Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	end_n	king_n	lord_n	3,565	5	3.6733	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85233	A reply unto severall treatises pleading for the armes now taken up by subjects in the pretended defence of religion and liberty. By name, unto the reverend and learned divines which pleaded Scripture and reason for defensive arms. The author of the Treatise of monarchy. The author of the Fuller answer his reply. By H. Fern D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F799; Thomason E74_9	75,846	101

His Majesty an excellent argument to provoke an Adversary upon but this Answerer seemes to have made his Reply to one Section before he had read the next and when he was come to that to forget what he had read or writ before In like manner he tells us presently after that he had proved that the Finall Declaration and Resolution must remaine beyond all further debate in the Councell of the Kingdome which by its number trust interest is onely fit to manage it to all which the Dr hath not vouchsafed to say any thing but that it wholly places the Supremacy in the two Houses so he pag. 31. Answ If nothing else had been said it had been enough and so the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy doth sufficiently shew that to place such a finall Resolution and declarative Judgement in the two Houses doth make them supreame and this no Monarchy but there was more said even the better part of three Sections was spent against that finall declarative judgement and Supply which he places in the two Houses against his perswasions from their Interests Number Trust shewing how possible it is for them to lessen their number to neglect their trust to make the private Interest devoure the publique I need say no more these times speake sufficiently But it seemes this Answerer as I said above wrote downe this before he had throughly read those Sections and when he came to them either had forgot that he had said the Dr. vouchsafed to say nothing to his particulars or else purposed to make it seeme so by answering nothing himselfe to that which the Dr. had said touching that finall declarative Judgement and supply which he places in the Houses But for this mixture of three Estates in the Supremacy of power he has found a new Argument in the Kings Answer to the 19. Propositions wherein His Majesty grants That the Lords being trusted with a Iudicatory Power are an Excellent Skreene betwixt Prince and people and that the power legally placed in the two Houses is more then enough to restraine Tyranny Upon this he makes a long descant and propounds sixe Quere's I will for brevity's sake without any wrong to Him that proposes them reduce them to these two 1. for the Iudicatory power How can such be in the Houses and yet not the declarative power of Law For this as before I must turne him over to the Author of the Treatise of Monarchy who will aske him how can such a finall declarative power be in the Houses and yet this be a Monarchy and the King Supream and I must farther aske him why doth he not place the finall Judgement onely in the Lords house seeing that Judicatory power is only in that not in the House of Commons 2. For the power of Armes If the Houses have not such a power how have they a power more then sufficient to restraine Tyranny let the Dr. fairely resolve the Answerer in these plaine inferences out of His Majesties words erit mihi magnus Apollo so he Answ I must first tell him Apollo was more honoured for his Art then for his bow for his Rules of healing then force of wounding so the morall restraints of Rules limiting Laws and the obligation of an Oath are more reasonable and powerfull for keeping the will of the Monarch within bounds then the forcible constraint of Subjects Armes But this Answerer thinks there can be no sufficient security for the people against the Tyranny of their Prince unlesse they have him fast bound is the tye of established Law nothing the band of a Sacred oath nothing to restraine him unlesse his Subjects have the mastering power God himselfe thought lesse means of restraint sufficient for such security as he was content his people should have under the Iraelitish and Roman Government why should not greater be held sufficient for people under a Christian Monarch Againe when it was proved that the Members of the Houses were Subjects conjunctim from their owne addresses to His Majesty wherein they style themselves his Loyall Subjects this Answerer replyes unto it pag. 39. How weake is an argument from formes of addresses in words against a reall Right what Right to the Supremacy how reall that is appears by all that has been said but we may here returne him his owne Answer to his inference from His Majesties words how weake is the argument from formes of words against a reall right against His knowne Supremacy and Headship Nay how unequall is it to take such large and gracious Expressions issuing from the conscience of his owne intentions and desires altogether averse from tyranny and stretch them on the rack of finister Construction to make them speake to his disadvantage for indeed no other power is granted to be in the Houses to restraine Tyranny then a Legall Morall Parliamentary power not forceable and military See above towards the end of the fourth Section where these and other Expressions of His Majesty were objected and vindicated Now to his fifth Section It was his Rule Coordinates doe supply one the others failings and thereupon he inferred If the King refuse the Lords and Commons may supply This was retorted upon him in my Reply If the Commons stand out and refuse then may the King and Lords by his rule of Coordination supply and command all He answers No qu●stion they may supply as farre as their representation and trust reaches that is for themselves not for the Commons of England whom they doe not represent Answ Doth this man know or heed what he saith doth not he make the safety of the Kingdome the Cause and end of such supply when one of the Coordinates stand out and now he tells us the King and Lords may supply for themselves i. e. they may save themselves if they can but they have nothing to doe with the Commons whom they doe not represent but can the safety of the Kingdome be provided for by this supply unlesse they also be commanded by the Coordinate parts which are to make the supply and will he upon better thought 's deny that in order to that end the safety of the Kingdome the King and Lords also are entrusted for the whole people of England Againe this supply cannot be effectuall without a Iudicatory power but that power we find onely in the Lords not Commons house as he himselfe cited it above out of the Kings words well then must they exercise this Judicatory power upon themselves only and not upon those that the Commons represent or can the Commons by themselves supply that 's against his own rule of Coordination but if he will forget that us he does yet will he not thinke they can make the supply without a Judicatory power I will adde to this what he has at the very end of this Sect. where we finde him as considerate as before In order to his former rule Coordinates supply one anothers failings he had said

Land to actuate and apply it Answer Nothing can be truer then that the government was such from the time that it beganne to be such but he bore us in hand before that it was such from the very first beginning of the Monarchy so he ought to prove it to be for else it must become such by the consent of the King in being condescending from unlimited condition to a more moderate way of Government by severall fixed laws as was shewed above when we spoke of Limitations and Mixtures Sect. 3. but can we think that while there was a King in being the Councell of the Land had power to contrive and dispose of the frame of this Government and that in a way soprejudiciall to the King as this Answerer would make it But he goes on The truth is the Doctor deales with us herein at Papists usually doe with Protestants if they cannot name the particular Raigne and yeere when such a Doctrine tooke it's first rise however palpable it now be we must believe there was no change at all so if it be not assigned when such or such a part of the Governments Constitution began however euident it be that it must have a beginning because a being we must confesse it to have no beginning at all No Sir the Doctor deales with you as Protestants doe with Papists upon that point for as they shew the Doctrine of the Romish Church was not from the beginning and because the yeere and age when every error crept in cannot be named do thereupon conclude certainly That those errours came not in at once but by degrees so we require not the particular Raign and yeer when each constitution came in but doe shew that the Government was not such from the beginning and because the time cannot be shewn when the Limitations and Constitutions came in that made it such we thereupon conclude the Government did not become such at once but by degrees and by the after Condescent of Pious Princes To that which was alledged out of the Preamble of a S●atute 24 H. 8. c. 12. His poore shifts are 1. That it is a piece of a preamble not part of the Statute Answer What then it speakes never a whit the lesse truth nor ha's it the lesse authority but which is more speakes an anciently supposed truth alwaies Confessed and evident in Chronicles and Histories that this is an Empire Governed by one Supreame Head c. II. That the Title speakes it an Act against appeales to Rome Answer It matters not what the occasion was we 〈◊〉 what it positively speakes touching the Kings Supremacy and Headship So they miserably shift off the obligation which the Oath of Supremacy ha's cast upon them as if the Kings Supremacy were asserted in it in opposition to the Bishop of Rome not in relation to the whole body politique that if they deny the Popes Supremacy they thinke they satisfie the Oath what Subjects soever they joyne with His Majesty in the very Supremacy it selfe So in the third place he saith that those words in the Statute To whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of peopl● of the Spiritualty and Temporalty are bounden c. cannot properly be meant of the Parliament but of the Kingdome at large Answer If of the Kingdome at large then is it true also of their Representatives if of the Kingdome in it's defusive body then of it's Collective But I turne him over to the Authour of the Treatise of Monarchy who sufficiently Confutes this idle assertion and doth shew the Lords and Commons in their houses conjunctim are subjects and the King their Head And this is enough for his third Section In his fourth Section he endeavours to prove the Houses are Coordinate with His Majesty in all other Acts of Supreme power as the Calling of Assemblies holding Treaties sending Embassies appointing Judges c. His proofe is first by reason because they are Coordinate with him in the Supream power of making lawes which is the principall and higher Cause to the Calling of Assemblies Treaties c. Answer This he takes for granted that they are Coordinate with His Majesty in the Supream power of Ordaining or making laws which doth proceed as I noted above upon his second Section from his mistake or ignorance in not distinguishing the Exercise of the power and the Power it selfe for they may concur to that and yet not have share in this Secondly He would prove it by Records from pag. 22. to 27. Answ 1. In these we must trust his honesty which we finde not very faithfull in repeating the words of the booke he undertakes to confute 2. Were they truely alledged they yeeld but an Argument a facto ad Ius Parliaments have done this or that therefore they have right to doe so it will be a bad argument in the next age to conclude any thing right and just because it was so ordained by the Houses of this last Parliament III. Though some particulars cited by Him might of right belong to them yet how doth it prove it was so originally and fundamentally and not by after condescent of the Prince as we find many immunities rights and liberties of the Subject to be But for these Records he is beholden to Mr Pryn's collections who is said to be the Author of that booke which beares this title The Soveraigne power of Parliaments or the treachery and disloyalty of Papists to their Soveraigne To their Soveraigne that is to the two Houses by the former part of the title let him take heed he proves them not good Subjects But what shall we make of it 't is certaine he fetches his testimonies from times of Popery shewing what power Parliaments then have assumed and used against the Soveraigne if he will give us leave to style the King so but how he should thereby shew the disloyalty of Papists and yet prove the Soveraign● power of Popish Parliaments I cannot see nor is it greatly materiall for let all his instances be true and his Records faithfully alleadged yet will the argument be inconsequent that from them shall conclude the Soveraigne power of Parliaments After his Records this Answerer enters a discourse of his owne touching the Mixture of this Government That which concernes me in it is pag. 28. The Dr in his former Treatise speakes of the excellent temper of the three Estates and in his Reply acknowledges them as Fundamentals of Government and if fundamentalls how not all alike principall and supream he has not shewed in his Reply though provoked thereto so he Answ 2. The Dr did not any where call them Fundamentals of Government but acknowledged the constitution was fundamentall that provided that Temper and placed in the Houses that power which they have this his mistake I told him of in my Reply pag. 16. and shewed him the absurdity it leades him into by Concluding thence that the Houses are alike Principall or Supreme with