Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	find_v	read_v	word_n	3,143	5	3.9137	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76829	Resolved upon the question· Or A question resolved concerning the right which the King hath to Hull, or any other fort or place of strength for the defence of the kingdome. Wherein is likewise proved, that neither the setling of the militia as tis done by the Parliament, nor the keeping of Hull by Sir Iohn Hotham, nor any other act that the Parliament have yet done is illegall, but necessary, just, and according to that power which the law hath given them. By Peter Bland of Grays-Inne Gent.	Bland, Peter, of Gray's Inne.	1642 (1642)	Wing B3162; Thomason E119_4; ESTC R10865	11,393	18

but he must praerogare too asking the consent of the Parliament Besides though what they doe cannot be binding by way of Act without his consent yet by way of Ordinance it may in term Micael 21. E. 3. fol. 60. b. In a case touching the exemption of the Abby of Saint Edmons Berry from the Bishop of Norwich there was an Ordinance made by the Parliament without the King and if you turne to the booke you shall finde these words in the judgement fuit ordeigne which you may read likewise in Seldens title of honour But if I should admit that there were no law to prove their Act legall yet sure I am there is good reason for it As first from the words of the writ nostro quibusdam arduis rebus et gotiis urgentibus statu et diffentionem regni nostri Angliae concernentibus which words rebus arduis et urgentibus negotiis proves they have power upon urgent occasions to do that which at the time of their doing it they had no law to enable them thereto for their calling by writ is authorty to enable them to sit in Parliament and then their consent is law enough to binde us and therefore if the Parliament doe grant Subsidies by way of Ordinance and the Kings hand is never put to it yet it is sufficient enough to force a Paiment from us because the Countries are bound by Indentures seald to the Sheriffe at the time of their election to stand to what they shall consent to in Parliament whom they have chosen but by way of Act6 it cannot force us because it cannot be pleaded as an Act but that upon a demurrer it will be overruled Now if the Parliament could do nothing but what they had a law to enable them to do what need the Country seal Indentures to wand to what they doe when as that law the Parliament went by would force them to obey it without that waxen ceremony Besides if the Parliament had not power to do an Act to the doing of which there was no law at the time of their summons to enable them then what need a Parliament be cald at any time for then any inferiour Court had had as much authority upon the matter as that but I conceave necessity is the law they are to look at fot they need not deferre the doing of that which is for the Kingdomes good for want of a law or a president to steere by for if in times past the grave law-makers had not done things according to their profound judgement and as they saw fit without Presidents how should any presidents have been left to future ages and to this present Parliament but surely they did and surely this Parliament may unlesse any one can prove the power of Parliament to be abated and lesse now then in former times I agree if a Parliament should assume to themselves that power to sway every thing and never aske the Kings consent it were an abridgement of that prerogative the King hath in him by law but there are many humble Petitions full of submission and alleagiance to his Majesty that can prove this Parliament not guilty were they not adjudged Traytors without tryall But again if the King forsake them and deny to passe those Bills they bring him for the good of the Kingdome I think necessity enables nay commands them to doe it without him I shall prove it all by one example the like I hope shall not bee heard of in our dayes hath no man heard of a king deposed by a Parliament Surely yes and what law had they for it that did it besides convenience and the common good and surely they did it without the Kings consent too or at least he consented whether he would or no for if he had had an absolute power of denying and by that could have frustrated their endeavours he would never have consented to his own deposing which proves strongly that they may do that which is for the good of the kingdom without the King if he refuse to joyne with them But this I desire not and the Parliament intend it not as they have declared themselves in severall Declarations and Petitions and I hope the most ignorantly violent of the vulgars and the greatest zealots of any Sect what ever will wish so much good to our kingdome as that it may long be governd by this our gracious King Charles and his posterity and that he may soon be free from those cruell engagements and inconveniences which the malignant party hath drawne him into This is my heart prayer onely I used that great argument to prove a lesser to argue a mejori ad minus for omn● majus continet in se minus FINIS