Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	abbot_n	parliament_n	prior_n	773	4	10.6117	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67877	The history of the troubles and tryal of the Most Reverend Father in God and blessed martyr, William Laud, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. [vol. 2 of the Remains.] wrote by himself during his imprisonment in the Tower ; to which is prefixed the diary of his own life, faithfully and entirely published from the original copy ; and subjoined, a supplement to the preceding history, the Arch-Bishop's last will, his large answer to the Lord Say's speech concerning liturgies, his annual accounts of his province delivered to the king, and some other things relating to the history.	Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Wharton, Henry, 1664-1695.; Prynne, William, 1600-1669. Rome's masterpiece.	1700 (1700)	Wing L596; ESTC R354	287,973	291

rest For out of all doubt their Votes do hurt sometimes and it may be more often and more dangerously than the Bishops Votes And when this Lord shall be pleased to tell us what those other Irregularities are which are as antient and yet redressed I will consider of them and then either grant or deny In the mean time I think it hath been proved that it is no Irregularity for a Bishop that is called to it by Supreme Authority to give Counsel or otherwise to meddle in Civil Affairs so as it take him not quite off from his Calling And for his Lordship 's Close That this is not so antient but that it may be truly said Non fuit sic ab initio his Lordship is much deceived For that Speech of our Saviour's St. Matthew 19. 8. is spoken of Marriage which was instituted in Paradise and therefore ab initio from the beginning must there be taken from the Creation or from the Institution of Marriage soon after it But I hope his Lordship means it not so here to put it off that Bishops had not Votes in the Parliaments of England from the Creation For then no question but it may be truly said Non fuit sic ab initio But if his Lordship or any other will apply this Speech to any thing else which hath not its beginning so high he must then refer his Words and meaning to that time in which that thing he speaks of took its beginning as is this particular to the beginning of Parliaments in this Kingdom And then under Favour of this Lord the voting of Bishops in Parliament is so antient that it cannot be truly said Non fuit sic ab initio For so far as this Kingdom hath any Records to shew Clergy-Men both Bishops and Abbots had free and full Votes in Parliament so full as that in the first Parliament of which we have any certain Records which was in the Forty and ninth Year of Henry the Third there was Summoned by the King to Vote in Parliament One hundred and twenty Bishops Abbots and Priors and but Twenty three Lay-Lords Now there were but Twenty six Bishops in all and the Lords being multiplied to the unspeakable Prejudice of the Crown into above One hundred besides many of their young Sons called by Writ in their Father's Life-time have either found or made a troubled time to cast the Bishops and their Votes out of the House 2. To the Objection for being Established by Law his Lordship says The Law-makers have the same Power and the same Charge to alter old Laws inconvenient as to make new that are necessary The Law-makers have indeed the same Power in them and the same Charge upon them that their Predecessors in former Times had and there 's no question but old Laws may be Abrogated and new ones made But this Lord who seems to be well versed in the Rules and Laws of Government which the poor Bishops understand not cannot but know that it 's a dangerous thing to be often changing of the Laws especially such as have been antient and where the old is not inconvenient nor the new necessary which is the true State of this Business whatever this Lord thinks 3. And for the Third Objection the Privileges of the House this Lord says it can be no Breach of them For either Estate may propose to the other by way of Bill what they conceive to be for publick Good and they have Power respectively of accepting or refusing This is an easie Answer indeed and very true For either Estate in Parliament may propose to the other by way of Bill and they have Power respectively of accepting or refusing and there is no Breach of Privilege in all this But this easie Answer comes not home For how my Lord understands this Objection I know not it seems as if it did reach only to the external Breach of some Privilege but I conceive they which made the Objection meant much more As namely that by this Bill there was an aim in the Commons to weaken the Lords House and by making their Votes fewer to be the better able to work them to their own Ends in future Businesses So the Argument is of equal if not greater strength against the Lord's yielding to the Bill to the Iufringement of their own strength than to the Commons proposing it and there is no doubt but that the Commons might propose their Bill without Breach of Privilege but whether the Lords might grant it without impairing their own strength I leave the future Times which shall see the Success of this Act of Parliament to judge of the Wisdom of it which I shall not presume to do I thought his Lordship had now done but he tells us 4. There are two other Objections which may seem to have more force but they will receive satisfactory Answers The one is that if they may remove Bishops they may as well next time remove Barons and Earls This Lord confesses the two Arguments following are of more force but he says they will receive satisfactory Answers And it may be so But what Answers soever they may receive yet I doubt whether those which that Lord gives be such For to this of taking away of Barons and Earls next his Lordship Answers two things First he says The Reason is not the same the one sitting by an Honour invested in their Blood and Hereditary which though it be in the King alone to grant yet being once granted he cannot take away The other sitting by a Barony depending upon an Office which may be taken away for if they be deprived of their Office they sit not To this there have been enough said before yet that it may fully appear this Reason is not Satisfactory this Lord should do well to know or rather to remember for I think he knows it already that though these great Lords have and hold their Places in Parliament by Blood and Inheritance and the Bishops by Baronies depending upon their Office yet the King which gives alone can no more justly or lawfully alone away their Office without their Demerit and that in a legal way than he can take away Noblemens Honours And therefore for ought is yet said their Cases are not so much alike as his Lordship would have them seem In this indeed they differ somewhat that Bishops may be deprived upon more Crimes than those are for which Earls and Barons may lose their Honours but neither of them can be justly done by the King's Will and Pleasure only But Secondly for farther Answer this Lord tells us The Bishops sitting there is not so essential For Laws have been and may be made they being all excluded but it can never be shewed that ever there were Laws made by the King and them the Lords and Earls excluded This Reason is as little satisfactory to me as the former For certainly according to Law and Prescription of Hundreds of Years the Bishops sitting