Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A91179
|
An ansvver to the poysonous sedicious paper of Mr. David Jenkins. By H.P. Barrester of Lincolnes Inn.
|
Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.
|
1647
(1647)
|
Wing P395; Thomason E386_14; ESTC R201482
|
3,651
|
10
|
AN ANSVVER TO THE POYSONOVS SEDICIOVS PAPER of Mr. DAVID JENKINS By H. P. Barrester of Lincolnes Inn. LONDON Printed for Robert Bostock dwelling at the signe of the Kings head in Paules Church-yard 1647. AN ANSWER TO THE POYSONOVS SEDICIOVS PAPER OF Mr. DAVID JENKINS MR. David Jenkins in his Paper of the 29 of April last laies most odious charges upon the Parliament and consequently upon all that have adhered to the Parliament in this Warre and least these his desperate infusions should not worke powerfully enough upon the Vulgar he being an ancient practiser in the Law and promoted to the title of a Judge he cites Book cases against the two Houses and seemes forward to lay down his life in the cause His 1. Argument runs thus The Parliament not having the Kings writ patent or commission cannot do so much as examine any man But the Parliament has not the Kings Writ c. Ergo his minor is confirmed thus If the Kings power remaine solely in himselfe and be not vertually present in the two Houses then they cannot pretend his Writ Pattent or Commission But the Kings power is in himselfe and not vertually in the two Houses ergo that the Parliament has no vertuall power he prooves thus 1. If the Parliament had in them the Kings vertuall power they needed not desire the Kings ratification they needed not send any Propositions to him but now they send propositions ergo this vertuall power is but a meere fiction 2. To affirme that the Kings power is seperable from his person is by the Law adjudged high Treason but if the Parliament say the Kings power is vertually in them then they separate it from his person Ergo 3. If none can pardon Felony or Treason except the King none has the virtuall power of the King but none can pardon except the King Ergo 4. If the King be in no condition to governe then he is in no condition to derive virtuall power but c. 5. If none can sit in Parliament but he must first swear that the King is the onely Supreame Gouernour over all Persons in all Causes then no member of the Parliament nor the whole Parliament can suppose him or themselves superior to the King but none can sit in Parliament c. Ergo 6. If no Act of Parliament binde the subject without the Kings assent then there is no vertuall power in the Parliament without the Kings assent but no Act bindes c. Ergo Out of these premises which this grave Gentleman judges to be irrefragable he concludes that the Parliamēt denyes the King to be Supreame Governour nay to be any Governour at all in as much as there is no point of government He sayes but the Parliament for some years past have taken to themselves using the Kings name only to abuse and deceive the people He saies further the Parliament pretends against the King because that he has left the great Counsell and yet the King desires to come to his great Counsell but cannot because he is by them kept prisoner at Holmby Lastly he saies the Houses are guilty of perjury as well as of cheating the people and rebelling against the King in asmuch as at the same time they sweare him to be only Supreame Governour and declare him to be in no condition to governe How easily these things may be answered refuted let the world see For 1. It cannot be denied but the Parliament sitts by the Kings Writ nay if Statute Law be greater then the Kings Writ it cannot be denied but the Parliament sits or ought to sit by something greater then the Kings Writ And if it be confessed that the Parliament sitts by the Kings Writ but does not Act by the Kings Writ then it must follow that the Parliament is a void vaine Court and sitts to no purpose nay it must also follow that the Parliament is of lesse authority and of lesse use then any other inferior Court Forasmuch as it is not in the Kings power to controle other Courts or to prevent them from sitting or Acting 2. This is a grosse non sequitur the Kings power is in himself Ergo it is not derived to nor does reside virtually in the Parliament For the light of the sun remaines imbodied and unexhausted in the Globe of the sun at the same time as it is diffused and displayed through all the body of the aire and who sees not that the King without emptying himselfe gives commissions daily of Oier and Terminer to others which yet he himself can neither frustrate nor elude but for my part I conceive it is a great errour to inferre that the Parliament has only the Kings power because it has the Kings power in it for it seemes to me that the Parliament does both sit and act by concurrent power devolved both frō the King Kingdome And this in some things is more obvious and apparent then in others For by what power does the Parliament grant subsedyes to the King if only by the power which the King gives then the King may take subsedies without any grant from the Parliament and if it be so by a power which the people give to the Parliament Then it will follow that the Parliament has a power given both by King and Kingdome 3. The sending propositions to the King and desiring his concurrence is scarce worth an answer for Subjects may humbly petition for that which is their strict right and property Nay it may sometimes beseeme a superiour to preferre a suite to an inferiour for matters in themselves due God himself has not utterly disdained to beseech his own miserable impious unworthy creatures besides t is not our Tenet that the King has no power because he has not all power nor that the King cannot at all promote our happinesse because he has no just claime to procure our ruine 4. We affirme not that the Kings power is seperated from his person so as the two Spensers affirmed neither doe we frame conclusions out of that separation as the two Spensers did either that the King may be remooved for misdemenours or reformed per aspertee or that the Subjects is bound to governe in aid of him we only say that his power is distinguishable from his person and when he himselfe makes a distinction betwixt them commanding one thing by his Legall Writs Courts and Officers and commanding another thing extrajudicially by word of mouth letters or Ministers we are to obey his power rather then his person 5. We take not from the King all power of pardoning Delinquents we only say it is not propper to him quarto modo For if the King pardon him which has murdered my sonne his pardon shall not cut me off from my appeale and t is more unreasonable that the Kings pardon should make a whole State which has suffered remedilesse then any private man So if the King should denye indemnity to those which in the fury of war have done things unjustifiable by the Lawes of Peace and thereby keep the wounds of the State from being bound up t is equitable that an Act of Indemnity should be made forcible another way And if this will not hold yet this is no good consequence the King is absolute in point of pardons therefore he is absolute in all things else and the Parliament has no power to discharge Delinquencyes therefore it has no power in other matters 6. The Parliament has declared the King to be in no condition to governe but this must not be interpreted rigidly and without a distinction for if the King with his sword drawne in his hand and pursuing the Parliament and their adherents as Rebells be not fit for all Acts of Government yet t is not hereby insinuated that he is divested of the habit or right of governing If he be unqualified now he is not unqualified for the future if he may not doe things distructive to the Parliament he is not barred from returning to the Parliament or doeing justice to the Parliament This is a frivelous cavill and subterfuge 7. We swear that the King is our supreame Governor over all Persons and in all causes but we doe not swear that he is above all law nor above the safty of his people which is the end of the law and indeed Paramount to the law it selfe If he be above all law or liable to no restraint of our law then we are no freer then the French or the Turcks and if he be above the prime end of law common safty Then we are not so free as the French or the Turks For if the totall subversion of the French or the Turke were attempted they might by Gods law imprinted in the booke of nature justifie a self-defence but we must remedilesly perish when the King pleases to command our throats Besides how acheived the King of England such a Supreamacy above all law and the community it selfe for whose behoofe law was made if Gods donation be pleaded which is not speciall to him or different from what other Kings may pretend too then to what purpose serue our lawes nay to what purpose serve the lawes of other Countryes for by this generall donation all nations are condemned to all servitude as well as we If the Law of this Land bee appealed to what Books has Mr. Jenkins read where has he found out that Lex Regia whereby the people of England have given away from themselves all right in themselves Some of our books tell us that we are more free then the French that the King cannot oppresse us in our persons or estates by imprisonment denying justice or laying taxes without our consents other books tell us that the safety of the people is the supreame law and that the King has both God the Law for his Superior but all this is nothing to learned Mr. Jenkins 8. We admit that no Acts of Parliament are compleat or formally binding with out the Kings assent yet this is still to be denyed that therefore without this assent particularly exprest the two Howses can doe nothing nor have any vertuall power at all no not to examine Mr. Jenkins nor to doe any other thing of like nature though in order to publick justice safty I have done and wish Mr. Jenkins would call in lick up againe his black infamous execrable reproaches so filthily vomited out against the Parliament FINIS