Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
parliament_n assent_n king_n royal_a 3,228 5 8.0365 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A40719 A review of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe as by the late act of uniformity is required? : in reply to a book entitled A short surveigh of the grand case, &c. : wherein all their objections against both the declarations are considered and answered / by the same hand. Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693. 1663 (1663) Wing F2514; ESTC R20121 61,527 240

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

therein though the King himself should forbid Though the King should deny his Assent and declare his most express Dissent and threats against it yet they would persist therein all the dayes of their lives 13. Yea though King and Parliament as is now come to pass should make Laws against it they must be zealous and constant in this common Cause so little regard will the Covenant allow to this day to the Kings Consent 14. Yet heed what follows against all Opposition and promote the same against all lets and impediments whatsoever give me leave to say though this Opposition these lets and impediments be from the King himself as you know they were at this very same time This being imposed by the two Houses and taken by the people and the King himself in Arms to defend his own and the Churches Government 15. Pray resolve where then was the King Consent or if the King please to be understood in the Covenant 16. Moreover doth not this Article which is the close and perfection of the rest plainly engage to such endeavours as carry opposition too Be your selves the judges the words are against all opposition how can you be engaged to endeavour against all opposition but by opposition against all opposition but by opposing all oppositions even that which the King himself should make or rather indeed did make 17. Now how you can oppose the King or the opposition made by him and his commission and yet understand his consent in the same matter I think you will not go about to inform me 18. Once more that the endeavours of the Covenant carry force and opposition in them according to the Grammatical Construction and Logical resolution of the same appears in that Power is engaged to our Power and Power in order to the suppressing and overcoming the opposers for it is added and what we are not able our selves to suppress c. by our own power and on the other hand we shall assist and Defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof 19. Which expressions I should abhor to infer it did not my Argument force it do beyond all capacity of Contradiction engage the Covenanters in a party to live and dy together in an hostile way of Opposition against the King and his Armies and Friends in a pursuit of the ends of the Covenant 20. Which cannot consist with the places of Subjects or lawful endeavours or Possibly suppose the Kings consent 21. I cannot rejoyce to conclude that this meaning of the Covenant was expressed at first by the prime inventors and contrivers of the Covenant such words as these you find in a Declaration called the Declaration of the convention of Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland 22. To our knowledg say they upon swearing and subscribing of this League and Covenant the opposite Malignant partie will rage and Tumultuate more then ever and therefore unless we will either betray our Religion Liberties and Law and all that we and ours do possess and suffer our selves to be cut off and massacred by the bloody and barbarous cruelty of those our enraged enemies There is a necessity of taking Arms for mutual defence 23. Lastly That the Kings Consent was little intended or understood in the Covenant is yet more manifest if it be considered that it was not only made and published and pressed without notice given him and at such a time too and condition of affairs as had served the King from the Covenanting party but it was still carried on against the Kings dislike and express dissent and prohibition of it in a timely and solemn Proclamation against it SECT 4. Of the Kings Proclamation against the Covenant 1. THe King was pleased upon the first hearing of the Covenant published in Print by the Order of the Commons which I conceive was sometime before the Order of the Lords and Commons for the tendring and taking of it to issue out his Proclamation from his Court at Oxford entituled His Majesties Proclamation forbidding the tendring and taking of the Covenant called the solemn League and Covenant for Reformation 2. The Vse of this Proclamation in the present controversie is two-fold First it Demonstrates beyond all contradiction that the intention of the Covenanters did not regard the consent of the King which runs clearly against the Kings Supremacy Secondly It renders the Covenant void even from its creation before ever it was ordered to be taken For Datur irritatio Juramenti aliquando per superiores si in illa ipsa materia s●nt superiores cirea quam Juramentum versatur 3. Now so far as the Gover●ment of the Church cannot be altered but by Law it is under the power of the King at least not to alter it He having a Negative upon both Houses and the Kings Proclamation having denied his Assent thereunto and proclaimed his prohibition of it thereby voided it long agon according to the Rule 4. A Rule never disputed grounded evidently upon Scripture and Natural Reason and indeed I find not that your selves do question the Proposition though I confess you put me to a task that I little expected by doubting the Assumption 5. You say It remaineth upon you a doubt whether there ever were any such Proclamation you desire me to help you to a Copy of this Proclamation and inform you where to find the Original Concluding that the Obligation without it cannot be voided 6. I hope you do hereby intimate that upon the sight of this Proclamation you will be satisfied that the Obligation of the Covenant was voided at the first therefore I am much encouraged to transcribe it and to inform you where you may find it 7. It is indeed in Print in more books then one of unquestionable credit particularly you have it in a Book called Bibliotheca Regia in terminis thus p. 332. 8. Whereas there is a Printed paper entituled A solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and defence of Religion the Honour and happiness of the King and the Peace and safety of the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland Pretended to be ordered by the Commons in Parliament on the 21. day of September last to be Printed and published which Covenant though it seems to make specious pretences of Piety and Religion is in Truth nothing else but a Traiterous and Seditious Combination against us and the established Religion and Laws of this Kingdome in pursuance of a Traiterous design and endeavours to bring in Forreign forces to invade this Kingdom We do therefore straitly charge and command all our loving Subjects of what degree or quality soever upon their Allegiance that they presume not to take the said Seditious and Traiterous Covenant And we do likewise hereby forbid and inhibit all our Subjects to impose administer or tender the said Covenant as they and every of them will answer the contrary to their utmost and extreamest perils Given at our Court at Oxon Oct.
the very constitution of the Kingdom to maintain and defend the Government iv question as he is King 10. It hence irresistably follows that the King cannot take a previous Oath contrary to his Coronation Oath but he thereby violates the very constitution of this Kingdome and there is an Obligation upon him to defend and to swear to defend before any Covenant that may be taken by him to extirpate Episcopacy 11. Yea the King cannot be bound to endeavour to extirpate Episcopacy by any such previous Oath seeing such endeavours cannot consist with the Tenor of his Coronation Oath to protect and defend the Bishops and if he should be tempted to take such an Oath against the Bishops it is void ipso facto for as he was born Heir to the Crown he was born Heir to the Oath of the Crown and bound as King to take it 12. I need not say the Coronation oath is unalterable in this particular it is enough that it is not yet altered and that it cannot be Legally altered but by Act of Parliament I am sure you will not say the King much less before he is Crowned hath power of himself or with any others besides his Parlament to make or diminish or alter any known Law especially that which so much concerns his peoples interest security in the oath to be taken at his Coronation 13. Pray therefore observe weigh this Consequence if an oath taken by the King to the contrary before hand doth void the Coronation Oath required by Law then the King by a private Oa●● may equally bind himself to endeavour to destroy the priviledges of Parliament the liberty of the Subject and the other great concerns of Magna Charta as well as to extirpate Episcopacy and his Coronation Oath taken afterwards would not at all oblige him to govern by the Laws of the Land I argue not now from the necessity of the things but from the Obligation of the Laws and Oaths taken by the King about them 14. The Coronation Oath is part of the Inheritance of the Crown and all the Subjects in their several capacities are equally concerned in every part of it as Subjects for if we allow its violation in any one part we let go our security in all the rest 15. Moreover 't is certain that though where the Conscience judgeth the matter of a former Oath lawful the Conscience is bound against any future Oath to the contrary yet if the Conscience be convinced or fully perswaded that the former oath was sinful in the matter of it and doth take upon it a new Oath to the contrary in such a case the latter oath hinds the conscience 16. Now it is open and plain to all the world that seeing the King hath taken his Coronation Oath for to defend the Bishops passed those Bills for the protection and preservation of Episcopal Government and by his other protestations and practices of the like nature his Conscience will not suffer him to destroy Episcopacy but dictates to him that endeavours so to do are very sinful 17. Surely the King cannot be bound to endeavour against his Conscience more then to you against yours much less against his Conscience bound by an Oath his solemn Coronation Oath the bond of his Fidelity and peoples security this hath taken hold upon him and invincibly tieth him under such conviction to preserve his Conscience and his oath and Episcopal Government 18. In all charity and duty we are bound to judge according to all this appearance and I cannot imagine that any man doth scruple whether the King be in His Judgment for Episcopal Government against all the evidence He hath given us of it 19. So that the Objection of the single Person is removed beyond all suspition and seeing we are not to declare wha● things are in themselves but what we judg them to be who can possibly stick to declare That he holds the single Person is not bound by to endeavour the extirpation of Episcopal Government 20. Now for any other Person whether the Lords or Commons in Parliament or inferiour Subjects how can they or any of them be bound think ye to endeavour to make the King sin and in so high a manner as to violate His Conscience and His solemn sacred Coronation Oath without which he cannot consent as His Royal Father proved with His Life to the extirpation of Episcopal Government 21. Consent I say much less Enact it and yet without both it cannot be legally done neither can any endeavour it in any lawful way but by desiring and labouring to perswade the King thus to Consent and Enact against Oath and Conscience 22. But lest it should be doubted whether the King doth swear to defend the Bishops give me leave to subjoyn an Account of that Solemn proceeding at the Coronation so far as it relates to our Argument and I have done with this great part of my Task 23. I find the Account thus wherein I think I am not Mis-informed 24. After the many other gracious promises which the King makes to his People One of the Bishops reading to the King before the People concerning the Canonical priviledges of the Church and beseeching him that he would be the Protector of the Bishops and the Churches under their Government The King Answereth in these words with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my pardon and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches committed to your charge All Canonical priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power by the Assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdom in right ought to Protect and Defend the Bishops and Churches under their Government 25. Then the King ariseth and at the Communion Table makes a Solemn Oath in the presence of the People to Observe the premises and laying his hand upon the Book saith the things which I have before promised I shall perform and keep So help me God and the contents of this Book 26. Now who can think himself or any other person bound by any Obligation whatsoever to Necessitate so far as in them lies His Sacred Majesty to Violate His Oath so Solemnly Sworn at His In●uguration CASE XVI Whether the Covenant be not against the Liberty of the Subject 1. I Must still assert the Liberty of the Subject was apparently violated by the Ordinance for the Covenant seeing the Free-holds of so many Several persons and famous Corporations were thus invaded while the Persons and Corporations so deeply concerned had none to Represent them in either house of Parliament when that Ordinance passed 2. This was the Emphasis of my Argument which you little observe and much less answer 3. I am still of the mind in my coldest blood that without Respect to some proportionable demerit it is not sui Juris to the King or Parliament to destroy any person or publique Corporation or to