Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	act_n	king_n	title_n	3,788	5	7.4113	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62890	The rebels plea, or, Mr. Baxters judgment concerning the late wars in these particulars : viz. the originall of government, coordinate and legislative power in the two Houses, third estate, force upon the Houses in 1642, principles the Houses went by at the beginning, destructive to monarchy, covenant, reasons for submitting to the late government.	Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675.	1660 (1660)	Wing T1838; ESTC R32811	35,816	50

part of that Assertion or at least explain it so as to be intended onely of lawfull ones For to Usurpers they have shewed themselves friends and true Subjects They will not molest their Prince no not for their Covenant provided he hath but a bad Title let them see right trampled upon they are contented they ask no more The reasons of which prodigious dealing are these I am bound in Conscience to submit to the present Government first because a full and free Parliament ●at● owned it which is notoriously the consent of the people which is the evidence former Princes had to justifie their BEST TITLES Absurd absurb absurd And it is the opinion of Grotius upon Mat. 22. 20. That private men are not judges of the Controvertible Titles of Princes And Christ commanded to give 〈…〉 was in 〈◊〉 The 〈◊〉 Assertion that the consent of Parliaments was former Princes best Title hath in it I know not whether more of non-sense than treason it sounds certainly strange in the ears of English-men who have been hitherto told that there was no interregnum here the death of the former Prince being all that was required to compleat the title of the latter whom no act no not an Attainder in Parliament could debar from his Throne the Parliament deriving its Authority from the Writ of the Prince without Authority from whom as King already they could not have met ●ut here by the glorious name of Parliament he means onely the House of Commons the Other House being not at all elected by the People and so not involving their consents Now that the House of Commons may give away the Heire of the Crown and all the Peers native Rights to whom they please even the meanest and most wicked Varlets is one of their very New Priviledges But Christ bad us pay tribute to Caesar because he was in Possession Between which Case and ours there is this difference There the lawfull Magistrate receded from his Right which in our Case was not done The Romans title to that being not as in most other places meer Conquest but dedition Aristobulus the younger brother getting possession by wrong Hircanu● the elder parted with his Right to the Romans on condition they would conquer it by their Armes He chose rather by their help to rule as a Deputy of theirs then to keep a more noble title he had no likelihood ever to enjoy see Dr. Hammond on the place The Romanes then had the right of him who had the very right the onely remaining difficulty is how C●sar came to have the right of the Romanes which notoriously was in the ●●nate and People To which I say this The Senate and people upon what inducement it concerns me not to enquire at present laid down their claim parted with their power submitted to and acknowledged the Emperours to be their very good Lords Pusillanimously I must confesse and their own Historians proclaim it but quilibet post credere juri su● If they parted with their right to C●sar then C●sar ●ad it King Charls never did so and Res inter alios a●●a 〈…〉 debet I may now confidently say this example reacheth not the question but if it did paying necessary Tribute is one thing writing fine daintily fi●e canting Epistles is another but this I will not at present urge because Mr. Baxter shall not say I endeavour to disgrace him but onely commend his or his friends discretion that one of his Prefaces viz. that before his book of Church Government is very rarely to be met with of late times This argument tempts me to put this one question by what name are those Ministers of this Nation to be known that had rather Richard Cromwel should have raigned then King Charls● I have now gone over so much of Mr. Ba●ters Books as seemed in any degree argumentative I have left out much which I might pertinently and truly have urged because I would not mention any thing which might seem exasperating For I could heartily wish the Parliament could passe such an act of Oblivion that all that is past may be not only pardoned but forgot There hath certainly so much of folly as well as impiety been seen in our late Proceedings that it were much for the credit of this present age if posterity would give as little credit to those who tell them these things were so as we fools did to those wise and honest men who time enough before hand told us they would be so If any thing in these papers seem offensive though I have taken all possible care nothing should to some men who think the onely way to secure their honour and innocence is to be angry I do assure them the rubbing upon the sore places was not to hinder the healing or to vex and inflame the distempred parts but onely to free them from that errour of taking themselves to be whole already If any thing here may be of use to any reader I shall think my pains well bestowed however I shall at any time gladly hazard mor● then alittle labour in the service of that cause I plead for FINIS Errata

the best way to understand the nature of a thing is to consult the Writ that belongs to it now if the Writ calls them onely to Counsel Con●●l●m vestrum impens●ri c and De quibusdam arduis negotiis quibusdam some which he was pleased to desire their advice in not what ever they had a mind to be medling in There be fresh examples of latter times even in Qu Elizabeth's days of members sent to prison for mentioning in the House to move the Queen in a thing which highly concerned the peace of the Nation but a thing above their cognisance and it was not muttered at as breach of Priviledge If they had been intended for such sharers in the Soveraignty in the very Constitution of the Government How are the Burgesses so many more than the Knights of the Shire are the meanest Tradesmen more capable of ruling then the Gentry whose thoughts and education are sure more suitable to it That alone were enough to make one think representing to the King the several Obstructions of Trade in all parts of the Nation the greatest part of their errant it being the onely thing they are fit for Adde to this Sr. Edward Cook in Pref. to 9. Rep. reckons it ●p as one of the Priviledges of Tenants in Antient Dem●sne that they were not to be returned Burgesses to serve in Parliament His next work is to Answer two Objections 1. The Oath of Supremacy saith he secureth the Kings Title against all Foraign Claim either Pope or any other The words of that Oath are plainly these I. A. B. Doe utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the Onely Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall Thus far it is as clear and positive as words can make it The Negative part of the Oath which because it hinders not mens designes they are content to take notice of followes and that no Forraigners c. If the King is the onely Supream Governour of this Realm and the two Houses are equal with him in the Government and we may swear this and yet believe that it is time to change not onely our law but our language and the Houses should make us new Dictionaries that we may know what English words signifie The second Argument is one would think convincing The two Houses acknowledge themselves His Majesties humble and loyall Subjects assembled in Parliaments They petition the King the King never them they cannot come unlesse he cals them nor choose to come when he doth call them nor stay one minuit longer than he pleases and yet these are his equals not to say his Superiours but he that hath an equall during his own pleasure hath none at all He warns us to take heed of Titles being it is likely not ignorant that King Monarch Emperor Supream Lord Majesty were every where in the law attributed to the Kings person but of him in his politicall capacity i e. the Majesty Regality of the two Houses There is as little to be found of the Name as the thing What hath been now said may evince that proposition the Soveraign power is onely in the King to be no groundlesse one but of that more hereafter The next Objection is Legislation is the most principall part of the Soveraignes Right But that belongs to the Houses as well as the King Be it enacted by the Kings Majesty Lords and Commons c. Ergo Here Mr Baxter evidently betrays his cause before while it was for his turn the Parliament fought for and represented us as free in o● Rights exempted in the very Constitution he referred all to the Originall ●ontract but here part of the Soverainty is proved to be in the Houses by these words ●e it enacted by the King Lords and Commons termes that came up but yesterday and he is so conscious to himself of waving his first plea that he saies he will not go to records and writings i. e. he knows the example of all laws the authority of all lawyers give judgment against him if a bargain was made at first we are obliged to keep it as well as the King nor can we encroach with more honesty upon his original priviledges then he on ours But the King it seems shall be one of the three Estates and the onely one whose rights may lawfully be invaded Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supream and Legislative power It is the interest of Kings as well as their duty to make and repeale laws as they suite with or are repugnant to the good of their Country which they can no way be so well informed of as by an Assembly con●isting of men chosen out of all parts of the Realm And where there are considerable and distinct ranks of men as the Spirituall and Lay Nobility and the Commons it was fit they should all be heard and consulted with their Interests being divers and sometimes thwarting it was very like their desires would be so too It was this way provided no one part should get a grant by surprise to the disadvantage of the others and thus it was in England and this the reason of demanding the opinion of the two Houses is evident I appeal to the Body of the Acts themselves here I will not insist upon the elder presidents though I might rationally enough from them overthrow the fancy of our Rights secured in the constitution of our Government but that being so universally granted I shall cite Acts of weak Kings and later times Onely desiring this thing of the Reader that he would not think those I quote to be the onely examples to be produced and so possibly think either fraud or force hath caused the people to suppresse their Rights let him but look upon the Statutes he will quickly be rid of any such fond imagination I have therefore purposely pitched upon a weak Prince and insulting Subjects to begin with Anno decimo Edw 2. For as much as our Soveraign Lord the King by the INFORMATION of his Prelates Earls Barons c. Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent c. hath Ordained and Established So Anno 12. Edw. so in all other Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent of c. hath made these Acts following In the 10. of Edward the 3. where there is expresse mention of Magna Charta Charta de foresta which shews that Assembly not unmindfull of their Liberties or Priviledges yet the same stile continues It is established by the King by the Assent of c. and at the request of the said Knights and Commons In the 25. Edw. 3. The King at the request of the Lords and Commons c. 2. H. 5.

For as much as divers complaints have been made to our Soveraign Lord the King by the Commons in this present Parliament Our Soveraign Lord the King hath ordained This will certainly shew the Legislative power to have been solely in the Kings Majesty in those dayes and therefore discovers the foolery to say no worse of those who upon that head assert a partition of that important piece of Soveraignty between him and the two Houses Be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament or Lords and Commons began in H. 7. time but that that variation of phrase should make such a considerable alteration of Government and no notice taken either by the King that parted or the people who received by it so large as is pretended a share in the Government is not easily imaginable Sure their apprehensions were very small of it the notice they took of it being so little We finde after that not to insist upon each act or reign which would be tedious and he that doubts may consult the Books Anno 1. Eliz. The Lords and Commons her majesties humble and faithfull Subjects most humbly beseeching that it may be Enacted c. And in the Act of Uniformity among others it is Be it Enacted by the Queens Highnesse with the assent of the Lords and Commons c. to which those words likewise inserted in some places of that Act by authority of this present Parliament cannot be thought without great imputation of folly to those members to be repugnant and the straining of those words is all that he can rely on I might here urge the old form Anno. 13. Eliz. Be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty with the Assent c. among many others I will onely cite one of 4. Jac cap. 1. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty with the Assent of c. Now to speak of the fundamentall partitian of the Soveraignty in the very constititon of the Government and to make it out by a phrase newly taken up and to take no notice of the old forms The King Grants the King Wils the King provides argues one very desirous to say some thing in a bad matter but when this form is it self varied and in many Acts both are used sure the latter was never intended to evacuate the former and it is very unlikely so great a change of the Legislative power would passe without any notice either of King or People it deserved at least one Act or Parliament to have transmitted it to posterity when alas we finde even in King Charls his dayes an Act framed according to the old regular way in the Petition of Right even there when we were not sure giving away nor unmindfull of our liberties To the Kings most excellent Majesty in which the Lords and Commons do humbly pray that no such thing as they Complained of c. To which the answer was Soi● droit come est desire The Laws are alwayes called the Kings laws but very improperly if this new doctrine be true I conclude all with the words of Bracton an Author the Antimonarchical party make much use of Quod Principi placuit i. e. non quicquid est à Rege temere ex animi perturbati impetu quodam aestu praesumptum sed quicquid ex Magnatum suorum consilio REGIO Assensu Authortatem praestante habitâ super hoc deliberatione tractatu recti fuerit definitum legis habet vigorem What the reason and the effect of their assent is is not hard now to judge men have been so often taught to say that because they must assent to the making of Laws they have a part of the Legislative power in them and will call it non-sense and absurd to think otherwise I will cite Grotius cap. 3. de jure belli Sect. 18. and I the rather cite him because living in a Popular State he naturally favoured it so much as in this point especially of sharing in the Government he shewed himself tender of the peoples Rights Multum fal●un●●r qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi à Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta in eum modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi regis imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit nèquid fallaciter impetratum pro ver● ipsius voluntate haberetur which is not much different from what we cited out of Bracton The sum of which is this when the assent of the Senate is necessary to any of the Kings Acts it is not that they share in the doing but that they truly ●nform the K●ng what it is he does He cites the example of Antiochus who wrote as our Kings use Nè sibi parerent siquid legibus adversum juss●sset They should not obey him in things contrary to law And Constantine nè pupilli aut viduae those forlorn people should not lose their priviledges etiam si Imperatoris rescriptum proferatur though by order under the Emperors own hand and yet the world took never any for their equals or them for any other then Soveraign Princes The same Author Sect. 1● Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua sui ditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad imperii rationem pertineant A Soveraign ceases not to be so though he promise his Subjects not to exercise by himself some parts even of the Sover●●gn power Adrian the Emperour swore he neve● would pun●sh a Senato● without the assent of the ●enate which was a greater priviledge then our members can plead yet never any was so fond as to take them lesse for Subjects or him for Soveraign Princes upon the misinformation of corrupt men may doe much to the grievance of the Subjects if they to avoid this inconvenience to the people shall provide so for their security as to promise not to exercise such parts of their power without their advice and assent first in a Common Counsell assembled our old style they shew themselves unworthy of such an Act or grace who will interpret it to the disadvantage nay to the dethroning of him that passed it To apply it to our particular case suppose the King hath graciously promised not to leavy money on his Subjects without their assent first had in Parliament The King now cannot do it the King hath so far restrained the exercise of his power but is by this any power placed in them grant they had it will not reach their purpose The King cannot leavy mony without their assent but is there any law that gives them power to leavy any without his though they may give mony to the King I doubt it will puzzle a good Lawyer to prove they can give the Subjects money to themselves without which I doubt Contribution Excise and those other fine words was but Theft and Robbery That the assent of the two Houses

Parliament The Covenant is lyable to more exceptions then at present I am willing to take the very designe was extreamly scandalous and as great a blow to Religion I am perswaded as it ever recei●ed in the world as representing it to be the parent of the worst of vices rebellions sacriledge and perjury some men have adventured to teach that God is the author of all sin these men come very neer them that can do the worst of Villanies upon his score fear God and break his commandements and all upon the newly revealed Doctrine of Piety and Plunder Surely Humility Patience self-deniall taking up the Cross loving enemies praying for persecutors are things commended only to pusillanimous and morrall men Hath the spirit that came down upon Christ in the forme of a Dove appeared since in the shape of a Vulture or a Roman Eagle was it weaknesse not religion that kept the primitive Ch●●stians obedient must whatever they said about Rebelion be construed with this tacite reserve untill we have an opportunity We read in Scripture of a blessing laid up for those who in defence of Christ and his truth part with their Lands Houses or Life but not of any for those who upon that score invade other mens That there were no rewards appointed for those who killed Tyrants Buchanan esteemed it as a defect in policy and it is one in religion too He might as easily observed it to be an omission in the Law of God as man The quarrel was not then about Doctrine so much as discipline our articles were esteemed Orthodox our discipline not appostolick enough Their discipline in terminis in Scripture and as a command to introduce it with fire and sword in defiance of Prince and Laws are surely to be found in the same chapter These tender Consciences are very prety things that dare not conform to an indifferent Ceremony in obedience to all the authority the law of England takes notice Civill or Ecclesiasticall without an expresse command or example of Christ or his Apostles and yet without either can take up arms against their Soveraign plunder and slay all whose Consciences are not of the same size The Covenant not to mention upon what grounds they who at first Idolized it do now look upon it as an abominable Idoll lyes open to very just and very many material Ob●ections It being my businesse onely by the by I shall onely intimate those that are so obvious that they cannot escape a very ordinary observer First It is directly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy formerly taken wherein they swear the King to be the o●ely supream Governour in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporall which power they there swear to defend and by resolving to reform the Church without nay against his direct Command they now as absolutely with an Oath too deny it Secondly It is contrary to the Oaths of Canonical obedience to their Ordinary Bishops Chancellors c. which those of them which had entered into Orders took and conscienciously observed by swearing their utter exterpation a Government they by subsciption testified to be lawfull which judgement many of them were known never to change till it was their interest the late usuall season of conversion so to do And some think a good Bishoprick would seduce many of them to their old errour again Thirdly Ecclesiasticall affaires never were nor can be by the law of England which they broke even in this very act of Covenanting for the laws as they said consulted on in Parliament but onely to have the civill Sanction and that after the law is expresse they have been determined by the Clergy in Convocation See The Reformation of the Church of England Justified a whole book to that purpose Now whether the Assembly of Divines being not called by the King who alone hath power by the Law to do it nor elected by the Clergy who alone have power to send the true Convocation not dissolved may be called The Clergy in Convocation I will leave to any one to determine and onely observe that as in other illegall Acts the late Powers proceeded according to their example so in this particularly Their naming what members they pleased without Election of the Clergy to sit in the Assembly was a fit President for Oliver Cromwel to call whom he pleased without choice of the Country to sit in the little Parliament The State and Church was pulled down the same way Fourthly The Covenant could not be imposed according to the Doctrine of the long Parliament who Ex Col. p. 859. tels us Men are not to be compelled to be sworn without an Act of Parliament which certainly the Votes of the two Houses are not I shall not prosecute these things any further but observe some few particulars in the Covenant it self and onely wonder with what face not to say with what Conscience men the professed Champions of our Liberty and of no part so much as our Consciences in regard of Oaths imposed even by an unquestionable Authority could on the sudden use such barbarous rigour toward the freeborn people of England for not taking that Oath which themselves had according to the fore-cited Doctrine no power to impose and the others had the ●ommand of the Prince Law and unanswered Reason to refuse at least they could say what themselves once thought enough it was against their Consciences We shall now examine whether there is any amends made in the Materiall Cause for the faultinesse of the Efficient and there is a presumption that it is so sure such good men would not involve their Country in the miseries of a War resist their Prince but in an order to a thing that was very excellent if not necessary That assertion in the Preface which gives chief countenance to the undertaking is a most horrible falsity that it was according to the Commendable practise of these kingdomes in former times and the example of Gods people in other Nations England hath behaved her self so commendably that it is impossible to make it out to have been her practise whosoever swears it to have been untill he can produce his instances if he doth not meet with very charitable persons will be looked upon as one horribly Perjured The Churches of God if there were any before Presbytery Rebelled into a being whose examples may be Rules to us must be either the holy men before the law under the law or the Primitive Christians beofore Religion was made a Bawde to Interest He that thinks there can be a thing fetcht from their doings in favour of this league let him serve that cause so far as to attempt The History of Covenants and see how many examples he can produce of Fighters with their Prince for not introducing a form of Worship they better liked of than what was by law established The Covenants we read of in Scripture were not against the King but with the King nor when the Kings refused doe we