Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	king_n	time_n	2,805	5	3.3508	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55606	A vindication of monarchy and the government long established in the Church and Kingdome of England against the pernicious assertions and tumultuous practices of the innovators during the last Parliament in the reign of Charles the I / written by Sir Robert Poyntz, Knight of the Bath.	Poyntz, Robert, Sir, 1589?-1665.	1661 (1661)	Wing P3134; ESTC R3249	140,182	162

lawes and liberties lay his claim to the Crown ex concessione sancti Edwardi devicto Heraldo Rege but no mention of any consent or right of the People He did as other Conquerors sometimes seem to wave his title by Conquest lest touching that string too hard it would make a jar and hinder all harmony But his concessions and confirmations of the ancient Lawes and liberties proved for the most part but illusions Ingulfus Malmesb. Some of our Historians affirm that he changed most of the Lawes and made us accept his own Norman Lawes and customes delivered in the Norman language a mark of servitude imposed by the Romans where they had conquered Polid. Virgil. He moulded the English customes to the manners of his own Countrey and did forbear to grant the Lawes of holy King Edward Edmeru● Huntingdon H●veden so often called for yet at the suit of the Barons the Laws of King Edward correboratae confirmatae erant quia veneratae erant prae caeteris legibus per universam Angliam And therefore our great Lawyer mentioned in our Law books did speak without book in saying that the Conquerour came not to out those who had just right and possessions but those who held wrongfully to the disherison of the King and his Crown He had more knowledge in points of Law then he seemed to have of matters of fact so long before his time As we cannot find anything that can manifest this inherent and original right of the People so can we not find in any case any colour of right in them to justifie their deposing limiting and chaftising of their King as our Adversaries affirm saving onely some matters of fact which they would have pass for Law and according to their usual course draw their arguments à facto ad jus Edward the second and Richard the second were charged in Parliament for oppressing spoiling destroying and the like and were deposed yet those Parliaments did never rely upon or mention the Peoples inherent and original right to justify their proceedings neither much insisted upon the proof of those crimes objected against them as causes sufficient to ground their most illegal and violent proceedings Neither did they hold themselves sure until they had by a conjuncture of fraud and force drawn those Kings to a seeming willing resignation acted in a form and solemnity abounding both in absurdity and horror For if the power and authority of Kings ceaseth ipso facto as our new men would have it for oppressing spoiling and destroying so that they may be deposed by their Subjects why was this power and right of the People never claimed and declared in any Monarchy when they had sharp disputes with their Kings as we have had for oppressing spoiling and destroying but alwayes we quieted ourselves with a present reformation of pressures and abuses and with a new confirmation of magna Charta which those Kings had no power and right to confirm and grant if according to these mens doctrine their power was determined ipso facto and returned to the People and they or the Parliament in a condition to reassume and exercise it If Subjects have no right and very rarely or never attempted to bar the next in succession when the right of the Crown descended unto him for any personal defect or crime of his or his Ancestors or upon any former judgment or sentence given in any Court against him before the right of succession fell unto him they have less colour of right to depose him after he is in possession for any crime then committed Turpius ejicitur quam non admittitur The old Doctors of law of great credit in their times and since could tell them that it did belong to the Pope as Christs Vicar to compel rebellious Subjects to the obedience of their Soveraign by spiritual censures and excommunications and that in the Pope was all the power to depose Princes yet so as he ought not to proceed to the deposing of them except in cases of the highest contumacy and for the greatest causes quae Rempub Christianam laederent seeing it could not be done but with a great and general Scandal and with the perturbation of the publick peace For by their opinion the Emperour who is elected could not although with his free consent resign unto the Electors but into the hand of the Pope in respect that a resignation is properly to be made unto him who is Superiour and hath right judicially to hear and determine the cause Innocent Baldus Archiadic ad C. admodum Extravag de renunciat Peregrin de jur Fisci lib. 1. tit 2. 3. L. 27. S. 2. L. 22. S. ult Mandati F. Sote de Just. jure lib. 4. quaest 4. art 1. Suarez de legib l. 3. c. 4. Glossa ad Clement tit de Beptismo Aquinas secund secund quaest 42. artic 2. Mariana de Regis institut lib. 1. c. 6 c. 9. and compel the parties to the obedience of his decree Renunciatio non tenet nisi facta sit penes eum qui renunciantem invitum causà cognitâ judicialitèr destituere potuisset neque sine licentia superioris officia seu beneficia accepta dimittere licet Qui mandatum suscepit deserere promissum officium non debet alioquin quanti mandatoris intersit damnabitur mandatum suscipere voluntatis susceptum consummare necessitatis sit But there are other later Doctors more bold who affirm that a King for Tyranny may be removed by the Common-wealth or compelled by the Popes spiritual power quando à Divinis legibus rebellavit Others say that he cannot be deprived of his power by the People from whom he hath his power nisi quando in Tyrannidem declinet ob quam causam possit bellum justum contra eum geri And they repute him to be a Tyrant qui in Repub. non jure principatur cùm Princeps tendat ad bonum commune Tyrannus ad proprium ergo Tyrannus non est Princeps ideò perturbatio ejus regiminis non habet rationem seditionis nisi forte quando sic inordinatè perturbatur Tyranni regimen ut multitudo Subjecta majus detrimentum patiatur ex perturbatione consequenti quam ex Tyranni regimine And when they have declared a King to be a tyrant potest in jus vocari â Republica unde habeat Regia potestas ortum suum rebus exigentibus si sanitatem respuat Principatu spoliari neque ita in Principem jura Potestatis transtulit Respublica ut non sibi majorem reservaverit potestatem * How can the Subjects have jurisdiction over the Soveraign Prince qui est fons omnis jurisdictionis à quo jurisdictiones per concessiones commissiones confirmationes fluent ac per appellationes querelas nullitates ad eum refluan Bald. Bracton noster Here our adversaries joyn with some Doctors of the Romish Church for they find this doctrine as necessary for them

tua res agitur licet aedes demoliri vicini ne ad nos incendium veniat The Romans would not suffer an increase of power by iniquity L. 49. F. ad leg Aquil. l. 3. F. de Incendio l. 7. F. quod vi aut clam Salust Cicero Majestatis erat Populi Romani non pati cujusquam regnum per scelus crescere It was none of the least branches of the Romans glory who were the mirrour of magnanimity that their Common-wealth might truely be reputed Patrocinium orbis terrae potiùs quam Imperium Regum Nationum portus perfugium But yet the Romans were seldome losers by protecting and ayding others for by that occasion they got much of their dominions Salust Cicero Populum Romanum sociis defendendis terrarum omnium potitum fuisse God gave them as some say universal dominion for their excellent vertues and laws others say it was given them to scourge the tyranny and vices which did raign amongst other nations and to end the discord and contentions amongst them From the discord of Citizens Strangers take their opportunity against them Livius The Carthaginians first passed into Cicily to take part with one side in a Civil war but they endeavoured to make a prey of both For sometimes neighbour Princes have as in the fable plaid the part of the Kite between the Mouse and the Frog and ended their strife by gaining that and more then that for which they did contend as the Turk did in Hungarie when they called for his assistance And thus other Princes have dealt with the Italians at war amongst themselves until strangers got all or spoiled all they left behind them Other Princes when their Neighbours have been in Civil war have endeavoured to break the course thereof and joyned with one side lest when both were weakned the whole should fall into the hand of some potent neighbour or enemy of theirs The Roman General Quintius offered his assistance to the States of Greece Livius lib. 34. to destroy Nabis the Usurper of Sparta lest the contagion thereof should spread farther and take hold of the other Common-wealths and Cities of Greece CHAP. XVII Of the King and of his power in Parliament THese pretended Patrons of Popular liberty or rather of licentiousness and confusion can find no way so meet in their conceit for maintaining their Plots as parity in Ecclesiastical Government which being once established in the Church by the example thereof King James book to his Son the Politick and civil State should be drawn to the like And therefore they will have an actual power to be joyntly in the People with their Soveraign in making of Lawes which they call their Legislative power in Parliament so as they would leave unto the King little or no power with his negative voice and would weaken all his rights in Parliament but especially his right of dissolving Parliaments They would make him inferiour to the Roman Tribunes of the people Livius Plutarch for any one of them by his negative voice could cross that which his Colleagues proposed to the People and any two of them could stop all proceedings and dissolve all the solemn assemblies of the people called by the authority of the other Tribunes But say what they can they cannot find his Legislative power to be any other thing then the Regal power and a principal part and branch thereof although in many cases it be very justly restrained in the use and exercise thereof to the Kings sitting in his Parliament his Supream Court and Councel with all the estates of the Kingdome but this is not in respect of any power or original and habitual right inherent in the people The Commons are called by their Writ ad faciendum consentiendum his quae de Communi consilio Regni nostri ordinari contigerit as were the people by the ancient Canons of the Church called to the election of their Pastors and Prelates Distinct. 63. c. 1. c. 12. c. 8. c. 36. non quod debent imeresse ut eligentes sed ut consentientes nullus invitis pepulis non petentibus ordinetur ne Lpiscopum non optatum aut contemnant aut odiant Is eligatur qui à Clericis electus à Plebe expetitus fuerit nec alitèr ascribitur Matthias Apostolorum Collegio Acts 1.15 6.2 Cpyrianus nec aliter septem Diaconi creantur quàm Populo vidente approbante Haec exempla ostendunt sacerdotis ordinationem non nisi sub Populi assistentis conscientia fieri oportere And thus by the same reason and equity it is that Lawes which bind the estates and lives of men and are for the common good of all and singular Persons should be made in the great Council and supream Court of the Kingdome by the advice and assent of all the Estates of the Kingdome By which course the just rights and liberties of the people are preserved and taxes and levies of money on the people imposed onely by Parliamentary authority as they ought to be For thus the People are induced and ingaged to a willing observation of those lawes and submission unto those impositions for the making and raising whereof they have given their consent It was said long since by a wise man that in ancient time and to the honour of England Commines it was best governed of any Kingdome the People least oppressed the Kings living upon their own revenues subsidies granted but onely for war with France or Scotland and the war undertaken by the advice of Parliament by which means the King was the stronger and better served and he addeth also that Princes cannot levy on their Subjects without their consent If we look upon our most ancient Statutes or rather Charters of our Kings and the form and stile of them we shall find no Character of any legislative power in any but in the King neither so much as the Peoples concurrence or consent in any Parliamentary way It appeareth in our ancient Histories Mat. Paris Hoveden alii that during the Raign of diverse Kings after the Norman Conquest the Kings when they called their great Councel or Parliament the summons went only to the Prelates Earls and Barons and in some of those Histories there is mention of calling the Commonalty and diverse sage and wise men In Kings Johns time the first summons upon record appeareth to the Prelates and Peers S. Rob. Cotons collections and something may be gathered although darkly of the admittance of the Commons Before that time every man by his tenure held himselfe to his great Lords will in whose assent his dependent Tenents was included These were long after the Conquest taxed and assessed by the consent of their Lords of whom they held who enjoyed great Regalities in their Signiorîes and were to their vassalls totidem Tyranni saith Mat. Paris These great Lords did so curb and restrain