Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	commissioner_n	parliament_n	scotland_n	4,066	5	8.8457	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85396	Hybristodikai. The obstructours of justice. Or a defence of the honourable sentence passed upon the late King, by the High Court of Justice. Opposed chiefly to the serious and faithfull representation and vindication of some of the ministers of London. As also to, The humble addresse of Dr. Hamond, to His Excellencie and Councel of warre. Wherein the justice, and equitie of the said sentence is demonstratively asserted, as well upon clear texts of Scripture, as principles of reason, grounds of law, authorities, presidents, as well forreign, as domestique. Together with, a brief reply to Mr. John Geree's book, intituled, Might overcoming right: wherein the act of the Armie in garbling the Parliament, is further cleared. As also, some further reckonings between thesaid [sic] Dr. Hamond and the authour, made straight. / By John Goodwin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1170; Thomason E557_2; ESTC R12380	138,495	164

OF OUR OWN 4. If the Parliament of England because of the sequestration Sect. 36 of some of their Members by the Army were under force or in no capacity to act Parliament-wise doubtlesse the Parliament of Scotland now sitting is much more under force and upon this account all they have acted since the first of their sitting or shall act yet further must be null yea more formally and apparantly null than any the Acts of the present Parliament of England For about six moneths since the Army of the Parliament of Scotland which invaded this Kingdom being by the blessing of God overcome those that now govern affairs there who were before oppressed by them raised forces of their own Authority and by force caused them who See the Parliaments Declaration o● 〈…〉 17. 16●● Pag. 12. 13. had the Parliamentary Authority to flee from Edenburgh and by the help of the English forces than in the North invited to their assistance did compell the disbanding of the forces there remaining that were raised by the Parliament and having modelled their own forces did call another Parliament while the former was by Adjourment continued and gave such limitations to the new Elections as they judged most for the interest safety and peace of that Kingdom And that Parliament hath since sat under the Protection of those forces so raised So that the present Parliament of England is much more free than the Parliament of Scotland For 1. The Members of the former were Elected without any limitations prescribed to or about their Election whereas the Election of the Members of the latter was incumbered and not carried or made with the like freedom 2. The Parliament of England now in being was not brought in by force over the head of another Parliament legally chosen this being forced to flee to make way for that which is the case of the Scottish Parliament 3. And lastly the Parliament of England sitteth under the Protection of forces raised by their whole body and whilest all their Members had full liberty to sit whereas the Parliament of Scotland is attended for their security by forces raised by some few of them onely the forces raised by their free Legall Parliament being by force compelled to disband But 5. That the Parliament of England acteth freely and not as Sect. 37 under any force since the want of their secluded Members or at least as freely as they did before is evident because they now act by the same principles and according to the same genius by which they acted whilest those Members sat with them though by the number and potent influence of these Members upon the House matters were still over-ruled in opposition to them as well as to the liberties and safety of th● Kingdom 6. There is no colour to judge the Parliament now sitting to be under force in as much as those under whose Protection they sit are their reall cordiall and ●ried friends being their own Army raised by themselves and who have stood by them and by the Kingdom with all faithfulnesse and with the eminent hazard of their own lives from the first untill now Do m●n use to be afraid of their friends their known their long their throughly experienced friends Suppose they had been under such a kind of force which had strongly inclined them to act contrarie to their judgements I mean contrarie to such principles as by which it is like they would have acted in case such a force had not diverted them yet unlesse it can be proved that those judgements of theirs according unto which it is supposed they would have acted in case no force at all had influenced them were consistent with the liberties peace and safety of the Nation which consistencie hath not yet been proved nor ever will there can no sufficient reason be given why their acts should be judged null or illegall It is the saying of Seneca It is an happy necessity which compelleth men to better 〈…〉 c●●p●… wayes than otherwise they were like to take And in case Parliamentary Acts should be questioned in point of legall validity u●on a supposall yea and this in some degree reasonable that Parliaments at the time of their transaction were under force or which is the same under fear of acting otherwise upon this account the validity of all Parliamentary Acts whatsoever in this Kingdom if not in others also will be obnoxious and liable unto question For it may very reasonably be doubted whether any Parliament were ever so free in the passing of any Act but that they were under fear either of the King and his power and party on the one hand or of the people and their discontent on the other and consequently whether ever any Parliament acted with such precisenesse of liberty or freedom as that the genuine and native ducture of their judgements was no wayes touched or wrought upon by any influence of persons or things feared by them If it be yet objected yea but it was onely the House of Sect. 38 Commons that voted the Erection of that Court of Justice which gave sentence against the King The House of Lords concurred not with it Therefore the Authority of this Court was illegall it being contrarie to the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom that either of the two Houses should assume unto themselves or exercise a compleat Parliamentary power without the concurrence of the other I answer 1. Many talk of the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom who I beleeve understand not at least consider not what the word fundamental imports Certain it is that no other Law or Laws of this Kingdom can with any propriety of speech be termed fundamental but onely such the observation whereof by the body of the Kingdom is of absolute necessity to the wel-being of it And no lesse certain it is but that the welfare and prosperity of this Kingdom may stand without any house of Lords at all and much more without their concurrence with whatsoever the House of Commons shall passe in order thereunto Upon the same ground evident it is that the Trial of Malefactours or Delinquents especially in extraordinary cas●● of Delinquencie by Juries is no fundamental Law of the Kingdom in as much as the wel-being of the Kingdom may subsist as well without it 2. All Authority and Power of Government being originally Sect. 39 and fundamentally in the people as hath been already proved at large they have a just and legall power in their Representative which is the House of Commons without the Lords to act and do whatsoever they rightly judge conducible to their wealth and safety especially when the Lords shall refuse to concurre with them in such things It is unreasonable to conceive that it should be a matter of sin or unlawfull for a Kingdom to make provision for it self and it is own good unlesse such or such a small party amongst them who prefer their own undue personal Interests before

for him whom they had chosen in his room By the way he here bids us note that the right of electing whom they please is by the impartial testimony of an Emperour in the people for said he a just Prince ought to be prefered before an unjust and the end of Government before the Prerogative And to prove that some of our own Monarchs have acknowledged that their high Office exempted them not from punishment they had the sword of Saint Edward born before them by an Officer called Earle of the Palace ev●n at the time of their highest pomp and solemnity to mind them saith Matthew Paris the best of our Historians that if they erred the sword had power to restrain them The fact of E●ud in killing Eglon and so of Jehu in slaying Jehoram the said Authour reconcileth with rules for standing practice with much more to this purpose which I leave to the Readers peru●al in the discourse it self In another discourse lately published we have this President Sect. 77 recorded Brutus Generall of the Souldiers Lucr●tius Emperour of the city of Rome assembled the people against Tarquinius Superlus and by their Authority thrust him from his Royall Throne his goods were confiscated and if Tarquinius had been apprehended undoubtedly he should have been according to the publick Laws corporally punished * 〈…〉 p ●4 The same Authour subjoyneth that Christiern lost the Crown of Denmark Henry that of Sweden Mary Stuart King Charls his Grand-mother that of Scotland and Edward the second that of England for the same misgovernment as our late King lost his Crown and head The Parliament in their late Declaration mention this last President of Edward the second and Peter Martyr concerning that of Christiern King of Denmark writeth thus In our daies the Daues d●pos●d their King and kept him prisoner a long time * where also he adds out of Pol●dore Virgil that the English 〈…〉 P. M●●● ●● ●ud ● ●● 〈◊〉 have sometimes compelled their Kings to give an account of their money or treasure ill disposed of M r Prynne in his Appendix to the fourth part of the Sovereign power of Parliaments and Kingdoms undertakes in the front of this Lucubration and in the body of it performed the undertaking v●ry laudably to manif●st by sundry Histories and forraign Authorities that in the ancient Kingdome of Rome the Roman Gr●ek German Empires the old the peresent Grecian Indian Aegyptian French Spanish Gothish Italian Hungarian Polo●ian Bohemian Danish Swedish Scottish with other forrein Kingdoms ●ea in the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel and other Gentile Royalties mentioned in Scriptu●e the Supreme Sovereign power resided not in the Emperours or Kings themselves but in the whole Kingdom Senate Parliament State People who had not onely Authority to restrain r●sist yea call their Emperous and kings to account but likewise when they saw just cause to censure suspend deprive them for their Tyranny vices misgovernment and sometimes CAPITALLY TO PROCEED AGAINST THEM with a brief answer to the contrary objections c. Afterwards in pursuit of this his notable ingagement out of Georgius Obrec●us a publick Professour of Law and Advocate to the City of Strasburg he furnisheth us with these Presidents besides that of Tarquinius devested of his kingdom by the people under the conduct of Brutus Lucretius the Roman Senate judged Nero an enemy of the Republick condemned him to the Gallows punished Vitellius with death ignominiously mutilated and dragg'd through the Citie and spoiled Maximinus of the Empire setting up Albinus in his place Thus the French by Authority of a publique Councel thorough the care of the Officers of the Realm deprived Childerick the first Sigebert Theordoric and Childerick the third of the Government In the same manner * M 〈…〉 ●f 〈◊〉 ●n● Kingdom A●pend p. ●●● saith the same Authour from Junius Brutu● we read Adolp●us deprived of the German Empire An. 1296. because corrupted with money he had made War with France in favour of the English Wenceslaus A 1400. Although these may be called not so well evil as lesse good Princes Thus in the Realm of England Edward the second for his Tyrannic to his Subjects especially the Nobles whom he destroyed without hearing their cause was at his Queens request adjudged unworthy of his Crown by the Parliament Not long since Christierne in Denmark Ericus in Sweden Queen Mary very lately in Scotland were deprived which Histories worthy credit testifie hath been frequently done in the Kidgdom of England Hungaria Spain Portugall Bohemia and the rest Thus far M r Prynne in Precedents of Kings and Emperours deposed and punished with death to which you may please to add what he relates out of Sozomen and Nicephorus concerning the death of Julian by one of his Souldiers and the fact of the Christians at Antioch upon it together with his Annotation upon both as they were formerly presented Sect. 67. of this discourse beyond whom no man that I know hath travailed with his pen in asserting the Legality of such proceedings against them He that will please to read the Historie of the Reformation of the Realm of Scotland by M John Knox shal find many like Presidents cited and argued from the Scriptures themselves So that the Parliament of England in their Judiciary processe against the late king did not walk alone in an untrodden path but in an high-way occupied upon like occasion by all the chief Nations of Europe yea by the once onely Heaven-beloved Nation of the World The premises from first to last considered that Doctrine Sect. 78. which Prerogativeth kings above the stroke of human justice upon the account of their being unaccountable unto men for whatsoever they do which the Parliament taketh notice in their Declaration of March 17. 1648. pag. 13. to have been the late kings Assertion appears to be very extravagant and and Eccentricall to all principles both of Reason and Religion Such an unaccountable Officer as the said Declaration well expresseth it were a strange monster to be permitted by man-kind For if the main ground of erecting publick Administrations of justice and Courts of humane judicature in all Polities and States whatsoever be both in Reason and Religion to secure and protect those who live justly and peaceably against the violence and injustice of oppressours and unjust men it must needs be contrary unto both to exempt such persons from the jurisdiction of these Court and Administrations who have alwayes the greatest opportunities and temptations and for the most part the strongest bent of disposition and will to practice such unrighteousnesse and oppression Put case a man hath received several wounds in fight amongst which there is one more dangerous and threatening life than all the rest would it not be a solo●cisme in reason for this man with all diligence and care to send for the skilfullest Chirurgion he can get and when he is come to limit him in his applications to the wounds

consequence that the people formerly judged it meet to constrain him by an oath at his Coronation to exhibit it So that the Interest of declaring Laws resides wholly in the people But 2 Where there is no opportunity for the interposure of Sect. 32 other Judges the Law of nature and of nations alloweth every man t● judge in his own case When a man is encountred upon the way by a thief who demands his money and in case of refusall threatens and assaults his person this man is allowed by all Laws whatsoever that yet I have heard of but injoyne● by the Law of nature to become both a witnesse and a Judge yea and executioner too if he knows himself able in his own case as 1. to say unto himself this man assaulteth me and 2. to sentence him as worthy of blows yea of death it self for so doing if he refuseth to desist from his attempt yea and 3. in case of non-desistance to execute this sentence upon him if he be able by s●aying him When Hanun the King of the Ammonites by the counsel of his Princes abused 〈…〉 David in his messengers David took upon him and that without the violation of any Law to be Judge in his own case and committed the execution of the sentence which he awarded therein unto the sword of Joab and of the men of war with him So that when Kings turn Tyrants over their people the people themselves are competent Judges though they be parties and the case their own because they are not in a capacitie of making an application or addresse unto any other Judge for redresse of their wrongs Even as the late King took upon him to be Judge in his own case when he sentenced all those who served in the Wars on the Parliaments side against him for Rebels and Traitours and commanded execution accordingly But whether in such cases as those lately specified where no recourse can be had to other judges or in what cases soever men do not sin simply by making themselves judges in their own case for who is there but in any case relating to him undertakes to judge what of right belongs unto him But 1. in judging partially or unrighteously in their own behalf 2. In not suffering their own judgement to be over-ruled by the better sentence of a competent Judge 3. In not abiding with patience by the sentence or award of a Judge or Judges lawfully constituted and deputed for the cognisance of their cause upon a pretence or supposal of in-justice in it Thus then it is as clear as the sun that the topique Authoritie of this saying Par in parem non habet potestatem reflects nothing but peace upon the Sentence passed upon the KING Yea but say some we cannot approve the said sentence as Sect. 33 just in respect of those who awarded it The Parliament by whose Authority the High Court of Justice was erected were no legitimate or true Parliament or Representative of the people nor in a capacity of acting in a Parliamentary way a considerable part of their members being deteined from them by force and those remaining being under force To this I answer 1. The absence of twice so many members as were deteined from the house by force doth not at all maim the legitimacie or truth of a Parliament nor disable the legal Authoritie of it in respect of any Parliamentary end or purpose whatsoever fourtie sitting in the House being legally invested with the same power for all publick transactions which four hundred or the whole number of them could have in case they were present 2. The deteinment of some of their members from them by force doth not alter the case in respect of nulling the Authoritie or Parliamentarie power of those who did s●t especially they not consenting or being accessarie to such their deteinment Suppose some of their Members imployed by them in carrying Messages or Petitions to the King during the time of the Wars had been forcibly deteined by him would such a restraint laid upon them by the King have dissolved the Parliamentarie Authoritie of the House If it be said Yea but the Members who met and sat in the Sect. 34 House during the deteinment of their fellow-Members did unworthily in not demanding these fellow-Members of theirs out of the hands of those who deteined them or in case of being denied in this kind in not refusing to act in a Parliamentarie way any further untill they had been re-delivered unto them To this I answer 1. It doth not all relate to the point in hand whether the Members remaining in the House during the restraint of the other behaved themselves worthily and as became them in all points though I have nothing to charge them with to the con●rarie but whether they were a legal Parliament legal I mean in such a sence which imports a sufficient investiture or qualification according to the Laws of the Land with Authoritie or rightfulnesse of power to perform such acts which are lawfull onely for Parliaments to perform That they were not a legal Parliament in this sence hath not yet been proved nor I believe ever will I have heard nothing I know nothing so much as to colour or pretence such a supposall 2 They did demand the restitution of their deteined Members once and again But to infer from their being denied in this their demand or from the non-restitution of their Members especially receiving a satisfacto●●e account from those who deteined them why they could not restore them that therefore it had been their dutie to have suspended all Parliamentarie proceedings considering in what a trembling and distracted posture the great affairs of the Kingdom then stood what is it but to make the miserie ruin and destruction of the people the duty of those who were intrusted with the procurement of their peace and safety But 3. Whereas the main Objection pretends that the Parliament ●ect 35 or Members remaining who voted the Erection of the High Court of Justice were at the time of this transaction and ever since under force unlesse the Objectours will pretend to know more in this point than these Members themselves they must acknowledge vanity and falshood in such a pretence For these in their late Declaration of Febr. 17. 1648. published by way of Answer to two letters sent unto them by the Scottish Commissioners plainly deny it For the said Commissioners in one of their letters pretending that the exclusion of some of the Members of the house by the Souldiery had occasioned many others to withdraw because they could not act as a free Parliament they repone to them these words pag. 15. of the said Declaration whether this be their judgement or the Commissioners own we know not if some Members that are absent be of that judgement that they cannot act freely we neither force their judgements NOR FIND OUR SELV●S UNDER ANY SUCH FORCE AS TO HINDER THE FREE EXERCISE

can oath or promise bind any such people to obey and maintain Tyrants against God and his Truth known but if rashly they the people have promoted any manifest wicked person or yet ignorantly have chosen such an one as after declareth himself unworthy of Regiment over the people of God and such be all Idolatrous and cruel persecutors most justly may the same men depose and punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate appoint and elect * The appel●… The Author of the book intituled Lex Rex full of solid ●ec 67. learning and variety of reading supposed as was before intimated upon very pregnant grounds to be M Samuel Rutherford maintains many positions in this Tractate of a close confederacie with the mentioned o●●nion of M r Knox as That the King is the servant of the people both objectively and subjectively * Pag ●●7 That the consciences of Inferior Iudges are immediately subordinate unto God not to the King either mediately or imediately That an inferior Judge may put to death murtherers as having Gods sword committed unto him no lesse then the King and though the King command the contrary * 〈…〉 That the Sanedrims not punishing David Bathsheba Ioa● was but a fact not a Law * 〈…〉 That resisting of Kings that are Tyrannous and patience are not inconsistent * 〈…〉 That Christs non-resistance hath many things rare and extraordinary and so is no leading rule to us * 〈…〉 ●15 That Davids not invading Saul and his men who did not aim at Arbitrary Government as subversion of Lawes Religion and extirpation of those that worshipped the God of Israel and opposed Idolatry but only pursuing one single person is far unlike to our case in England and Scotland * 〈…〉 34● 3●3 That if a King turn a Parricide a Lion and a waster and destroyer of the people as a man he is subject to the coactive power of the Lawes of the land * Pag. 344. That Kings are but vassals to the State who if they turn Tyrants fall from their right * Pag. 404 To omit very many others of the same calculation with these Hugo Grotius as great and learned a Royalist I believe as ever took hold of shield or buckler in the defence of Prerogative yet acknowledgeth that there are seven cases wherein the people may have most reall action against the King to accuse ●…nish him What the particular cases are the Reader if he please may find in the last mentioned Discourse * Pag. ●●● Yea Master Prynne himself having related out of Sozomen and Ni●ephorus the Story of J●lian the Emperours death reputed to be slain by a Christian Souldier of his own Army and the fact of the Christians at Antioch who for this murther instituted a publick Triumph Epiphonemas it thus A pregnant Evidence that even the Primitive Christians on whose examples and practice our Antagonists so much depend though to no purpose as I have elsewhere manifested held it not onely lawfull for them to resist but even in some cases to flay a pe●secuting Apostatizing Tyrant bent to subvert Religion Laws Liberties as may be further evidenced by Constantine the Great his aiding the oppressed Christians and Romans against the Tyranny and persecution of the Emperours Maxentius Maximinus and Li●inius even with force of arms with which he conquered these persecutours in sundry open Battels fought against them at the Christians earnest importunitie * Sove●eig● Power of P●●●●nd K●●gdom● Append ●o the forth p●●t p. ●●6 ●●7 I should multiply quotations from other Protestant Authours Sect. 68 of the same character and tendencie with these already cited by which the constant Judgement of Protestant Divines in the Question in hand would appear to be quite contrary to what the Representers most unworthily affirm it to be but that others and that of late have laboured so abundantly in this service If the Ministers will please but to peruse their Clerico-classicum or Alarm to a third War pag. 31 32 33 34 35. they shall find a Constellation of many Stars in the Protestant Heaven clearly shining forth light opposit to that darknesse which they either so ignorantly or contra-conscientiously attribute to them Whereunto if their desire of a Reformation in their Judgements in case their miscarr●age issued from hence will so far serve them and hold out as to joyn the like perusall of a few pages viz. 23 24 25 26 27. in another book lately also published by J. M intituled The tenure of Kings and Magistrates doubtlesse they will retract that ignoble and unclerk-like assertion wherein they affirm that their inhumane Tenet whereby they cannot but encourage Kings to turn Tyrants to commit murthers rapines and all manner of abominations that Tenet of theirs I mean wherein they deny unto Kings the help of that bridle for the ruling of their lusts more needfull for them than for any other sort of men the fear of death by the sword of civil Justice upon any occasion whatsoever to have alway been the constant Judgement and Doctrine of Protestant Divines both at home and abroad Onely for a cloze to the point in hand and to convince them if it be possible and they not as yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 69 that when they wrote the words last mentioned through a mistake they wrote their Interests in stead of their Consciences I shall briefly present them with the Judgement of two home-Authours more in the case the one being one of themselves in both the Subscriptions the other as cordiall unto them as themselves in the case in hand and whose Judgement in the businesse cannot lightly be more unknown unto them than their own The former of the two is M r. Christopher Love who intitles himself to the Pastorage of Anne Alders-gate as well in the Vindication as Representation but since meeting it seemes with better ●asturage hath voided that title for the unprofitablenesse ●f it a man who I know counteth it no robbery to be both a Protestant and a Divine Doubtlesse this man did not judge it neither can he judge it now to be the constant Judgement and Doctrine of Protestant Divines at home whatsoever he might conjecture of theirs abroad that Kings upon no occasion in no case whatsoever might be put to death when he preached first out of the Pulpit at Uxbridge to a few and then out of the presse to all the world that the late King was the Troubler of England as ●chan was of Israel subjoyning It was the Lord that troubled ●chan because he troubled Israel Oh that in this our State Physicians would resemble God to cut off those from the land that have distempered it Melius est ut pereat UNU● qu●m unit as * England● D●●t●mper a Se●●●n preached at V●bridge before the Commissioners appointed by the Parliament ●●●●●at with the King there by Mr L●v● pag ●● Did the man crie out O● to have that