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
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