conerning the nature of government in general, and that of England in particular with an appendix relating to this matter, containing I. the seventy fifth canon of the Council of Toledo II. the original articles in Latin, out of which the Magna charta of King John was framed III. the true Magna charta of King John in French ... / all three Englished.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.; Catholic Church. Council of Toledo (4th : 633). Canones. Number 75. English & Latin.	1689 (1689)	Wing R733; ESTC R8280	117,111	184

Denunciantes Regi per nuncios solennes quatenus omni dilatione remota ejiceret by solemn Messengers requiring the King that without any delay he should turn out those Strangers 3ly They judged that if the Sword of St. Edward called Curtana signified that the King reserved to himself the Right of exercising Justice against Delinquents yet he was liable to the same Penalties with private Persons whenever he transgress'd the Laws of the State whereof he was the Keeper and Defender as the same Matth. Paris explains it in the Life of Henry III. much after the same manner as Aurelius Victor reports in the Life of Trajan That that Emperor understood the Ceremony of delivering the Sword to the Prefect of the Pretorium Surely if we consider our History we shall find 1. That the Kings alone never had the Power of making Laws 2. That they had no Power to lay Taxes on the People 3. That they had not always the Power of making Magistrates 4. That they had not the Right of waging War without the Advice of Parliament as is observed by Philip de Commines Lib. 4. cap. 1. 5. That as they were chosen by the People they had also Power to depose them Nennius the most ancient English Historian after Gildas tells us That Vortigerne was deposed by St. Germain and the Council of the Britains because he had married his own Daughter who placed his Son Vortimer upon the Throne Edward II. Richard II. 6. That the States have cut off the Succession may be seen by Henry VII Indeed we find that our Ancient Lawyers our Ministers of State and our Kings who of all Men ought well to understand the Form and Constitution of our Kingdom were so far from believing that the Royalty in England was an Absolute and Unlimited Government that they have expresly declared that it is a Government bounded by Fundamental and Essential Laws and composed of a mixture of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy See how Bracton expresseth himself to this purpose Lib. 2. c. 16. Fleta l. 1. c. 17. In populo regendo Rex habet Superiores Legem per quam factus est Rex Curiam suam viz. Comites Barones Comites dicuntur quasi Socii Regis qui habet Socium habet Magistrum ideo si Rex fuerit sine fraeno id est sine Lege debent ei fraenum ponere In Ruling the People the King has above him the Law by which he is made King and his High Court viz. the Earls and Barons Earls are so called as being the King's Companions and he who has a Companion has a Master and therefore if the King be without Bridle that is without Law they must bridle him Chancellor Fortescue saith That the King cannot alter the Laws of his Kingdom for he governs his People not only by a Regal but a Political Power when it is said the Prince's Will has the Force of a Law this saith he is to be understood of a Regal or Absolute Power from which a political Power much differs for such can neither change the Law nor charge the People with new Impositions against their Wills. This is a thing so notorious that Philip de Commines has taken notice of it in his Memoires Lib. 4. cap. 1. and elsewhere as also Polydore lib. 11. Neither have those only who have expresly treated of the Government of England as Secretary Smith consider'd our Monarchy as a Government mix'd and bounded but Charles I himself spake of it in these terms There being three kinds of Government absolute Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy and all having particular Conveniences and Inconveniences the experience and Wisdom of our Ancestors hath so moulded this out of a mixture of those as to give this Kingdom the Conveniences of all three without the Inconveniences of any one as long as the ballance hangs even between the three Estates and they run jointly in their proper Channels The ill of absolute Monarchy is Tyranny of Aristocracy Faction and Division of Democracy Tumults Violence and Licentiousness The Good of Monarchy is uniting a Nation under one Head the good of Aristocracy is the conjunction of Counsel in the ablest Persons for the Publick Good the good of Democracy is Liberty and the Courage and Industry which Liberty begets The Lords being trusted with Judicatory power are an Excellent Skreen and Bank between the Prince and the People by just Judgment to preserve the Law wherefore the Power of punishing is already in your hands according to Law. Let any one judg after all this whether our Ancestors ever entertain'd any of those pernicious Maxims maintain'd by some of our Modern Divines Maxims that have been the fruitful Mother of Tyrants viz. That Princes can dispose of the Goods Body and Lives of their Subjects at their pleasure That they are not subject to Laws or to give any Accompt That their Succession to the Throne is by Nature and Generation and not at all by the Authority or Approbation of the States That neither their Merits or Demerits can be brought into consideration to alter any thing about the Right of their Succession which is unalterable That without precipitating our selves into eternal Condemnation we may not oppose their Designs though directly and openly level'd at the Ruin of the State and the Change of Religion In a word that they may commit all manner of Injustice and Violence they please and that safely and securely because none but God alone can punish them CHAP. XVI An Answer to some Difficulties moved against this Truth AFter having set this Matter in so clear and evident a Light it is not without some Shame and Reluctancy that I make a stop to answer some insignificant Difficulties which those who defend the unlimited Power of the Kings of England oppose to the proofs I have alledged However such as they are I am willing to consider them that I may rid the Makers of them from the least pretext of continuing any longer in so gross and dangerous an Error They alledge in the first place the Title of Imperial given to the Crown of England which in their Judgments seems to equalize our Kings with the Roman Emperors and to attribute an absolute Empire or Dominion to them concerning which I have already shewed that tho this Title were well grounded yet the consequence they draw from thence would be null whether we consider the antient Roman Empire or whether we consider the Empire as it is now in Germany I add here for a further clearing of this Matter that the same thing happened to the Kings of the West with regard to the Emperor of the West as befell the other Kings who rose after the Destruction of the Roman Empire and to the Emperor of Germany with respect to the Emperors of the East The Emperors of the East as appears from the Embassy of Luitprand at Constantinople could not endure that other Princes should take upon them the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings or Emperors believing that the Name of Kings left them in some dependence upon the Empire of the East this obliged the Emperors of the West to take upon them the Title of Emperor to intimate their independency upon the Princes of the East Which Title the Emperors of the West having afterwards made use of as a pretence to raise themselves above the rest of the Princes of Europe the Western Kings did the same which the Emperors of the West had done before to assert their Independency For not only the Kings of England but some other Western Kings have taken upon them the Title of Emperors Alphonsus VI King of Spain took upon him this Title by a Concession from Pope Vrban II because he had suppressed the Mosorabick-Office Alphonsus VII and VIII assum'd the same Titles and Alphonsus VIII was Crowned in that quality by Raymond Arch-Bishop of Toledo in the Church of Lions with the consent of Pope Innocent II as is reported by Garibay lib. 8. hist cap. 4. We find that Peter de Clugny writes to this Alphonsus as Emperor of Spain Epist 8. And long time before these Princes it is certain that the Kings of the Goths since Richaredus had taken to themselves the Title of Flavians in imitation of the Roman Emperors as may be seen in the Councils of Toledo Yet Philip II having demanded this Title in 1564 of Pope Pius IV it was refused him The Kings of Lombardy had assum'd the Title of Flavians even since Autlaric according to the Account given us by Paul Diacon lib. 3. cap. 8 which they did to shew that they were Emperors in their own Lands and Territories and that they acknowledged no Soveraign or Superior And it seems that in Process of Time some Western Kings affected that Title for the same reason and were the rather perswaded so to do because some Canonists and Lawyers have impudently maintained That the Kings of Spain France and England were Subjects of the Emperors of the West Glossa in cap. Venerabil de Elect. in verbo transtulit in caput Venerabil qui filii sint legitimi Bartolus in caput hostes ff de captivis Alciat lib. 2 disjunct c. 22. Baldus in cap. 1 de Pace juramento fervando in usibus Feudorum Tho he contradict himself by asserting elsewhere That the King of France is not subject to the Emperor And thus much for the first Illusion some make use of to perswade us that the Kings of England possess the same Rights as the Emperors A second which seems to have some more Ground is this They say that as the Emperors that were after Vespasian had the Right to divide the Empire and to settle it by their Wills on their Heirs the Kings of England having done the like it appears thereby they were in Possession of the same Right the Emperors had to this purpose they alledge the last Will of William the Conqueror in favor of his Son William Rufus But nothing can be more vain than this Objection 1. We cannot deny but that the Election of Kings took Place during the Reign of the Saxons not that they did it with that Freeness as to prefer the Uncle before his Nephew that was under Age ' tho the Kings Son and the youngest Brother before the Eldest 2ly It is true that William the Conqueror did act in an extraordinary manner in disposing of his Kingdom in Favor of William Rufus in the same way as one disposeth of a Conquest and this in prejudice to Robert his Eldest Son as was also done by William Rufus But these two Princes dying without Heirs Henry who had Married the Daughter of King Alexander of Scotland who had the Rights of the Saxon Kings and who in Consideration of that Marriage renounced the Rights he might pretend to England as heir Presumptive of the Saxon Kings having obtain'd the Government by the Right of his Wife the Laws recovered their Strength and Things returned to their antient Channel as they were in the time of the Saxons So that it appears that it is Folly for any one to imagine that the Kings of England may alienate their Estates as a private Person can alienate his Inheritance This was evident in the case of King John who was opposed by the whole State for pretending to subject the Crown of England to Pope Innocent III. And indeed if we consider the Thing in it self and according to the unanimous Opinion of all Lawyers these last Wills can really be of no Force without the consent of the States to authorize them as we find that the same did intervene in both the fore-mentioned Cases The reason whereof is invincible forasmuch as all States do not consider their Kings as Proprietors of their Kingdoms but only as publick Ministers who are intrusted with a Jurisdiction and Administration for the Good of the publick And this is the Title by which even Conquerors themselves are at last obliged to hold their Authority They tell us in the 3d place that the Kings of England entitling themselves Kings by the Grace of God it appears that their Power being come from God cannot be limited by their Subjects over whom God has set them A wonderful way of arguing and never known till these our Times at least it is evident that he who has defended Nicholas de Lyra against Burgensis hath made a very different use of these words Dei Gratia by the Grace of God wherewith the Kings of the North prefac● their Titles from what some now a days make of it For he maintains that it is the Character of a limited and temper'd Government see how he expresseth himself upon the 8. ch of the 1 Book of Kings Titulus Imperatoris modo regendi vitiato that is to say illimitato as he expresses himself before contradicit nam titulus ejus est N. Dei gratia Romanorum Rex semper Augustus hoc est Reipublicae non privatae accommodus Ita aliorum Regum Protestationes sunt sub Dei gratia quae vitiatum Principatum non admittit The very Title of the Emperor saith he is a Contradiction to an Arbitrary and Unlimited kind of Government for his Title is N. by the Grace of God King of the Romans always Augustus that is enlarger of the Empire which implies that his Government is accommodate to the Common good and not his Private Interest So likewise we find that the Protestations of other Kings are under Dei Gratia the Grace of God which doth not admit of Arbitrary Government There remain but two difficulties more the first is this Several Members of the Church of England having perswaded the People that a necessity was laid upon them to suffer all from the Hands of their Kings The Kings of England have accordingly usurped those Rights and were actually in possession of them when the same began to oppose themselves to King James this is that they call a right of Prescription They consider the

promulgamus ut si quis ex eis contra reverentiam legum superba dominatione fastu regio in flagitiis facinore sive cupiditate crudelissimam potestatem in populis exercuerit anathematis sententia à Christo domino condemnetur habeat a Deo separationem atque judicium propter quod praesumpserit prava agere in perniciem regnum † † deducere convertere De se Suintilane vero qui scelera propria metuens seipsum regno privavit potestatis fascibus exuit id cum gentis consultu decrevimus ut neque eundem vel uxorem ejus propter mala quae commiserunt neque filios eorum unitati nostrae unquam consociemus nec eos ad honores à quibus ob iniquitatem dejecti sunt aliquando ‖ ‖ provehamus promoveamus quique etiam sicut à fastigio regni habentur extranei ita à possessione rerum quas de miserorum sumptibus † † auxerant hauser ant maneant alieni praeter id quod pietate piissimi principis nostri fuerint consecuti Non aliter * * Geilanem Gelanem memorati † † Suintilanae Suintilani sanguine scelere fratrem qui neque in germanitatis * * fide foedere stabilis extitit nec fidem gloriosissimo nostro domino pollicito conservavit hunc igitur cum conjuge sua sicut † † antefactum est antefatos à societate gentis atque consortio nostro placuit separari nec in amissis facultatibus in quibus per iniquitatem creverant reduces fieri * * praeter in id praeter id quod consecuti fuerint pietate clementissimi principis nostri cujus gratia bonos donorum praemiis ditat malos à beneficentia sua † † congruè non separat non separat Gloria autem honor omnipotenti Deo nostro in cujus nomine congregati sumus Post haec salus pax diuturnitas piissimo amatori Christi domino Sisenando regi cujus devotio nos ad hoc decretum salutiferum convocavit Corroboret Christi gloria regnum illius * * gentesque gentisque Gothorum in fide Catholica annis meritis protegat illum usque ad ultimam senectutem summa Dei gratia post praesentis regni gloriam ad aeternum regnum transeat † † ut sine fine regnet qui * * in saeculo intra Saeculum feliciter imperat ipso praestante qui est Rex regum Dominus dominantium cum Patre Spiritu Sancto in Saecula Saeculorum Amen Definitis itaque iis quae superius comprehensa sunt annuente religiosissimo principe placuit deinde nulla re impediente à quolibet nostrum ea quae constituta sunt temerari sed cuncta salubri consilio † † conservari conservare quae quia profectibus Ecclesiae animae nostrae conveniunt etiam propriâ subscriptione ut permaneant roboramus * * subscripserunt omnes AN ADVERTISEMENT Concerning the ARTICLES OF MAGNA CHARTA of King JOHN As also concerning The MAGNA CHARTA now printed in this APPENDIX THESE Articles or Capitula were found in the Study of Bishop Warner late Bishop of Rochester They were communicated by a Gentleman of that Family to Mr. Geddis and by him to the present Bishop of Salisbury There can be no reasonable scruple raised against the Authentickness or Truth of the Writing For first 1. It is in a Hand very ancient They that are competent judges of such Antiquities say It well pretendeth to the Time of which it treateth 2. It hath yet appendant the Seal of King John without any suspicion of being lately affixed 3. In the famous Library of Sir John Cotton there are now to be seen many private Charters of King John which exactly agree with this both in respect of the Writing and also of the Seal 4. In the Books of the Archbishoprick of Canterbury amongst many things there entred of the time of King John these Articles are Recorded and were thence transcribed many Years before the Original of them came into the Hand of the Bishop of Salisbury 5. This Instrument is the same which Matth. Paris mentioneth Page 254. by the name of SCHEDVLA Archiepiscopus Schedulam illam c. The Arch-Bishop with others bringing that Schedule to the King recited before the King all the Capitula c. Which tho' the King then rejected yet shortly after upon better Advice He granted as may be gathered from the next Page of Matth. Paris These Arguments may satisfie those who since the late mentioning of these Articles in the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Salisbury have had the Civility to doubt of the Truth of the whole matter 1. As to the substance of these Articles It is to be observed that they contain some part of the Rights of the Barons due to them by the Unwritten or Common Law of the Land which Rights for more certainty were in several Reigns drawn into Writing And for more obligatoriness into Charters after the entrance of the Normans In the time of the Confessor they were contained in the Laws of that King. William the Conqueror confirmed to the old and new Barons of his Investiture according to Custom of England the Laws of the Confessor as appeareth by the Record in Ingulf and other Testimonies 2. These Articles or the Laws of the Confessor were recognized and by Oath re-confirm'd by William Rufus no doubt at His Coronation or not long after The old English Chronicle writeth thus William Rufus by his Letters Summon'd the Bishops Earls and Barons to St. Pauls and there he Sware and made to them Surety by Writing to sustain and maintain the Right 3. King Henry I. ratified these Rights In his Charter we find in general Lagam Edwardi Regis vobis reddo cum its emendationibus quibus Pater meus eam emendavit c. I restore to you the Law of King Edward as it was mended or enlarged by my Father with the Advice of his Barons 4. It is evident that King John to omit others both by His Coronation Oath and at other times confirmed these Articles or Explanations of the Old Law. Matth. Paris pag. 239. The King John strictly commanded that the Laws of His Grandfather King Henry should be observed by the whole Kingdom But what this Law of King Edward or Emendations contained the same Matth. Paris setteth down in short pag. 252. The Charter of King Henry the First contained certain Liberties and Laws of King Edward granted to the Church of England and the great Men as also some Liberties superadded by King Hen. I. And pag. 254. Capitula quoque legum libertatum c. The Heads or Articles of the Laws and Liberties which the Great Men desired to be confirmed are already entred partly above in the Charter