Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	king_n	parliament_n	14,544	5	6.6609	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62890	The rebels plea, or, Mr. Baxters judgment concerning the late wars in these particulars : viz. the originall of government, coordinate and legislative power in the two Houses, third estate, force upon the Houses in 1642, principles the Houses went by at the beginning, destructive to monarchy, covenant, reasons for submitting to the late government.	Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675.	1660 (1660)	Wing T1838; ESTC R32811	35,816	50

For as much as divers complaints have been made to our Soveraign Lord the King by the Commons in this present Parliament Our Soveraign Lord the King hath ordained This will certainly shew the Legislative power to have been solely in the Kings Majesty in those dayes and therefore discovers the foolery to say no worse of those who upon that head assert a partition of that important piece of Soveraignty between him and the two Houses Be it enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament or Lords and Commons began in H. 7. time but that that variation of phrase should make such a considerable alteration of Government and no notice taken either by the King that parted or the people who received by it so large as is pretended a share in the Government is not easily imaginable Sure their apprehensions were very small of it the notice they took of it being so little We finde after that not to insist upon each act or reign which would be tedious and he that doubts may consult the Books Anno 1. Eliz. The Lords and Commons her majesties humble and faithfull Subjects most humbly beseeching that it may be Enacted c. And in the Act of Uniformity among others it is Be it Enacted by the Queens Highnesse with the assent of the Lords and Commons c. to which those words likewise inserted in some places of that Act by authority of this present Parliament cannot be thought without great imputation of folly to those members to be repugnant and the straining of those words is all that he can rely on I might here urge the old form Anno. 13. Eliz. Be it Enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty with the Assent c. among many others I will onely cite one of 4. Jac cap. 1. Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty with the Assent of c. Now to speak of the fundamentall partitian of the Soveraignty in the very constititon of the Government and to make it out by a phrase newly taken up and to take no notice of the old forms The King Grants the King Wils the King provides argues one very desirous to say some thing in a bad matter but when this form is it self varied and in many Acts both are used sure the latter was never intended to evacuate the former and it is very unlikely so great a change of the Legislative power would passe without any notice either of King or People it deserved at least one Act or Parliament to have transmitted it to posterity when alas we finde even in King Charls his dayes an Act framed according to the old regular way in the Petition of Right even there when we were not sure giving away nor unmindfull of our liberties To the Kings most excellent Majesty in which the Lords and Commons do humbly pray that no such thing as they Complained of c. To which the answer was Soiâ— droit come est desire The Laws are alwayes called the Kings laws but very improperly if this new doctrine be true I conclude all with the words of Bracton an Author the Antimonarchical party make much use of Quod Principi placuit i. e. non quicquid est Ã Rege temere ex animi perturbati impetu quodam aestu praesumptum sed quicquid ex Magnatum suorum consilio REGIO Assensu Authortatem praestante habitÃ¢ super hoc deliberatione tractatu recti fuerit definitum legis habet vigorem What the reason and the effect of their assent is is not hard now to judge men have been so often taught to say that because they must assent to the making of Laws they have a part of the Legislative power in them and will call it non-sense and absurd to think otherwise I will cite Grotius cap. 3. de jure belli Sect. 18. and I the rather cite him because living in a Popular State he naturally favoured it so much as in this point especially of sharing in the Government he shewed himself tender of the peoples Rights Multum falâ—unâ—â—r qui existimant cum Reges acta quaedam sua nolunt esse rata nisi Ã Senatu probentur partitionem fieri potestatis nam quae acta in eum modum rescinduntur intelligi debent rescindi regis imperio qui eo modo sibi cavere voluit nÃ¨quid fallaciter impetratum pro verâ— ipsius voluntate haberetur which is not much different from what we cited out of Bracton The sum of which is this when the assent of the Senate is necessary to any of the Kings Acts it is not that they share in the doing but that they truly â—nform the Kâ—ng what it is he does He cites the example of Antiochus who wrote as our Kings use NÃ¨ sibi parerent siquid legibus adversum jussâ—sset They should not obey him in things contrary to law And Constantine nÃ¨ pupilli aut viduae those forlorn people should not lose their priviledges etiam si Imperatoris rescriptum proferatur though by order under the Emperors own hand and yet the world took never any for their equals or them for any other then Soveraign Princes The same Author Sect. 1â— Non desinere summum esse imperium etiamsi is qui imperaturus est promittat aliqua sui ditis aut Deo etiam talia quae ad imperii rationem pertineant A Soveraign ceases not to be so though he promise his Subjects not to exercise by himself some parts even of the Soverâ—â—gn power Adrian the Emperour swore he neveâ— would punâ—sh a Senatoâ— without the assent of the â—enate which was a greater priviledge then our members can plead yet never any was so fond as to take them lesse for Subjects or him for Soveraign Princes upon the misinformation of corrupt men may doe much to the grievance of the Subjects if they to avoid this inconvenience to the people shall provide so for their security as to promise not to exercise such parts of their power without their advice and assent first in a Common Counsell assembled our old style they shew themselves unworthy of such an Act or grace who will interpret it to the disadvantage nay to the dethroning of him that passed it To apply it to our particular case suppose the King hath graciously promised not to leavy money on his Subjects without their assent first had in Parliament The King now cannot do it the King hath so far restrained the exercise of his power but is by this any power placed in them grant they had it will not reach their purpose The King cannot leavy mony without their assent but is there any law that gives them power to leavy any without his though they may give mony to the King I doubt it will puzzle a good Lawyer to prove they can give the Subjects money to themselves without which I doubt Contribution Excise and those other fine words was but Theft and Robbery That the assent of the two Houses

mechanick Readers amused with that venerable name when in all these cases there is but one that looks toward the Subâ—ect and that too upon the groundlesse fancy of diviâ—ion of Supremacy and with an exception that reaches the Case The Laws in England are above the King because not his Acts alone Whose Acts the Laws are hath been above discussed the consequences of this Proposition I understand not because he hath not done us the favour as to let us know its meaning if it is not more then the words signifie that the King ought to rule according to Law and cannot abrogate Laws at pleasure the King asserted it in all his Declarations In the exactest Monarchies I have shewed there were laws which the Kings were obliged by might they therefore be resisted if they broke them Let us blot then all the precepts of Obedience and Submission out of the Bible as things sit for that pusillanimous if not crafty age And let that patience of the Primitive Christians which made their persecutors admire and love be thought want of opportunity not desire of revenge The King was to execute judgement by his Iudges in his Court of Iustice and his Parliaments was his highest Court By the Parliament meaning the two Houses they are no Court of Judicature the House of Commons have nothing that looks like a Court of Judicature not the power of administring an Oath not the power of Imprisoning any but their own Members notwithstanding the contrary proceedings of those tender Gentlemen of the Liberty of the Subject the Members of the long-Parliament whose Committees could contrary to law imprison men and deny them their Habeas Corpus The House of Lord it is true is a Court of Judicature but that is as they are the Court of the Kings Barons whose judgment is but ministerial and not soveraign as appears in this that though they have power to reverse the Sentence of other Courts yet they cannot reverse their own judgment a clear argument their Authority is not soveraâ—gn whose judgement cannot be so far restrained no not by it self For the two Houses joyned together as the ingenious Author of the Case of our Affaires demonstrates they cannot so unite or conjoyn as to be an entire Court either of soveraign as ministeriall Jurisdictâ—on no otherwise cooperating then by concurrence of Votes in their severall Houses for preparing matters in order to an Act and his Argument is very good which when they have done they are so far from having any legall Authority in the State as that in law there is no stile or or form of their joynt acts nor doth the law so much as take notice of them untill they have the Royall Assent Should it be granted they were yet it is as evident there was a force upon the House then as there was in 1648. â—o that neither the House was full or free first for the Commons a very great number of persons fairly elected kept out upon pretence they had some Project Patent or Monoply and kept in Sr. Henry Mildmay Mr. Lawrence Whitaker the first the chief promoter and notoriously known to be so of the businesse of the gold and silver thred a Commission complained of viewed and examined the other as much employed in matters of that nature as any man but they voted as that party would have them Secondly Severall members of their party sate in the House against the consent of the Burroughs they pretended to serve for when such men were concerned and complaints made all the answer the honest elected Gentlemen could get was questions about Elections were of ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ private a nature to be considered and would interrupt their proceedings too much If the Election of any such persons hath been heard at the Committee and they voted out of the House as unduely chosen that report must not be made whereby a good member may be lost as in the case of Mr. Nichols Mr. Pyms Nephew and others Thirdly The Scots Army was not suffered to disband that they might awe the King and dissenting members and Mr. Strode blushed not to say openly They could not yet spare them the sons of Zerviah were too hard for them Though the Bishops and Popish Lords had a Legal Right then at least to sit yet they invited tumults to cry No Bishops no popish Lords Nay made a stand at White-hall and said They would have ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ more Porters lodge but would speake with the King when they pleased Proof was offered against that Captain who conducted the Rabble and sollicited them to come with Swords and Pistols yet he was not suffered to be brought to answer the intollerable violence upon the members of both Houses The Bishops were threatned to be pulled in pieces as they came from the House they were faine to steale away for feare of their lives see Bishop Hall's Narrative before his last Work The Lords made an Order to suppresse the Tumults but the Commons would not concurr Severall speeches were made in their Justification They must not discourage their friends this being a time they must makeuse of all their friends Mr. Pym saying God forbid the house of Commons should proceed in any way to dishearten the people to obtain their just desire in such a way Were not the names of these Gentlemen that voted not according to the sence of the good members posted up their persons assaulted did not Alderman Pennington Captain Ven brings down armed multitudes to terrify the members when the worser party as they call it were like to prevaile That the liberty of the house of Peers was no better preserved the arguments are too numerous Mr. Pym could tell the Earle of Doâ—er if he looked for any preferment he must comply with them in their wayes Mr Hollu demanded publickly ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the Bar the names of those Lords who would not consent to some propositions concerning the Militia sent by the Commons they got multitudes to deliver Petitions to both houses and to desire leave that they might protest against those Lords-who would not agree to the Votes of the House of Commons as the Petition of Surrey Harfordshire In this Petition of the poor people about London against the Malignant faction it was desired that those worthies of the Upper house who concurred with them in their happy Votes might sit and Vote in the House of Commons as one entire house professing that unlesse obstructions were removed They should be enforced to lay hold on the next remedy which was at hand to remove the disturbers of the peace 5. The four next Sections amount to this Our Rights were evidently invaded Ship money the new Oath against Law men punished for preaching Lectures twice on the Lords day The Parliament remonstrated our danger we had reason to beleeve them there was a generall endeavour to change the face of things among us many new orders brought into the Church abundance of painfull though peacable preachers cast out ignorant scandalous readers kept in the Irish Rebells declared for the King we

the best way to understand the nature of a thing is to consult the Writ that belongs to it now if the Writ calls them onely to Counsel Conâ—â—lâ—m vestrum impensâ—ri c and De quibusdam arduis negotiis quibusdam some which he was pleased to desire their advice in not what ever they had a mind to be medling in There be fresh examples of latter times even in Qu Elizabeth's days of members sent to prison for mentioning in the House to move the Queen in a thing which highly concerned the peace of the Nation but a thing above their cognisance and it was not muttered at as breach of Priviledge If they had been intended for such sharers in the Soveraignty in the very Constitution of the Government How are the Burgesses so many more than the Knights of the Shire are the meanest Tradesmen more capable of ruling then the Gentry whose thoughts and education are sure more suitable to it That alone were enough to make one think representing to the King the several Obstructions of Trade in all parts of the Nation the greatest part of their errant it being the onely thing they are fit for Adde to this Sr. Edward Cook in Pref. to 9. Rep. reckons it â—p as one of the Priviledges of Tenants in Antient Demâ—sne that they were not to be returned Burgesses to serve in Parliament His next work is to Answer two Objections 1. The Oath of Supremacy saith he secureth the Kings Title against all Foraign Claim either Pope or any other The words of that Oath are plainly these I. A. B. Doe utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the Onely Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall Thus far it is as clear and positive as words can make it The Negative part of the Oath which because it hinders not mens designes they are content to take notice of followes and that no Forraigners c. If the King is the onely Supream Governour of this Realm and the two Houses are equal with him in the Government and we may swear this and yet believe that it is time to change not onely our law but our language and the Houses should make us new Dictionaries that we may know what English words signifie The second Argument is one would think convincing The two Houses acknowledge themselves His Majesties humble and loyall Subjects assembled in Parliaments They petition the King the King never them they cannot come unlesse he cals them nor choose to come when he doth call them nor stay one minuit longer than he pleases and yet these are his equals not to say his Superiours but he that hath an equall during his own pleasure hath none at all He warns us to take heed of Titles being it is likely not ignorant that King Monarch Emperor Supream Lord Majesty were every where in the law attributed to the Kings person but of him in his politicall capacity i e. the Majesty Regality of the two Houses There is as little to be found of the Name as the thing What hath been now said may evince that proposition the Soveraign power is onely in the King to be no groundlesse one but of that more hereafter The next Objection is Legislation is the most principall part of the Soveraignes Right But that belongs to the Houses as well as the King Be it enacted by the Kings Majesty Lords and Commons c. Ergo Here Mr Baxter evidently betrays his cause before while it was for his turn the Parliament fought for and represented us as free in oâ— Rights exempted in the very Constitution he referred all to the Originall â—ontract but here part of the Soverainty is proved to be in the Houses by these words â—e it enacted by the King Lords and Commons termes that came up but yesterday and he is so conscious to himself of waving his first plea that he saies he will not go to records and writings i. e. he knows the example of all laws the authority of all lawyers give judgment against him if a bargain was made at first we are obliged to keep it as well as the King nor can we encroach with more honesty upon his original priviledges then he on ours But the King it seems shall be one of the three Estates and the onely one whose rights may lawfully be invaded Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supream and Legislative power It is the interest of Kings as well as their duty to make and repeale laws as they suite with or are repugnant to the good of their Country which they can no way be so well informed of as by an Assembly conâ—isting of men chosen out of all parts of the Realm And where there are considerable and distinct ranks of men as the Spirituall and Lay Nobility and the Commons it was fit they should all be heard and consulted with their Interests being divers and sometimes thwarting it was very like their desires would be so too It was this way provided no one part should get a grant by surprise to the disadvantage of the others and thus it was in England and this the reason of demanding the opinion of the two Houses is evident I appeal to the Body of the Acts themselves here I will not insist upon the elder presidents though I might rationally enough from them overthrow the fancy of our Rights secured in the constitution of our Government but that being so universally granted I shall cite Acts of weak Kings and later times Onely desiring this thing of the Reader that he would not think those I quote to be the onely examples to be produced and so possibly think either fraud or force hath caused the people to suppresse their Rights let him but look upon the Statutes he will quickly be rid of any such fond imagination I have therefore purposely pitched upon a weak Prince and insulting Subjects to begin with Anno decimo Edw 2. For as much as our Soveraign Lord the King by the INFORMATION of his Prelates Earls Barons c. Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent c. hath Ordained and Established So Anno 12. Edw. so in all other Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent of c. hath made these Acts following In the 10. of Edward the 3. where there is expresse mention of Magna Charta Charta de foresta which shews that Assembly not unmindfull of their Liberties or Priviledges yet the same stile continues It is established by the King by the Assent of c. and at the request of the said Knights and Commons In the 25. Edw. 3. The King at the request of the Lords and Commons c. 2. H. 5.

is required to repeal a law will by this time I hope be a small argument of their partitipation of the Soveraignty sure I am the Monarchs of the East were as much limitted the laws of the Meades and Persians which change not at the pleasure of the King the Scripture mentions even those Princes were sworn to observe the Laws Ahasuerus could not revoke the Decree against the Jews nor Darius though he passionately desired it of his Nobles save Daniel Dan. 6. He that would affirm that to be a mixt Monarchy or that those Nobles or any else were sharers in the Government to say no more would bring a new Doctrine into the world The next Objection is in short this In a Declaration set forth in the Kings name It is acknowledged that the King Lords and Commons make the three Estates and the ballance must hang even between them c. To which I shall briefly say this it were to the purpose if it could be proved that the King Lords and Commons make the three Estates But the truth is the Lords Spiritual Temporal and Commons are the three Estates not to repeat many In the Act of Recognition of Queen Elizabeth We your most loving faithfull and obedient Subjects representing the Three Estates of this Realme which evidently shews the Queen was not esteemed one Anno 8. Eliz. cap. 1. The Clergy being one of the greatest Estates of this Realm it is clear therefore that by the law the Clergy is one estate So when Hen. 5. Funerals were ended The Three Estates did assemble and acknowledge his â—on King For their right of being the thrid Estate unanswerably acknowledged by Parliament it might admit a debate whether any two Estates may conspire to Vote out the third sure if the Commons had been so served Mr. Baxter would have resolved it in the Negative How comes it to passe that that part of Magna Charta which relates to the Clergy should be lesse significant then any other To the Kings Concession to that illegall Bill I onely say this The law takes no notice of an Act but when it is by the assent of the Three Estates nor could the Lay Lords and Commons disoblige the King from his Oath made to the Spiritually there being a particular clause besides the general for securing the Liberty of the Nation In the Coronation Oath for the Rights and Priviledges of the Church nothing but the Church could give them away if yet the Church it self could For it is a thing generally granted that a generall representative cannot cancel Obligations to particular Bodies which truth in any other instance people will acknowledge The House of Commons are the Representative of all the Commons of this Land the City of London hath her Burgesses there If they upon this fancy of involving each ones consent and so doing injury to none should Vote the City paid the money they borrowed of them I believe every one would quickly discover the fallacy of that Plea and explode it as illegall sinfull and rediculous the other case is much harder London is the greatest City the Clergy is one of the greatest Estates in the Nation according to 8. Eliz. cap. 1. London hath some at least that there represent her whereas the Clergy hath not so much as one He saw the impossibility of the Bishops fitting there their Persons and Friends assaulted themselves like to be murthered by the rabble see Bishop Halls Narrative before his last works the Lords making an Order to suppresse the tumults the Commons not concurring but encouraging them the Bils severall times thrown out of the House of Peeres and brought in the same Session contrary to all Order of Parliament considering which I will say onely this Let any man consider in what a condition the Kings Majesty was in then how injurious to himself to one of the greatest Estates of this Realm according to 8. Eliz. that grant was how contrary to Magna harta to the Rights of the Church by Law and his Majesties Oath so much provided for he will easily finde the Kings consent to be extorted and null If I should upon their Protestation against all Acts passed during their forced absence it would not be easily answered Having now shewed the Clergy to make the third Estate which is as much as the King hath been allowed to be of late the main Argument of coordination is thereby removed I will adde but this The Oath of Supremacy asserts the King to be the sole supream Governour and therefore sure the two Houses are not coparceners It is declared in Anno 16. R. 2. c. 5. The Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no earthly subjection but immediately to God in all things touching the Regality of the said Crown and to no other And again The Realm of England is an Empire governed by One Supream head and King having the dignity an Royall Estate of the Imperiall Crown of the same 24. H. 8. c. 12. unto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of people in terms and by names of Spiritually and Temporalty been bounden and ought to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience This Body Politick consisting of all sorts and degrees divided into terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty must necessarily be the Parliament there being no other body capable of that appellation and description which here acknowledgeth as such a body it self subject and him Supream The next is a large quotation out of Grotius in Latine that in some cases it is lawfull to resist but they reach not the present Question the first concerns not Supream Magistrates but such things as Sparta had the second none at all the third If the King aliens the Kingdome which sure was not our case fourthly If the King apparently designes the destruction of the whole people I will not wrong the King so much as to endeavour to clear him from that fifthly If there is such a clause c. If the King doth this or that the Subjects are absolved from their Oath produce such a clause and shew how the King broke his Trust Sixth If there is a division of Supremacy and the King encroaches he may beso far resisted I shall make it out the Houses encroached upon him as I have sufficiently evinced the vanity of a coordination In these cases Grotius thinks they who at their entring into society contracted for themselves and posterity intended not to obliege them so far as to dy rather then resist nisi forte cum hoc additamento si resiâ—ti nequeat nisicum maximÃ¢ reip perturbatione aut exitio plurimorum â—â—nocentium unlesse by resisting they mightily disturbe the Common wealth or destroy many innocents that being the Parliaments case nothing in Grotius can acquit them from the sin of Rebellion to their Soveraign and the duty of restitution to the Subjects they injured And here are the female and

civilly bitter it allowed him as much ceremonious Royalty as might put him in mind of what he had been About Dec. 1647 for want of something else to do they treat with the King but he must grant foure previous propositions the first and last of which would serve to dethrone him and the other two to affront him which certainly they would never have asked had they not resolved to be denied But great ills cannot be maintained but by acting greater they would not allow the King any power because they feared what they deserved as it is usually seen that they that sin beyond all example think they sin beyond all possibility of forgivenesse so these though they might have had the greatest provision for their safety themselves could imagine so that they needed fear nothing but guilty consciences thought the King and themselves could not both be secure Wherefore on the third of January the Kings refusall tofigne the bills was wholy debated it was strongly urged how the King by denyall of those bills had refused to protect his people viz. by denying to part with the Militia without which it is impossible he should protect them so much as a constable can upon which score their subâ—ection was no longer due it was time for them to think how to settle the Nation without him accordingly upon mature deliberation they frantickly resolve upon it and on the seventeenth of January Vote They will never make any addresses more to the King nor receive any message from him May Breviarium Hist. Parl. p. 18. At the beginning of the War it was necessary for them though they did act quite contrary to say they would make the King a great and glorious King and it was not impossible but some fools might beleeve them but that after these Votes passed publâ—shed and maintained in a declaration set out to that purpose suitable usage they should dare to this day to professe they alwayes were for the King his Person and Authority is arrogantly monstrous unlesse at the same time they voted away their Princes liberty they thought they could vote away his Peoples reasons too It is true they afterwards recalled those Votes and sent some termes to the King which the necessity of affaires caused him to condiscend to but if it he remembred what previous concessions there were what an odious preface how harsh the Propositions were to the disparagement as well as the undoing of all his friends what fear themselves were then in of their own army will think the King obliged to thank them only when he hath nothing else to do How well the Pretences for the King have been seconded with unfit performances hath been in some measure seene the next enquiry must be about the Peers whether the pulling the sun out of the firmament hath been an effectuall way to make the starrs shine more gloriously The Bishops at the beginning of the Parliament were at the least so many Barons if not the third state and had as undoubted a right to fit there as the law could give to any man or men of this Nation they were a more ancient I add and a more considerable part of the Parliament then the whole house of Commons as having part of the judicative power in them which the other had not yet were they affronted menaced and endangered by tumults which the Lords would have suppressed and the Commons encouraged But of this before The Lords seeing the Commons would not joyne appoint a writ by the advice of the Judges to be directed to the Sheriffs and Justices upon divers statutes which issued accordingly to suppresse and hinder all tumultuous resort in obedience to which the Justices and other ministers appoint the Constables to attend about Westminster to hinder that unlawfull conflux of people which the Commons without any conference with the Lords to know upon what reason or what Law that writ was grounded Vote it a Breach of priviledge and send one of the Justices to the Tower Ex. Col. p. 53â— The Bill concerning the Militia a most considerable bill was sent to the King by the house of Commons alone notwithstanding the express refusall of the house of Peers as themselves confesse Ex. Col. p. 59. However they may talk they were for the old constitution of King Lords and Commons it is evident the grandees were for neither full and free but so many of each as would serve their turne After the bill for the Militia had been rejected twice in the house of Peers it was contrary to all law reason Presidents forced upon them again and to fright the Peers into agreement it was said there That whoever would not consent c. was an enemy to the Commonwealth and the same day Mr. Hollis contrary sure to the freedom of Parliaments demanded to know who were against it much to this purpose may be read in Ex. Col. p. 547. 548. What was that ridiculous proposall that the minor part of the Lords might joyn with the Major part of the Commons That threatning Petition that they might protest against the dissenting Lords and that other that the good Lords might sit in the same house with the Commons but devices to aw the Peers What was the unparliamentary course of forcing bills upon the House of Lords after severall times being cast out but a down right telling them they were resolved to take no deniall The House of Commons made an order against an established Law concerning the Common Prayer the Lords made an order for the observance of it which the Commons very mannerly declare against the nineth of September Ex Col p 526. The house of Peers was certainly of very great authority when an Order of theirs in behalf of an established law was not equivalent to one of the lower House in direct opposition to an established law Again The protestation being so early whatever the meaning was the termes in common prudence ought not to be too offensive but presently they perceived that their surest friends the haire-brained Sectaryes would not endure to be bound to observe the Doctrine of the Church of England Whereupon those words in the protestation were explayned by a declaration of the house of Commons onely to be intended onely so sar as it is opposite to Popery The house of Peers taking an Oath to be too sacred to admit of so jugling an interpretation refused to joyn with them in it Presently the house of Commons who would accept of the Peers assent when it might be had and when it could not would act without it so excellent observers were they of the ancient constitution voted it by their sole authority That all people who would not take that Protestation so interpreted unfit to bear any office in the Common-wealth After all these actions I hope a few good words will not acquit them Nor will it signify any thing with intelligent men what is next urged That The Covenant was for King and

Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Text snippets containing the quad