Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	law_n	subject_n	4,732	5	6.6515	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B02316	A conference between two souldiers meeting on the roade. The first part the one being of the army in England, the other of the army in Scotland, as the one was coming from London, the other from Edinbrough.		1659 (1659)	Wing C5729A; ESTC R176594	14,816	22

A CONFERENCE Between two Souldiers Meeting on the Roade the one being of the Army in ENGLAND The other of the Army in SCOTLAND As the one was comming from London the other from Edinbrough The first Part. November 1659. A Conference between two Souldiers Meeting on the Roade the one being of the Army in England the other of the Army in Scotland England WEll met fellow-souldier whence doe you come Scotland I come from Scotland Engl. What News from thence we heare you are beginning a new Warr. Scotl. No no what we doe is in pursuance of our good Old Cause to stand up for the Parliament which we heare you have forceably interrupted and turned out Engl. I pray you let us step aside and a little reason together What is that good Old Cause so much spoken of Were you a Souldier at the first beginning of the warr and can remember what was then Declared as the cause of our taking up Armes Scotl. Yes and then I went out for the preservation and defence of the true Protestant Religion the Kings Person the Priviledges of Parliament and the Laws and Liberties of the subject Engl. Let us passe by that of the Protestant Religion which was soon after left out of our Commissions for we needed not fight for a Religion but that we might enjoy Liberty to exercise our Religion How did you pursue the Cause Did you who are now the Army in Scotland consent to the taking away the Life of the King whom you were to defend who by the Laws of the Land was our Chief Ruler Scotl. Yes for when upon better information we found That Kings were made for the people and not the people for Kings That men are freeborn into the World and not any mans slaves that no man ought to have a Native and Hereditary Right over others But that the power under God is originally in the people and to be derived from thence and that all trusts are conditionall We beleeved that the King was as well bound to defend his people as his people were to be subject to him and that if he fayled of the one they were discharged of the other els the King might destroy them at his pleasure and finding that the King had betrayed his trust and endeavoured the ruine of his people we took our selves not onely bound to defend our selves against him but also to call him to an accompt as guilty of the highest crymes for destroying the end of his trust making his power an advantage to our ruine Engl. Then you were of our mind That the safety of the People is the supreme Law and therefore you consented to take away the King What did you for the Priviledges of Parliament Doe you not remember That there was an Act of Parliament to which the King consented as well as both Houses That the Parliament nor either House should not be dissolved without their own consents or an Act of Parliament to be passed for that purpose Did you not also consent to the taking away of the House of Lords which was one of the Houses of Parliament Scotl. When we found that the House of Lords as well as the King exercised an Authority by Prerogative over the people without their consent and deputation it was seen fit to lay them aside also as inconsistent with the peoples Liberties Engl. Was not this the highest breach of Parliament Priviledges not onely to interrupt but wholly to dissolve one of the Houses of Parliament and that not for one Session onely but for ever And I pray you when Kings and Lords were taken away which were two essentiall parts of the Parliament was not the Parliament then dissolved he being dead by whose Writs they were called which gave them the being of a Parliament and could live no longer then himselfe Scotl. No for the House of Commons could not be dissolved without their own consent and an Act to be passed for that purpose Engl. How could they be a Parliament which could doe no Act of a Parliament Or how could they be dissolved by an Act when no act of Parliament could be passed for it they had taken away the Lords who were to advise and the King who was to consent Scotl. It s very true and therefore they presently changed the Government and Declared themselves to be a Parliament without King or House of Lords Engl Did they not thereby dissolve themselves and cast off their former power And then from whom did they derive their new Authority the People onely chose them to goe up and to consider and advise of the great things of the Nation with the King and Lords and not to take all the power to themselves both the Legislative and Executive to doe what they list and as long as they pleased making the former Act of Parliament which had no such intention a colour for it But since you are so much for the House of Commons whether I pray did you consent to the turning out so many Members at severall times Scotl. Yes for we found that the honest party of the House who were for carrying on the good Old Cause were over-voted by a Major Party and we were forced to it or els our Cause had been lost Engl. And were not those most high breaches of the Priviledges of that House And how could the remaining party be called a free Parliament The People chose the whole Number and gave them power and after you had turned out whom you pleased should the People be bound by the rest were they the Peoples or not rather your Parliament But doe ye remember when those we called the honest Party came from the House to the Army and brought their Speaker with them and left the rest who over-voted them Did not you own the lesser Party and forthwith goe to London and turn out the other I pray by what Law was it done and whether if either party could be called a Parliament the lesser or the greater And whether did you not in 1653. consent to or afterward approve the turning out the remainder of the whole House Scotl. I must confesse we did so and were still forced to it for carrying on that Cause which we were called unto and tooke our selves bound in Conscience to prosecute for the defence of the Peoples Liberties Engl. Well It seems you grant that for the Liberty of the People you consented in stead of defending to destroy the Kings Person in stead of preserving Parliament Priviledges wholly to take away the House of Lords and over and over to interrupt and turn out the Members of the lower House and at last to end the sitting of the whole And I pray you Have not divers Elections been since made by the People which by an Act made by the King Lords and Commons they had power to doe make voyd and supercede all former Authority derived from them if any was in being Scotl. I am not fit to judge of these things But I