Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	according_a	judge_v	see_v	1,816	5	3.3060	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85229	Conscience satisfied. That there is no warrant for the armes now taken up by subjects. By way of reply unto severall answers made to a treatise formerly published for the resolving of conscience upon the case. Especially unto that which is entituled A fuller answer. By H. Ferne, D.D. &c.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1643 (1643)	Wing F791; Thomason E97_7; ESTC R212790	78,496	95

upon Jethero's advice pag. 4. How this of fes is pertinent though often hinted in this book I see not for Moses did not assume them as Counsellors about making of Lawes for neither he nor they nor both together could make any but as Officers to ease him in the execution or judging of the people according to those Laws they received from God As for the Commons in Parliament they being a representative body could not be chosen but by them they represent yet are they sent upon his command and have a trust upon them not onely from those that elected them but also from the King that sends for them to represent unto him the grievances of his people and faithfully to consult about the remedies accordingly it is in relation to his Majesty that they take the oaths of sup remacy allegiance at their admittance into the House and although they have there the power not onely of consulting but of consenting also and denying for the security of the people whom they represent yet who sees not by all this in what relation they stand to his Majesty For the Lords they are assumed by the King Bracton said above Reges associant sibi Comites Barones and we see the King calls by his Writ whom he pleases to that House nor doth it helpe that hee saith pag. 5. the Lords are Consiliarii nati born Counsellors to the State for though Nobility in some be Native yet was it at first Dative as they speake by the grace of the King We may adde here what he saith in the same place The very stile of Comites and Peers implies a Co-ordinate society with his Majesty in the Government they are in Parliament his Comites his Peers Yet Bracton tells us Rex non habet parem has no Peer gives us another reason of the stile Comites as he is cited by sir Edw Coke in Mag Charta quia sunt in Comitatu without relation to Parliament because they are either in the Traine of the King or because set in each county adregendum populum and so assumed by the King to the like end that Moses did his under Officers in ruling his people So that other place of Bracton cited by this Answerer pag. 4. Rex habet Superiorem Curiam suam viz Comites Barones is not meant of the Court of Parliament for ther 's no mention of the Commons but it follows in that place debent Regi fraenum imponere it is likely hee spoke this in favour of the Militia raised against Hen. 3. for then he wrote and might call that assembly of Earls and Barons then combined against the King curiam the higher Court or Councell But when he speaks like a Lawyer he saith plainly Rex in Regne parem habere non debet cùm par in parem non habeat poteflatem multo fortius non habeat superiorem which how it agrees with that above let this man or the skilfull in the Law judge Let us examine what reason will conclude by his argument from the style Comites it would follow thence That the Commons must be his Comites and Peers too for they are co-ordinate with his Majesty as well as the other and so this Answerer must set up three thrones one for the King another for the Lords and a third for the House of Commons I should not think any thing too honorable for the Houses of Parliament but only Majesty Now it is a rule in policy Majestas cum supremà potestate conjuncta est Majesty goes along with the supream power as in the popular State of Rome it was usually and properly said Maiestas populi Romani and so might it be said here too were this mans contrivement good but I know the honorable Houses of Parliament look not for it But we return to the beginning of pag. 5. In reading the first line of it I was in hope he would have blest us with some demonstration of this constitution to be such as he has borne us in hand it is how doth it appear that the constitution of this government is such I answer by the mutuall oath that the King people take to maintain the laws that have so constituted it Altogether inconsequent The King takes oath to maintain the Laws-therefore they are such as this man fansieth them it shews indeed an obligation on his Majesty to perform it does not shew such a co-ordination supply reserved power c. surely never any King swore to it in that sense or had reason to understand it so for he findes he is expresly bound by that oath to preserve the immuimmunities liberties of c. to protect c. which he should not be well able to do if his power might be taken from him at the pleasure of others So when he answers to that which I have said the King is King before he take the oath True but he is King but upon the same trust which his Predecessors swore to and the Oath which the Law provides for the King to take virtually bindes him before he takes it He Answers nothing unlesse he could shew that the trust which this Oath implies to be in the King was such a trust upon which the people in their first contrivement as he phansieth conditionally admitted the first King and that the Law which provided this oath was that first constitution or contrivement which would be absurd for the oath speaks the Language of later times and would not fit the Mouth of the first King in the first Coalition of Government for it binds Him to preserve the immunities of Holy Church which if it should be of an after addition to the Oath yet surely Leges and Consuetudines Angliae were in it from the beginning now those are customes of Government and customes must have some continuance of time past to make them so therefore the first King in the first Coalition of Government swore not this Oath what he shews indeed by this argument we admit that the King is bound to take the Oath is bound to perform the duty of it but this is nothing to prove such a first Constitution as he dreams of He brings a proof out of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam habet c. Principatu namque nedum Regali sed politico suo populo dominatur now the word Politico implies the Principat of many especially when opposed to Regali pa. 5. This place tells us what manner of power the King ha's does not tell us the two Houses of Parliament have such power as this man pretends We examined that Effluxam a populo above whether the power of the King was derived from the people by agreement in the first coalition of Government Here we grant the King ha's a limited power but not so limited as this Answerer would have it which he might have read in the words cited for he sees there the King ha's His Regalis potestas but

the people at the first constitution of this government pag. 24.25 and that this constitution was made by consent of King and People in the first Coalition of Government pag. 4. by the Consent of the People th●t first made the King pag. 13. Contrived by the people in the first constitution ●f Gov●ernment pag. 8. These Particulars we find in this his discourse confusedly spoken of if we give his conceptions their due order they stand thus First he supposes all the Power of government to be derived from the people and that the Constitution of this Government was their contrivment when first they made a King then that by this first Constitution such a Coordination of the two Houses with the King was contrived by which they have power reserved not only to consent in making Lawes but to supply the refusalls of the King as they shall think good for the safety of the State and for this the finall result of the States judgement is in them to declare what is Law without him and unto their finall resolution and commands thereupon though arbitrary as this answerer acknowledgeth Pag. 17 the people ought to obey Thus has he fansied the reason and constitution of this Government but I suppose the honourable houses of Parliament will not thanke him for raising them to that height of Supremacy he has placed them in I am sure we Subjects have not cause to thank him for that arbitrary power he has placed in them If any man expect from this his discourse satisfaction for conscience he shall find nothing but uncertainties and improbabilities not fit grounds for it to restupon and if conviction of Reason be look't for here I suppose there is no man that upon serious consideration of what this Answerer brings us to will not think it more reasonable to be under the arbitrary Government of one then of many nay under the Government of one that challenges not obedience as due bat according to Law then of many whose commands are Law unto us as this Answerer makes them And here we doe not undertake to set down the extent of the power and Priviledges of Parliament no more then of the Kings Power and prerogative They are both of them beyond our skill and we may not take the boldnesse to meddle with either of them farther then the necessary information of Conscience doth inforce to which purpose as we may by use of Reason certainly conclude the King has not this or that Power as to make Lawes by himselfe to rule arbitrarily so of the two Houses without offence we may as certainly conclude That they have not such a power by the first Constitution of this Government as this Answerer every where beggs for them but no where proves it It is granted that the two Houses of Parliament are in a sort Coordinate with His MAIESTY ad aliquid to some act or exeacising of the supream power that is to the making of Lawes by yeelding their consent and that they have this by a fundamentall Constitution But that they have such a fellow ship with His MAIESTY in the Supremacy it selfe as this man imagines or such a Power of resistance reserved at first to supply His MAIESTIES refusa's or such a finall and arbitrary Power and c●mmand as he attributes to them Conscience can never be truly convinced off SECT III. Of the Originall of Governing power and of the beginnings of Government in this Land WE will begin with his ground-work Which lies scattered through all his discourse That first Coalition or Consititution of Government in this Land which he supposes to be framed by the agreement or Contrivement of the people when they made the first King wherein they intrusted him with such Power as was thought fit and reserved to themselves what power they held necessary for their owne safety upon extraordinary times and occasion of danger So then Conscience if it will obey the power of Armes now usurped by Subjects must be clearly convinced which is impossible of these particulars That the Governning Power is from the people that Monarchy was here raised upon such a contrivement wherein such a power of supply and of resistance was reserved to the People and that all Kings since do consent to such conditions and are admitted under them All the proofe that I can any where find this Answer ha's brought for all this is from the words of Fortescue Hanc potestatem a populo effluxam this Power the King ha's derived from the People and from the mutuall Oath of King and People pag. 5. Let the Reader give me leave to speak a little of the Governing power simply then of the beginning of Government in this Land that Conscience may see what little satisfaction this or any man els can give it to perswade either that the governing power is derived from the people or that the Government of this Land began in such a Contrivement or constitution as this man phansies It was said in my other Treatise that the Governing power was from God not only as an ordinance of the precept that commands Government but also as an Efflux or issue of that providence which sets up pulls down which translates Kingdomes and governs the whole world Creatures Reasonable and unreasonable and this not obscurely in the Apostle Rom. 13. where the powers are said to be not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from God but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as orders ranked by him and under him Well then this Governing power was not a populo effluxa as he above said but flowed from that providence at first through the veines of nature in a paternal or Fatherly rule and by that as by a pattern in a Kingly Rule or Government upon the encrease of people and Nations for when the Reins of Paternall Government could not reach them for their extent or hold them in for their unrulines injustice it in larged it selfe into a Kingly power which bore and used the sword for that is given them to use streight after the Flood Gen. 9.6 This is plain by the booke of God that the first Fathers of Mankind were the first Kings and Rulers for we see the Earth divided among Noah's three Sons and upon the Encrease of their Children many Colonies were sent into Countries farre distant and thereupon many independant Governments raised which must be by the direction and order of Noah that first sent them out and assigned them those parts of the Earth And still as they encreased they spread farther upon the face of the Earth new Colonies being excluded and thrust forth like swarmes of Bees under their Rulers who were the cheife Fathers of those new Progenies and had the Government both Regall and Sacerdotall by Primogeniture unles the chiefe Patriarch from whom they all issued saw cause to order it otherwise Therefore of all the Sons of Noah the Nations sprung from them it is said Gen. 10. these are the Sons of