Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	king_n	lord_n	parliament_n	20,596	5	6.9552	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90962	The city-remonstrance remonstrated. Or An answer to Colonell John Bellamy, his Vindication thereof, in justification of The moderate reply to the city-remonstrance. / By I.P.	Price, John, Citizen of London.	1646 (1646)	Wing P3339; Thomason E345_18; ESTC R200996	24,101	36

a Remonstrance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament of the second of Novem. 1642. to these words wee did and doe say that the Soveraigne power doth reside in the King and both Houses of Parliament Here you thinke you have given the Replyer a faire fall and therefore insult over him ever and anon upon this point but forbeare Mr. Bellamy turpe insultare jacenti for however you thinke you have given the Replyer such a full and ample satisfaction yet all the world cannot so easily be satisfied and therefore though for my part I was never yet a Common Counsell man and therefore cannot so possitively speak to such deep states businesse yet since you are so willing to satisfy the ignorant what I shall say herein shall be by way of quere First then I quere Mr. Bellamy What meane you by three Estates I have heard the tearme once by the Bishops friends when they were a falling and they concluded that there were three Estates in this Kingdome viz. the King and the Lords temporall were the first Lords spirituall were the second the Commons the third Estate and they gave this reason that the King and the Lords were but one Estate because the King made the Lords but though the King conferr'd the Honours and profits of Bishops yet did not make the Bishops themselves they as Bishops were jure divino you determine it otherwise I pray you Sir a little more satisfaction to that point 2. What meane you by fundamentall you say the King Lords and Commons are the three Estates of which the fundamentall constitution of this Kingdome is made up are there three fundamentals I confesse I have not understood so much I ever thought there had been but one and that I took to be the Commons and these reasons made me think so First because I ever thought that the Commons made the King and the King made the Lords and s● the Commons were the Prime foundation Secondly I ever took this for a truth likewise that both the King and the Lords were advanced for the benefit quiet and welfare of the Commons and not the Commons made for them and if I was deceived the Common maxim of salu●-populi suprema lex deceived me You see my doubt you see my reason a little satisfaction here also Mr. Bellamy Thirdly I quere whether upon this supposition that the Kingdome is made up three Estates as you say and so wee must not understand the Parliament consisting of so many men but of three Estates distinct quatenus estates apart by themselves those are your termes I quere I say whether that the King and suppose the major part of the Lords which make up two Estates doe agree together suppose it be to set up absolute prerogative and the Commons will not assent here unto whether the major part of Estates must not conclude the minor the two conclude the third and so as for the Commons will they nil they slaves they must be and slaves they shall be your judgment here likewise good Mr. Bellamy Fourthly Whereas you say the King is present in Parliament viz. in his Kingly power though absent in person I quere whether he is present with them as a distinct Estate I know Sir hee is present in power in all his inferiour Courts of justice as well as in the parliament but is he present as a distinct estate If so if one distinct Estate may be present in power quatenus an estate and absent in person may not a second Estate be so present though absent in body yea a third Estate so present and yet absent in body and so we shall have three Estates in Parliament and not a man amongst them this is a Riddle indeed Mr. Bellamy I pray you unfould this also Fiftly The Replyer observing the Remonstrants ascribing only a share of the Supreame power to the House of Commons proposeth this question to them will not you allow so much power to the Kingdome Representative in reference to the Kingdom as to the representative City in reference to London see page 13. And so do I quere wil not the Cōmons of London yeild of ascribe unto the Commons of England as the Cōmons of London to thmselves wil ascribe Therefore Mr. Bellamy to make your absurdities the better appeare in your paralel between the Kingdome Representative and the City Representative I come upon you thus First you grant that the Common-councell is the City Representative page the 2. of your Vindication Secondly You grant that the House of Commons in Parliament assembled is the Kingdome Representative in the same page Thirdly You say the City Representative hath power to make a Law for those whom it Represents in the 12. page of your plea for the Cmonalty of London Fourthly I desire to know whether you allow the Kingdome Representative the same power to make a Law for those whom it represents if so then let us examine your argument May wee reason after your Logick Mr. Bellamy see your Sillogisme Sir in the said book called a plea for the Comonalty of London I think I hit the right name of it though the Replyer was mistaken before in the 12. page it stands thus That Court which hath a power to make a Law and by that Law to conferre a power upon the Lord Major and Aldermen which as Lord Major and Aldermen the● had not befor● must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law above the Lord Major and Aldermen But this Court of Common-councell hath c. Ergo this Court of Common-councell so farre as to the making of a Law must needs be above the Lord Major and Aldermen Now Sir I quere only for I cannot presume such skill may not I reason thus after your patterne That Court that hath a power to make a law and by that law to conferre that power upon the King and Lords which as king and Lords they had not before must needs be quoad hoc unto the making of a Law above the King and Lords But the House of Commons which say you is the Kingdome R●presentative even as the Common-councell is the City Representative upon your supposition hath a power c. Ergo the House of Commons so farre as unto the making of a Law c. May I not reason thus likewise according to your example from your owne supposition still that Court which hath a power to make or repeale what lawes they judge meet for the Common wealth and whereunto the King himselfe is bound by his oath and therefore ought in duty to consent must needs be quoad hoc unto the making and repealing Lawes the Supream Court But the House of Commons which say you is the Kingdome Representative as the Common-conncell is of the City of London upon your supposi●ion hath such a power c. therefore Or may I not reason thus for I doe not conclude any thing I doe but as a Pupill to his Tuter propound queres to

Master Bellamy That Court which hath a power to make Lawes and rules for all the Courts and people in the Kingdome to be steered and acted by and whereunto the King is bound b● oath to consent must needs have the supreame power of the Kingdome residing in it But the House of Commons in Parliament assembled which say you as the Kingdome Representative even as the Common-councell is the City Representative upon your supposition hath such a power c. Therefore the House of Commons hath it seemes even by your owne arguing the Supreame power of the Kingdome lesiding in it One touch mo●e Mr Bellamy from your Plea for the Comonalty of L●n●on 〈…〉 Mr. B●llamy you grant this arguing from your for 〈…〉 of the Kingdome and City Representative to 〈…〉 or ●r●●se I may reason upon you and that thus Sir He th●● sh●ll a●●● be that power unto the City Representati●e in ref●ence to the government of the City which he shall deny unto the Kingdome Representative in r●ference to the Government of th● Kingdom doth quoad hoc preferre the City Representative in its power before the Kingdome representative in its power But Mr. Bellamy ascribes that power unto the City Representative in reference unto the government of the City which he denyes unto the Kingdome Representative in reference unto the government of the Kingdome Therefor●● B●llamy doth quoad hoc preferre the City Representative above the Kingdome Representative The Major proposition I think will not bee denyed for the proofe or the minor I must doe two things First shew what power Mr. Bellamy asc●ibes unto the City Representative in reference to the government of the City Secondly shew what he denies the Kingdome Representative i● reference to the government of the Kingdome Forth first Mr. Bellamy ascribes so much power unto the City Representative in reference unto the government of the City that the Lord Maj●r and Aldermen must have no negative vote as Lord Major and Aldermen out must be considered as so many distinct persons together with the Commons concluding by the major vote of the whole Conjunctim and as unto such conclusions regarding the Lord Major and Aldermen but as so many distinct persons a● is the whole drift of the 15. and 16. pages of the said Plea for the Comonalty of Lond●● Secondly let us consider what he deni●● the Kingdome Representative in reference unto the government of England and that is in term●●is that the Supr●am● 〈◊〉 of this Kingdome doth not r●side there neither wi●● he 〈◊〉 the King Lords Commons in Parliament to be con●●●er●● pe●sonaliter and as so many distinct persons but 〈…〉 so then this 〈…〉 case The City is govern●●joy Common-councell consisting of Lord Major 〈…〉 Commons of the City but not three distinct Esta●e but as 〈…〉 men amounting to such a number the may 〈◊〉 concluding but the Kingdo● is govern●● by a Parliament 〈◊〉 s●tting of King Lords Commons not consider 〈…〉 pers●ns who have their equall vot● 〈…〉 Mr. Bellamy and so the two Estates being the major part of Estate must conclude the third Now I appeale to all whether according to Mr. Bellamyes Logick the Kingdom representative which he himself saith is the House of Commons be not qu●ad hoc 〈…〉 in its power in 〈◊〉 government of the Kingdome then the City 〈◊〉 in ●●ference for the government of the City Well Mr. Bellamy 〈◊〉 the case be so I only quere for my further satisfaction and unti●● you have answered these que●es do not insult over 〈…〉 nor charge him with destroying the power of two ●stat●s o● the Kingdome when he did 〈◊〉 d●sire you ●o 〈◊〉 him the t●uth as concerning the residence of the supr●ame power of the Kingdome until I heare your answers I shall never in 〈◊〉 of your 〈…〉 to vn●ou●d Riddles and by 〈…〉 your selfe th● questions will be no 〈◊〉 unto you neither are they intended so to 〈◊〉 Take heed you doe not make a N●t of your answers Here you slide ●rom the Replyer and deale with others as Lieu. Col. John Lilburn and anon after with Mr. 〈◊〉 Burroughs and the truth is I wonder how you can write so irreverently of him as you doe you call him one of the most moderate opposers of Presbyteriall Government and as if your bitternesse and unworthinesse of Spirit did resolve to be master you checke your soft saying with if any of them may truly be so called well Sir what say you of Mr. Burroughs thus in his book which he writ against Doctor Ferne page 125. of the first impression of his book called the glorious name of the Lord of Hosts but in the last impression the 9. page It seemes by the way that Doctor Ferne and you are agreed and now what was written against Doctor Ferne proves written against you is this becomming a christian thus in your Spirituall warfare at the command of the world to face to the right to the left to the front to the reare halfe face face about and as you were but what saith Mr. Burroughs in the place before quoted thus But if the Parliament should degenerate and grow tyrannicall what meanes of safety could there be for a State Answ I confesse the condition of such a State would be very dangerous and like to come to confusion particular men could not helpe themselves and the whole State ought to suffer much before it should helpe it selfe by any wayes of resisting but if you can suppose a Parliament so farre to degenerate as all to conspire together with the King to destroy the Kingdome and to possesse the lands and riches of the Kingdome themselves in this case whether a law of nature would not allow of standing up to defend our selves yea to reassume the power given to them to discharge them of that power they had and to set up some other I leave to the light of nature to judge You will say This cannot be because the higher Powers must not be resisted by any Answ This is not properly to resist the power but to discharge the power and to set the power else-where hitherto Mr. Burroughs and is this all you can say of Mr. Burroughs It is well malice it selfe can pick no worse from his writings and truly Sir you might have spared your marginall hand and finger except you intended to direct the Reader to observe your ignorance and envy in collecting his saying for first Mr. Burroughs did assert nothing but left it to any mans determination whether the Law of Nature would not allow of such and such a course in such and such a case and it seemes you the State case resolver generall undertakes the decision Once more Mr. Bellamy● give us but this foundation to build upon as none but malignant-royalists will deny it viz. salus populi suprema lex and then I thinke you will hardly like a wise and solid man speak otherwise to that point the rest of your proceedings in your Vindication is