Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	england_n	king_n	law_n	2,440	5	4.6542	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79929	A cleare ansvver to the Armies late remonstrance against accommodation: so far as to justifie their former remonstrances, for accommodation.		1648 (1648)	Wing C4618; Thomason E473_22; ESTC R205267	10,922	15

the KING and His Party and therefore in laying the case the KING is not onely unjustly but uncharitably used Neither so farre as my reason extends is it truly said that a few of those many evils that our King hath acted were judged capitall in severall of His Predecessours We read indeed of some of His Predecessours basely and wickedly murthered but never any suffering death as the result of any judgment pass'd upon Him From this mistaken supposition ariseth that want of change or remorse which they complaine of in the King The fault they here lay to His charge He will confesse were He guilty of it He hath cause to abhorre Himself in dust and ashes But He will deny their supposition and that He intended no slavery in people nor absolutenesse in Himself but defence of Himself and those of His People that craved His protection in their Legall Rights And His errour was to be jealous of those that He should have confided in And from this errour hath growne these sad consequences But so long as the Army go on with such Declarations they will free Him from errours justifie His jealousies countenance His defence But yet nearer for the justice of accommodation with the King without triall or punishment I think it rests in this when the Law acquits civil Judges may acquit but the Law acquits the Persons of our Kings Therefore civil Judges may You confesse such maximes as give absolute impunity to Kings and that the Kings of England can do no wrong are found in law-Law-books though you say as Heireloomes of the Conquest But if they be in our law-Law-books books they are legall Priviledges and preheminences by our Lawes and then those that have taken the Oath of Supremacy and sworne to maintaine all the preheminencies and Priviledges of the Crowne as all Parliament men have at their admission cannot punish the Person of the King because its an infringing of a legall priviledge I might adde such Judiciary proceeding against or without Law will not stand with their Oaths that have sworne to maintaine Law and legall Rights of all But pag. 50. they say they cannot see how it may stand with justice to punish the Ministers and let the Head go free nay they further say what ever grounds may be brought to exempts Kings from humane justice or excuse them when they wilfully give commission c. The same reason will serve to absolve and indempuifie their Ministers c. At least they say they would faine heare one principle for the one which would not by rationall deduction extend to the other I Answer first it cannot be denied but that in evill things he that gives the Commission and command is deepest in trangression so on their supposition a King must deserve more blame and punishment then His Instruments But then secondly it is to be considered that humane Lawes and penalties look at safety as well as demerit now to punish a King is like to set all on a flame and so to endanger the Weal publike therfore though their guilt be great yet they are left to God to avoid inconvenience But now Ministers deserve punishment though not so much and the punishment of them may free the Common wealth from danger for future for if the King can have no Instruments He can doe no mischief To conclude this point about the justice of accommodation let me aske them this Question have they not read what David did in his Civil Wars both with Ishbosheth and Absalom closing them up without any trial or execution though much blond was shed in both And if Kings may accommodate with Subjects without any trying and punishing them to avoid future In●●●●●ctions why may not Subjects for the same reason on the same tearmes accommodate with their Kings and be blamelesse an Argument from a Scripture example is cogent where the reason is the same else our Saviour would not have used it Mat. 12.3 4. Why did this Army themselves gives pardons to that nest of those in Oxford whom they accounted the originall Delinquents But to prevent blood and danger by losse of time why may not the Parliament then passe by the errours of the King to prevent the blood-shed that will inevitably follow upon rigour and execution But now to the second question touching the safety of this accommodation against which they argue First from experience that seldome or never have such accommodations proved ease to the people for answer I would demand againe where the rejection of a King and His posterity hath not proved the fatall cause of endless civill War and whether that be not as destructive to publique interest as any thing to be feared from accommodation After the Deposing of Richard the Second how long did this Nation continue in blood and how endlesse was the contention till an accommodation in the union of the divided Houses by the marryage of their heires nor would that serve when there was but a suspition of an * In Perkin Worbeeke Heir male of the House of Yorke surviving And so is it like still to be They have not now all the seed Royall in their hands if they would with Athaliah destroy them Nor are they like to have sith they propose such a way of summons to the Prince and Duke of Yorke as if it be not intended to discourage Them from returning yet must it needs have that effect And they so banisht for such a cause viz. ingagement to free their Father from so close Imprisonment on what heart will not move pitty that hath either the sence of humanity or the affection of a father or a son in him And so draw on Forreigne force to joyne with a discontented and oppressed party here which they confesse to be numerous which is a danger that can neither be avoided nor parallel'd on the other hand Next for their arguing the likely-hoods of the Kings willingness to breake all those concessions which He shall grant We may argue with more probability to the contrary Kings that intend to breake care not what they grant so it be not of things that disable them from breaking But our King in the late Treaty hath been most free and speedy in passing away His owne power and tenacious onely in those things wherein not onely conscience was pretended but without great uncharitablenesse we cannot question but that he was really scrupled about them And he that will adventure life and all rather then grant one thing against conscience why shall not we hope that He will be as tender in keeping when conscience is once ingaged in other things For what is held forth that the King may pretend His non ingagement to His concessions because under force I Answer as before if the King had any such thought He would not care what He granted because all were nullities Besides though there be a dispute in Law whither promises or obligations made under restraint be binding yet all Divines know