Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	burgess_n	king_n	knight_n	3,853	5	7.2952	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89520	An argument or, debate in law: of the great question concerning the militia; as it is now settled by ordinance of both the Houses of Parliament. By which, it is endeavoured, to prove the legalitie of it, and to make it warrantable by the fundamentall laws of the land. In which, answer is also given to all objections that do arise, either directly, or collaterally concerning the same. All which is referred to the judicious reader. by J.M. C.L.	Marsh, John, 1612-1657.; Milton, John, 1608-1674, attributed name.	1642 (1642)	Wing M575; Thomason E119_13; ESTC R18112	46,929	48

that they are not made by one or an hundred onely of sage judicious men but by more then three hundred of chosen men by such a number as in times past the Senate of Rome was used to be ruled Object But here it will be objected that this Ordinance is not setled by Parliament for that the King and many of his Nobles were not there nor never consented to it and therefore that we ought not to esteeme or account some few Scismaticall and factious persons who seek their own ends and not the common good to be the Parliament and therefore you mistake in giving of them the Style of the Parliament Answ A strange unheard of and illegall objection a pretty trick and wilde to mask illegall slanders under illegall objections It is a wonder to hear such strange and as unparalelld as unwarrantable invectives against the Parliament which are published in the Kings name and under his protection and patronage while in the mean time the King whose distance of place or affection cannot divide from his Parliament as I shall afterwards shew suffers in those very obloquies and dishonourable detractions which are coyned for his honorable Assembly of Parliament For as all our books agree the Parliament is as one body and the chief or head of this body is the King and with this agreeth Dyer fo 60. a. who saith ●yer fo 60. 2. that the Estate of Parliament consists of three parts viz. of the King as the chief Head and of the Lords the chief and principall Members of the Body and of the Commons Knights Citizens and Burgesses the inferiour Members and these make the body of the Parliament Now if it be thus that the King Lords and Commons make but one body and that the King is the Head of this body as in truth the Law is then it will thus in reason follow that no more then you can divide the head from the naturall body and yet preserve the body alive can you divide the King from the Parliament and yet have the Parliament continue as in truth it doth and I hope that there is none so void of reason as to think that the Kings dividing of himself from his Parliament for the case is utterly mistaken to say that the Parliament severs the King from them shall destroy his Parliament though I suppose that many who dare not bring their actions to the teste would have it so Now if it be so that notwithstanding this unhappy division the Parliament doth vertually and actually continue which God defend it should be otherwise for then Parliament and no Parliament would be all one then of necessity it must follow that the King who is the head of this great body is not divided in Law though he be in distance for if so it must needs be that the body would be destroyed for that a Body as I have said before cannot subsist without a Head And it must likewise follow that they usurp no honour or power to themselves more then by the Law is due to stile themselves the Parliament And therefore whatsoever imputations or dishonourable invectives things too common in the mouthes of many who have not common reason much lesse Law to discover a truth are imposed and cast upon the two Houses of Parliament reflect upon the honour of the King and are a great stain and blemish to it Then if it be thus that the Parliament in judgement of Law can do no wrong and that no dishonorable thing ought to be imagined of them certainly they are the most proper Judges of this imminent danger But to this it will be objected that the King likewise in judgement of Law can do no wrong and therefore he notwithstanding this reason may be as proper a Judge of the imminent danger as any one and upon this ground his judgement ought rather to be received then the judgement of any yea of the Parliament it self he tels us that there is no imminent danger what then meanes this great contention about the Militia To this I answer that it is true the rule of Law likewise is That the King can doe no wrong but the reason of this is for that it is presumed that what the King doth he doth upon the advice seducement of evill Counsellors who with a spetious shew pretend nothing more then the good of the Common-wealth whereas in truth they intend nothing lesse And hath it not been frequent for Kings seduced by wicked and malignant Counsellors to do those things which have been a dishonour to themselves and a great gravamen and prejudice to the publique and if so my conclusion is that I would as willing a man should doe me injury upon his owne principles as by the advice of others for though happily the wrong may not be so great as to himselfe yet the damage is all one to me But now on the other side who can tell or what Story is able to relate that ever a Parliament did doe that thing that was prejudiciall to the Common-wealth Why then if this position hold true That Kings seduced may injure the Common-wealth but that Parliaments cannot I conclude notwithstanding this objection that the Parliament for this reason are the most proper Judges of this imminent danger Againe they are the most proper Judges of an imminent danger who in probabilitie may have the best cognisance and information of it but the Parliament which is the representative body of the whole Realme and the eyes of all the Kingdome must of necessitie have the best cognisance and information of any imminent and approaching danger Ergo they are the best and most competent Judges of it Last of all the Parliament are the most proper Judges of an imminent danger for that they are those whom the Common-wealth hath intrusted with its future happinesse they are our Judges those whose judgement we have bound our selves by our owne free Election to stand to and therefore we cannot now recede from it or see with other eyes then they see if they say that they see an imminent and approaching danger we ought not to say that there is no such matter and if they say that the Militia is well and legally settled we cannot nor ought not to say that it is against the Law for that our judgement is bound up in and superseded by theirs But to this it will be said that this were a kinde of implicite faith or if I may so speake a kinde of Heresie in Law for a man to be tide to subscribe to other mens judgements and to beleeve that whatsoever they doe is lawfull To this I answer shortly that there is a great difference between a subscription of compulsion and a subscription of consent for volenti non fit injuria that is he that cōsents to the doing of a thing is not injured by the thing done Againe the Parliament would not have us to pinne our faith upon their judgements to beleeve