Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	power_n	supreme_a	3,860	5	9.0420	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94044	A shield against the Parthian dart, or, A word to the purpose, shot into Wallingford-House. Answered in defence of the present actions of state here in England, that produced the late change of government. By J.S.	Streater, John, fl. 1650-1670.; Spittlehouse, John, attributed name.	1659 (1659)	Wing S5950; Thomason E988_11; ESTC R208075	13,837	23

unreasonable are to be resisted The Author here doth seem to conclude That the Expelling of some of the Members is unreasonable the taking the King away is unreasonable the changing of Government is unreasonable and the like He further saith in the Sect. That the People did Intrust the Parliament onely with Advising with the other Estates and that the said Trust did not Impower them to lay aside the other Estates That may be easily answered by this known Maxim Salus Populi Suprema Lex When that the other Estates by their corrupt Interest did become a barr to the Peoples safety they might be laid aside by the Trustees of the People and those Trustees may exercise the Supream Authority as in the Case aforementioned made use of by Mr. Prynne in his Asserting the Soveraign Power of Parliaments That the King may be deposed by Authority of Parliament Edward the second of England was deposed by Parliament and Edward the third Elected in his room Our Author citeth the Case of the Abbots being Expelled their sitting in Parliament and slightly mentioneth the Expulsion of the Bishops late being expelled their sitting in Parliament this was done by the three Estates They were Members of the Parliament it cannot be denyed according to ancient Custome and of a distinct qualification from the other Estates they being the Head of the Clergy Now if that the Clergy may be expelled and excluded from having a share of Supream Authority why may not the Nobility also as well as the King and the Clergy when any or all of their Interests shall be found inconsistent with the Interest of the Publick and more especially when their Interest is grown to that heighth that the preservation of it must be the destruction of the publike He further putteth a Case of a Bayliff The which case would hold if it were onely in behalf of private Interest but where there is publike Interest on foot it will not hold Rules of Law can live onely in time of Peace but upon War and Change of Government Necessities of State must and ever did over-rule If the Bayliff taketh other mens goods and keeps them for his own he erreth Yet notwithstanding the unsuitableness of the Case it serveth thus far viz. If the Parliament being intrusted with the Supream Power shall take upon them that power to their own profit and not Communicate it for defence of publick good then they do that which is besides the intent of their Trust But on the contrary if they do otherwise they do according to their Trust for they have no other Rule to walk by nor limitation than The preservation of the People And the same may be said to that which he reckoneth up amongst the Transgressions of the Times The Parliaments Turning out of one half of themselves that as for several Just Reasons of State good preserving policy Abbots Priors Bishops Lords nay Kings may be expelled the Councels of Legislators when their Interest doth not consist with publick Interest which is the end for which they received their being So when the one half of a Councel shall conspire against the other either to overthrow the Interest of the publick or to obstruct the settlement of Affairs they may be lawfully Expelled There is none are so absurd to think That if one or two of the Members should consult or conspire against the Common good but that they may be expelled nay further prosecuted If so it will hold good also in a greater Number Is it not lawful for the lesser part of the power to oppose the greater in that which is evil It hath been known that the greatest part of a Councel hath promoted wicked Counsel Is it not then lawful for the lesser and better part to betake themselves to such means as may prevent the putting in execution of such wicked Counsel and vanquish them if they can The Law is made onely to Rule people in their distinct and private Capacities and not in the Capacity of them all together considered as one In this case what shall be a Law unto them That is not a Law that cannot be administred in such kind of Emergencies of State Lawes and Prescriptions cannot be Rules to act by nay in several private small petty Contracts Title and the like there doth every Tearm arise so many Intricacies and Riddles that all the Gentlemen of the Long Robe cannot determine but hab Nab as my Lord Richardson once said by all the Records Statutes and Cases that are Extant Would our Authour then have so high proceedings as these so many vast Interests to be considered as in this case to be made parallell and determined by the Example of a Case of Thomas Mouse and William Frog as he doth of a Case between J. S. and J. N. nothing to the purpose in hand He bringeth in another Case viz. the Judgment of Judge Ro●s and Judge Ask in Mr. Streater's Case that discontinuance of a Parliament is a dissolution also he further urgeth his Assertion That the Parliament is no Legal Parliament because it determined by the death of the King and because that Oliver Cromwell did summon other Parliaments the People did thereby Re-assume their authority and withdrew it from the present Parliament To this I answer That it was no discontinuance at all For suppose that the Parliament were Sitting and by reason of Fire or other Accident they should be disturbed and Interrupted that they should all fly the House without Adjourning untill the next day would this be a Dissolution to that Session No verily for although it be a Custome for them to continue their Session by adjourning in such a case the Necessity of Affairs requiring their present service they may Sit and Execute their power and it will be as good as if they had adjourned for adjourning is but a Circumstance and if the not performing of a Circumstance should be a forfeiture of the power when it is occasioned by some force or accident it would be monstrous strange and not in the least to consist with Reason besides the Kings death cannot occasion the Dissolution of this Parliament because of that Act which the Authour ingenuously mentioneth which is That they shall not be dissolved without their own Consents That Parliament of Edward the second did depose him after which there was an Interregnum he was dead in Law yet the Parliament during that Interregnum do Invest Edward the third with the Kingly Office which was an Exercise of the Supream Authority in them in that Interval I grant that when there was no pressing Reasons of State for so doing Parliaments did look upon their determination at the death of the King King Henry the sixth was not crowned untill the eighth year of his Reign yet in the 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. and 6th years of his Raign divers Parliaments were holden the Judges of the Land did then Resolve That formalities must be dispensed with in great Actions that are above

which would have produced persecution and changes of the Government and much detriment to those perswasions who had refused Liberty of conscience is defended and secured better in the Government as a Common-wealth then in a Monarch Liberty of conscience is a thing desired by all Episcopals Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists and others they desire it to themselves but are not willing to part with the like to others observe the rise of any opinion at first It will cry and plead for Liberty of conscience but when it is grown to number strength and power sufficient to preserve it self it then thinketh it self not safe but in the discountenancing contending against endeavouring the suppression and ruine of all other perswasions it is neither salvation nor damnation to be of this forme or that of any of the aforementioned perswasions Salvation cometh by the free grace of God in J●sus Christ adorning the Subj●cts of that mercy with the Ornaments of Repentance to newness of life and holy and obedient walking The Professours of R●ligion of late have lost much of the power of godliness by pu●●i●g so much stresse upon the formes in which more are busied in desending and asserting them in putting in practise the duty of a holy life which shall affoard more comfort at the last day then the defending or being of this or that opinion Now if the Lord Fleetwood and the Army did wrest the Authority out of his hands of whose right I here shall say nothing as would have made use of it by promoting one perswasion against another in opposition of all other since it is our unhappinesse to be devided did they not do their duty and performe a kindnesse to the rest and to the whole Nation doing of that together with restoring of the Nation and making of it a free People If it were so that the Lord Fleetwood did perswade the Protector Richard to Resigne he did but his duty in so doing as to Richard himself for that the constitution of his Government could not long consist it was loaded with so much absoluteness and contradictions all that could be expected from it was the making way for the coming in of the Stuarts Family by increasing the absoluteness of the Protectors power above whatever any Kings of England were invested with to the insupportable detriment of the People who would have received the Stuarts upon the first offer on the tearms that Kings formerly held their Crownes in this Nation and that all the Royalists knew well enough and therefore most of them were Promoters of this designe which was the onely effectual way nay more effectual and certain then by Armies the which by preventing hath secured Richard from those dangers that would have unavoidably fallen upon him by continuing in the Power or upon any such Change As to the Lord Fleetwood's telling Richard that Three Crowns was not worthy a drawn Sword Charles the Fifth after he had worn the Emperial Diadem many years gave Lawes to the greatest part of Europe left his Power as not worthy his holding of it longer So did several other Kings and Princes and betook themselves to a Monastical life and despised and scorned their Dignity Our Authour would have had the Lord Fleetwood given him such Advice as Philistus gave Dionysius the Elder Tyrant of Syracuse he being in extream danger by reason of the Peoples Discontents saith he Dominion is a thing worthy of a man's running all Hazards to attain and if he attaineth it let him hold it and if he perish let the Ruines of his Countrey be his Tomb. Which advice Dionysius followed and brought great Waste upon his Countrey If the Lord Richard had continued his T●●le and the Stuarts could have at any time by power of Arms been able to claim his pretended Right what Waste and Ruine would it have brought upon England All that have read History are able to judge by the distinct Claimes and Titles of the Houses of York and Lancaster This would have been Englands Confusion indeed what else that the Authour of this Englands Confusion treateth of is not worth the taking notice of they are fully answered in the Continuation of this Session of Parliament Justified to wit That the present Parliament are disobliged of all their Declarations and Covenants and Engagements in as much as he refused to submit to those Rules of Government as the Parliament propounded for His and the Nations safety and that in his taking up of Arms and being vanquished he forseited his Right of Government and thereby put himself into a private Capacity unto which I refer the Reader where satisfaction will be given in the aforementioned Particulars FINIS