Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	church_n	king_n	maintain_v	1,839	5	7.8384	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91220	The cordiall of Mr. David Ienkins: or His reply to H.P. barrester of Lincolnes-Inne, answered.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1647 (1647)	Wing P400A; Thomason E393_9; ESTC R201593	18,740	33

other Nations But they can never assure us what we shall enjoy And therefore I wonder why the Royalists should so much extoll the rare Constitution of this Kingdom when besides some other flowers of the Crowne they ascribe to the King such a negative voyce in Parliament as is sufficient alone to destroy all that is granted us in all things else But to returne to our Reply 'T is maintained next that whatsoever power is in both Houses yet there is no power in the House of Commons to examine at all because the House of Commons cannot administer an Oath and examination without Oath is a meere communication and rejected as unprofitable in Law One reason why the House of Commons cannot examine upon Oath is because it is no Court and it appeares to be no Court because it has no power of tryall nor ever practised any such power by Bill Indictment Information Plaints or Originall And for the Lord Cookes Relation that the House of Commons have imposed Fines and imprisoned men in Queene Elizabeths time and since He saies these are but late and a few matters of fact and à facto ad jus is no good argument Here we see though the greatest plea against the House of Commons is the non-user of any such power yet when the non-user is proved then 't is objected That it is but of late times and illustrated but by a few presidents A second reason against the House of Commons being a Court is because it has neither the Kings Patent nor any Statute nor common usuage to make it so The House of Lords is acknowledged to be a Court of Record to many purposes partly because the King sits there and partly because there is cleere Law for their Priviledges but the House of Commons is excepted against as not within these reasons The truth is both Houses are but one Court and one Councell and the time has been when they have both sate in one place together and there may be good reason given why they may sit severall and have their priviledges kept distinct and why the Lords should be more active in some matters of judgement where the whole Commonalties interest is not touched But this is no proofe That what the Lords act by themselves receives no influence from the House of Commons Or that the House of Peeres is of more value in the eye of the Law or has any greater jurisdiction by the Law then the Representative Body of the whole State As for the Kings sitting in the House of Lords there is but little moment in that in regard that he sits not there to judge or to debate but onely to propose and consent And there is no Law to debarre him from the like in the Commons House and so it was when both Houses sate together and still is when they meet together And secondly whereas some Patent Statute or Usage is demanded from the House of Commons in maintenance of their judiciall power This we say is unreasonable Nay if any Patent Statute or Usage could be produced for preferrence of the Peerage before all the Knights Gentlemen and Commons of England in this point that were rather to be rejected as most unjust and unnaturall A third reason is brought against the House of Commons out of the Writ of Summons forasmuch as in that Writ the King resolves consults and treats with his Peeres super ardua regni but the Commons are called ad faciendum consentiendum in iis quae ibidem de communi concilio ordinari contigerint These words of the Writ though they are generall and in some things ambigious yet they are no more disadvantagious to the Commons then to the Lords or King But if words are to be interpreted by the practise of Parliaments and by the tenour of all our other Lawes we shall finde that the Kings part is to propose and consent but not to debate that the Lords part is to propose debate and consent in some things but not in all that the Commons part is to propose debate and consent in all And this appeares by the raising of Treasure the grand concernment of the Kingdom called justly Ornamentum pacis firmamentum belli and in this though the King and Lords may propose consent yet none but the Commons may propose debate and consent From reasoning Mr Jenkins now betakes himself to rayling and tells both Lords and Commons that whatsoever their Writ meant they act now quite contrary for by their Writ they were required to treat and consult with the King concerning the King the defence of the Kingdome and the Church whereas they first imprison the King next arme the Kingdome for themselves against the King and lastly demolish the Church by abolishing Bishops Deanes c. For the first the King left them unconstrained and deserted Westminster whether they were summoned to attend him and after tooke Armes to dissolve them but those Armes being now broken the Parliament keepes him from raising new broyles but so farre are they from refusing to treat with him that they prepare Propositions for him and reject no messages or Letters that come from him neither is the Kings restraint properly to be called imprisonment being much different therefrom both for the manner and for the end of it the manner of it is ingenuous and accompanied with many accommodations which thousands of other Free-men nay Gentlemen of England cannot attaine too and for his Attendants they are truly his Servants and as observant in all Offices compatible with the peace of the Kingdome as ever he had any The end of his restraint also is not to incommodate him in any degree there is nothing aymed at in it but to preserve the Kingdome from new disturbance till he appeares fully reconciled and to preserve him from drawing prejudice upon himselfe For the second since 't is not for the Kingdoms damage nor the Kings that future Commotions be supprest the Lords and Commons could no way better satisfie the intent of their Summons then by suppressing Commotions by the same posture of defence as they now are in I could wish also that Mr. Ienkins would understand that as the Kingdome is called the Kings so the King is called the Kingdoms and that propriety which the Kingdome has in the King is more tenderly to be expounded then that which the King has in the Kingdome For the third that the word Church should onely be applyed to Church-men or the word Church-men to Bishops Deanes c. is more then the Law teaches and if the businesse be studdied well 't will not be found a thing impossible as Master Ienkins supposes for the Parliament to abolish Bishops Deanes c. and yet to advance Church-men or to take away some of the excessive Grandour of Church-men without any destruction to the Church 2 Thus much of Mr. Ienkins Reply to the first particular I come now to his second where he takes it ill that