Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	alexander_n	king_n	tumultuous_a	16	3	16.5584	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56211	The soveraigne povver of parliaments and kingdomes divided into foure parts· Together with an appendix: wherein the superiority of our owne, and most other foraine parliaments, states, kingdomes, magistrates, (collectively considered,) over and above their lawfull emperours, kings, princes, is abundantly evidenced, confirmed by pregnant reasons, resolutions, precedents, histories, authorities of all sorts; the contrary objections re-felled: the treachery and disloyalty of papists to their soveraignes, with their present plots to extirpate the Protestant religion demonstrated; and all materiall objections, calumnies, of the King, his counsell, royallists, malignants, delinquents, papists, against the present Parliaments proceedings, (pretended to be exceeding derogatory to the Kings supremacy, and subjects liberty) satisfactorily answered, refuted, dissipated in all particulars. By William Prynne, utter-barrester, of Lincolnes Inne. It is on this second day of August, 1643. ordered ... that this booke ... be printed by Michael Sparke ...; Soveraigne power of parliaments and kingdomes	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1643 (1643)	Wing P4087A; ESTC R203193	824,021	610

force of Armes resist the Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates just commands warranted either by Gods Word or the Lawes of England it being out of controversie readily subscribed by all of both sides that Such commands ought not so much as to be disobeyed much lesse forcibly resisted but cheerefully submitted to and readily executed for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1. to 6. 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Tit. 3. 1. Hebr. 13. 17. Iosh. 1. 16 17 18. Ezra 7. 26. Eccles. 8 2 3 4 5. the onely thing these objected Scriptures prove which come not neere the thing in question though our Opposites most rely upon them Secondly Neither is this any branch of the dispute Whether Subjects may lawfully rise up or rebell against their Prince by way of Muteny Faction or Sedition without any just or lawfull publicke ground or for every trifling injury or provocation offered them by their Prince Or whether private men for personall wrongs especially where their lives chastities livelihoods are not immediatly endangered by actuall violent unjust assaults may in point of Conscience lawfully resist or rise up against their Kings or any other lawfull Magistrates Since all disavow such tumultuous Insurrections and Rebellions in such cases yet this is all which the oft objected Examples of Korah Dathan and Abiram with other Scriptures of this Nature doe or can evince Thirdly nor is this any parcell of the Con●roversie Whether Subjects may lay violent hands upon the persons of their Princes wittingly or willingly to deprive them of their Lives or Liberties ●specially for private Injuries or in cold blood when they doe not actually nor personally assault their lives or chastities or for any publike misdemeanours without a precedent sentence of Imprisonment or death against them given judicially by the whole States or Realmes where they have such Authority to araigne and judge them For allunanimously disclaime yea abominate such Traitorous practises and Iesuiticall Positions as execrable and unchristian yet this is all which the example of Davids not offering violence to King Saul the 1 Sam. 24. 3. to 22. cap. 26. 2. to 25. 2 Sam. 1. 2. to 17. or that perverted Text of Psal. 105. 15. the best Artillery in our Adversaries Magazines truely prove Fourthly Neither is this the thing in difference as most mistake it Whether the Parliament may lawfully raise an Army to goe immediately and directly against the very person of the King to apprehend or offer violence to him much lesse intentionally to destroy him or to resist his owne personall attempts against them even to the hazard of his life For the Parliament and their Army too have in sundry Rem●nstrances Declarations Protestations and Petitions renounced any such disloyall intention or designe at all for which there is no colour to charge them and were his Majestie now alone or attended onely with his Ordinary Courtly Guard there needed no Army nor Forces to resist his personall assaults Yet this is made the principall matter in question by Doctor Ferne by An appeale to thy Conscience and other Anti-parliamentary Pamphlets who m●ke this the sole Theame of their Discourses That Subjects may not take up Armes Against their Lawfull Soveraigne because he is wicked and unjust no though he be an Idolater and Oppressor That Sup●ose the King will not discharge his trust but is bent or seduced to subvert Religion Lawes Liberties yet Subjects may not take up Armes and resist the King it being unwarrantable and according to the Apostle damnable Rom. 13. Yea this is all the questions the C●●valleers and Malignants demand of their Opposites in this cause What will you take up Armes will you fight against or resist the King c. Never stating the question of his Forces his Army of Papists Malignants Delinquents but onely of the King himselfe abstracted from his invading depopulating Forces against whom in this sence of theirs the Parliament never yet raised any Forces nor made the least resistance hitherto These foure particulars then being not in question I shall here appeale to the most Malignant Conscience Wh●ther Doctor Ferne and all other our Opposites pretenders of Conscience haue not ignorantly if not maliciously made ship wracke of their good Consciences had they ever any by a wilfull mistating of the Controversie concerning the present Defensive Warre in the foure preceding particulars which they make the onely Questions when not so much as one of them comes within the Verge of that which is the reall Controversie and never once naming that in all or any of their Writings which is the point indeed Secondly Whether there bee any one Text or Reason in all their Pamphlets particularly applied to any thing which concernes the present Warre but onely to these foure particulars which are not in debate And if so as no Conscience can gaine-say it then there is nought in all the wast Papers they have published which may either resolve or scruple any Conscience That the Parliaments Defensive Armes and resistance are unlawfull in point of Divinity or Conscience which is steered by the Scriptures Compasse But if these particulars be not in question you may now demand what the knot and true state of the present Controversie in point of Conscience is In few words take it thus Wh●ther both Houses of Parliament and the Subjects by their Author●ty for the preservation of their owne Persons Priviledges Lawes Lives Liberties Estates Religion the apprehension of Voted contumatious Traitors and Delinquents the res●uing his seduced Majestie out of the power of Popish pernicious Counsellours and Forces who end●avour the Kingdomes subversion by withdrawing him from and incensing him against his Parliament may not lawfully with a good Conscience take up necessary defensivs Armes and make actuall Warlike resistance against his M●j●sti●s Maligna it ill Counsellors and invading Popish Forces who now Murther Rob Spoile Sacke Depopu●ate the Kingdome in a most Hostile manner to set up Tyranny Popery and an Arbitrary lawlesse Government in case they come armed with his personall presence or commission to ●xecute these their wicked illegall designes Especially when neither the Parliament nor their forces in this their resistance have the least thought at all to offer any violence to the Kings owne person or to oppose his Legall iust Soveraigne Authority Or shorter Whether the Kings Captaines an● Souldier●s invading the Parliam●nt and Subiects as aforesaid the Parliament or Subiects especially when authorized by an Ordinance of both Houses may not with a safe Conscience forcibly resist these Malignants though armed wit● the Kings illegall Commissions without his personall presence or with his presence and Commissions too And for my part I thinke it most evident that they may lawfully resist repulse them even by Divine Authority For the better clearing whereof I shall premise these three undeniable Conclusions First That no lawfull King or Monarch whatsoever much lesse the Kings of England who are no absolute Princes have any the least Authority from the

secular standing by in great number called and requested to the things above written And I Nicholas Berchtoldi Fridberg Clerke publike Notary of the Diocesse of Mentz by Episcopall and Emperiall authority and sworne Scribe of my foresaid most gracious Lord Lord John Archbishop of Mentz because at that time I was personally present when this sentence which we have fore-writ was given and pronounced together with the publike Notaries and witnesses commemorated and saw and heard all these things to be done therefore at the command and request of my foresaid most gracious Lord of Mentz have reduced this publike instrument faithfully put in writing into publike forme and have subsigned and ratified it with my accustomed signe of Notariship having likewise annexed the great Seale of my foresaid Lord of Mentz in assurance and testimony of all the premises The names of the Notaries are Nicholaus Berchtoldi Fridburgensis Ioannes Meier junior Gasterveidensis Conradus a Leiborn Clerious Padebornensis diaecesis Henricus S●alberg Rotenbergensis Tilmannus a Honberg Conradus Coler Zus●ensis Coloniensis diaecesis Finally it is evident that the Nobles Magistrates Parliament and representative body of the people or some part of them in default of the rest may lawfully take up defensive armes to resist their Princes endeavouring to abrogate the Law of God to waste the Church and exti●pate the true Religion setled among them by the Lawes and usher in Idolatry And that in such a case as this neighbour Princes and States lawfully may yea and ought in point of conscience to aide the Subjects of other Princes afflicted for the cause of pure Religion professed by them or oppressed by open Tyranny These propositions are largely and professedly debated by Iunius Brutus in his Vindiciae contra Tyrannos quaest 1. 2. 4. throughout in the Treatise intituled De Iure Magistratus in Subditos spent wholly in this Theame Georgius Obrectus Disput. Iurid de Principiis Belli Num. 125. to 199. by Vasquius Contr. Illustr 36. n. 30. and elsewhere by Alhericus Gentilis and sundry others forecited I shall onely fortifie the later part thereof with the observation of the Duke of Rhoan who acquaints us that it is and hath beene of later yeares the very true interest honour and greatnesse of the Kings and Queenes of England both in point of policy and Religion to protect and assist with armes all Princes of the Reformed Protestant Religion in France Germany and other parts as it is the true interest of the Kings of Spaine to protect and releeve all oppressed or grieved Roman Catholicks under the Dominion of other Princes and that their honour safety and greatnesse principally consists in the observation and maintenance of this their interest and with the words of Iunius Brutus who thus states and debates the Question An Iure possint aut debeant Vicini Principes auxilium ferre aliorum principum subditis religionts causa afflictis aut manifesta ty●annide oppressis In defining this question saith he there is more need of conscience then science which would be altogether idle if charity obtained its place in this world But because as the manners of the times are now there is nothing more deare or rare among men then charity it selfe we thinke meete briefely to discusse it The Tyrants as well of soules as bodies as well of the Church as Common-wealth or Realme may be restrained expelled and punished by the people Both these we have already proved by reasons But because such is the fraud of Tyrants or such the simplicity of subjects for the most part that they are scarce known before that they have spoyled or these scarce thinke of their safety till they have almost perished and are reduced into those straits out of which they cannot get out with their owne forces so as they are compelled to implore the aide of other it is questioned Whether they defending the cause of Religion or of the Common-wealth of the Kingdome of Christ or of their owne Kingdome other Christian Princes may lawfully assist them And truly many whiles they have hoped to increase their wealth by ayding the afflicted have presently judged it to be lawfull For thus the Romans Alexander the great and many others under pretext of suppressing Tyrants have frequently enlarged their Dominions and not long since we have seene Henry the second King of France to have made warre with the Emperour Charles the fifth and that under pretext of succouring and defending the Princes of the Empire and of the Protestants too as also Henry the eighth King of England was ready to aide the Protestants in Germany to make worke for Charles the fifth But if any danger may be feared from thence or little gaine may be expected then verily they must heare most Princes disputing whether it be lawfull or no And as those under a pretext of piety did cover either ambition or gaine so these pretend justice for their sloathfulnesse when as verily neither did piety exhort them which seekes onely the good of others nor yet justice ought to dehort these which looks wholly abroad and is as it were cast out of its owne doores Therefore discharging both these let us see first in the cause of Religion what true piety and what true justice may perswade First let it be agreed that there is but one Church whose head is Christ and whose members so cohere and agree among themselves that none of them even the smallest can suffer violence or hurt but the rest are hurt and suffer griefe as the whole Scripture teacheth Therefore the Church is compared to a body Now the body is oft-times affected not onely with the hurt of the arme or legge but even of the very least finger or perisheth with its wound Therefore in vaine may any one boast that he is cordially affected with the safety of the body who when he may defend the whole yet suffers it to be torne and mangled limb after limb It is compared to a buildings Now where mines are made against any part of the building the whole building oft-times fals downe to the ground and the flame which invades any part thereof en●●●gers gers the whole Therefore he should be ridiculous who because he 〈◊〉 in the calla● perchance should delay to drive the flame from the top of the house He should be scarce in his wits who would not prevent mines with countermines because they are made against this wall not against that It is also compared to a Ship Now the whole Ship is endangered together the whole perisheth together Therefore those are equally safe who are in the fore part as those who are in the puppe those who are in keel as safe as those in the shro●ds if the storme rage whence verily even in the common proverb those who are conversant in the same danger are said to be in the same Ship These things laid downe verily he who is not moved with its griefe burning to ssing is not of that body is

ad impetum eorum qui nos volunt occid re Or that example of the Christian Theban Legion slain without the least resistance for their Religion who as an ancient Martyriologer saith Caed bantur passim g●adi is non reclamantes sed d●positis armis cervices persecutoribus vel intectum corpus offerentes warrant this deduction Ergo no Christians now must resist their invading enemies on the Sabbath day but must offer their naked bodi●s heads throats unto their swords and violence If not then these examples and autho●ities will no wayes prejudice our present resistance Fourthly the Christians not onely refused to resist their oppressing Emperours and Magistrates who proceeded judicially by a kinde of Law against them but even the vulgar people who assaulted stoned slew them in the streets against Law as Tertullians words Quoties enim praeterit is à vobis SUO JURE NOS INIMICUM VULGUS invadit lapidibus incendiis c. manifest without all contradiction and indeed this passage so much insisted on relates principally if not onely to such assaults of the rude notorious vulgar which every man will grant the Christians might lawfully with good conscience forcibly resist because they were no Magistrates nor lawfull higher powers within Rom. 13. 1. 2. or 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. Either then our Antagonist must grant that it is unlawfull in point of Conscience forcibly to resist the unlawfull assaults and violence of the vulgar or private persons who are no Magistrates and that it is unlawfull now for any Christians to resist Theeves Pirats or beare defensive Armes as the Anabaptists from whose quiver our Antagonists have borrowed this and all other shafts against the present defensive warre and to make the primitive Christians all Anabaptists in this particular Or else inevitably grant resistance lawfull notwithanding their examples and these passages of not resisting The rather because Tertullian in the next preceding words puts no difference at all between the Emperour and meanest Subjects in this case Idem sumus saith he Imperatoribus qui vicinis nostris malè enim velle malè facere malè dicere malè cogitare de quoquam ex aequo vetamur Quodcunq●e non licet in Imperatorem id n●c in quenquam Fifthly admit the Christians then deemed all forcible resistan●e of persecuters simply unlawfull in point of Conscience as being a thing quite contrary to Christian profession and Religion then as it necessarily proves on the one side That even Christian Kings Princes Magistrates must in no wise forcibly resist the tumultuous Rebellions Insurrections and persecutions of their Subjects because they are Christians as well as Rulers and in this regard equally obliged with them not to resist with Armes much lesse then their Parliaments Forces lawfully raised for the publike defence So on the contrary part it follows not that therefore resistance is either unlawfull in it selfe or that the Parliaments present resistance is so For first such resistance being no where prohibited as I have formerly proved their bare opinion that it was unlawfull to them cannot make it so to them or us in point of conscience since God hath not made or declared it so Secondly the primitive Christians held many things unlawfull in point of Conscience which we now hold not so Tertullian and others informe us That the Christians in his time thought it a hainous sinne N●fas to pray kneeling on the Lords day or between Easter and Whitsontide and so by consequence to kneele at the Sacrament praying alwayes standing on those dayes in memory of Christs resurrection Which custome was ratified also by many Councels Yet then it was lawfull no doubt in it selfe for them to pray kneeling and we all use the contrary custome now The Christians then held it unlawfull to eat blood in puddings or any other meats as Tertullian Minucius Felix testifie and many Councels expressely prohibited it since as unlawfull Yet all Churches at this day deem it lawfull and practise the contrary The Christians in Tertullians dayes and he himselfe in a speciall Book De fuga in persecutione held it unlawfull to flee in times of persecution and therefore they voluntarily offered themselves to martyrdome without flight or resistance Yet we all now hold flying lawfull and all sorts practise it as lawfull yea many more then they ought to doe I might give sundry other instances of like nature The Christians opinion therefore of the unlawfulnesse of any armed resistance of Persecuters publike or private held they any such though seconded with their practice is no good argument of its unlawfulnesse without better evidence either then or at this present Thirdly the case of the Primitive Christians and ours now is far different The Emperours Magistrates and whole States under which they then lived were all Pagan Idolaters their Religion quite contrary to the Laws and false Religions setled in those States There were many Laws and Edicts then in force against Christian Religion unrepealed most Professors of Religion were of the lowest ranke not many wise Noble mighty men scarce any great Officer Magistrate or Senator was of that profession but all fierce enemies against it For Christians being but private men and no apparant body of a State to make any publike forcible resistance in defence of Religion against Emperours Senators Magistrates Lawes and the whole State wherein they lived had neither been prevalent nor expedient a great hinderance and prejudice to Religion and as some hold unlawfull But our present case is far otherwise our King Parliament State Magistrates People are all Christians in externall profession our Protestant Religion established Popery excluded banished by sundry publike Lawes the Houses of Parliament and others now resisting are the whole body of the Realme in representation and have authority even by Law to defend themselves and Religion against invading Popish Forces In which regards our present resistance is and may cleerly bee affirmed lawfull though the primitive Christians in respect of the former circumstances might not be so Secondly their resistance especially of the Magistrates not vulgar rabble if made had been onely singly for defence of their Religion then practised but in corners publikely condemned no where tolerated Our present war is not onely for defence of our Religion established by Law and to keep out Popery but for the preservation of Laws Liberties the very essence of Parliaments the safety of the Realme and that by authority of Parliament the representative body of the Realme The Parliaments defensive warre therefore upon these politicke grounds is just and lawfull though the Primitive Christians perchance in defence of Religion onely as its case then stood would not have been so even as the Roman Senators and States resisting of Nero or any other Tyrannicall Emperors violations of the Laws Liberties Lives Estates of the Senate people were then reputed just and lawfull though the Christians defence of Religion would not