Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	head_n	king_n	supreme_a	4,443	5	9.1068	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35993	An answer to a printed book, intituled, Observations upon some of His Maiesties late answers and expresses	Diggs, Dudley, 1613-1643.	1642 (1642)	Wing D1454; ESTC R14255	51,050	121

are met We called them and without that call they could not have come together to be our Counsellors not Commanders for however they frequently confound them the offices are severall The writ runs super dictis negotijs tractaturi vestrumque consilium impensuri so that the cleare meaning is their advise is not Law except the Royall assent establish it into an act 'T is alleadged he calls them Counsellors not in all things but in quibusdam arduis c. and the case of Wentworth is cited who being a member of the House of Commons was committed by Q. Eliz. but for proposing they might advise the Queen in a matter Shee thought they had nothing to doe to meddle with He answers a meere example though of Q. Elizabeth is no law It is true a bare example shewes only what was not what ought to be but when grounded on authority and no way excepted against by those who have alwayes been earnest defenders of their Priviledges it may be reckoned amongst sound Presidents what he adds that some of Her actions were retracted is a confirmation of this for this being out of the number it seems it was accompted legall Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis Yet neither did the King so quote this president as to build a right upon it He alleadges the King denyes the Assembly of the Lords and Commons when he withdrawes himselfe to be rightly named a Parliament or to have any power of any court and consequently to be any thing but a meere convention of so many private men This is falsly imposed on His Majesty His Answers and Messages speak the contrary which are directed to both Houses of Parliament Besides He hath passed some bills since his withdrawing All that He affirms is that the sole power of making or repealing lawes and altering any thing established is not in them but if He upon mature deliberation shal preferr the present government to the proposed change then their order is not to have the force of law and oblige the Kingdom The King is said to assert that because the law hath trusted him with a prerogative to discontinue Parliaments therefore if He do discontinue Parliaments to the danger or prejudice of the Kingdome this is no breach of that trust because in formality of law the people may not assemble in Parliament but by His writ This is grosse forgery if it appeare to him necessary or expedient for the Kingdom He acknowledges He is obliged by that trust reposed in him to issue out his writs And to this end He gratiously signed the bill for a trienniall Parliament which like Physick well timed may preserve the body of this state in health and strength by not sufferring ill humors to grow to any head Another assertion of the Kings he saies is if the Parliament make any transition in other matters then what he pleases to propose they are lyable to imprisonment at his pleasure All this he collects from the citation of Wentworths case The sence of his inference is this because they cannot justify the medling with things which belong not to their cognisance therefore they may be punisht if they medle with those that do We may observe an affected mistake in this author of which he makes frequent use and this animadversion though once laid down may often be applyed Whatsoever the Houses do he calls that the Act of the people Whereas the truth is they represent them only to some purposes and ends So that if they exceed their commission and vote things not belonging to their cognisance the People by no meanes is engaged in it as having no legall way of expressing themselves in such cases His Majesty clearly to prove that the trust committed to both Houses cannot bind Him to assent to what ever they propose seem it of never so dangerous consequence to the Kingdom nor absolve Him in point of conscience if His reason tell Him His people will extreamly suffer vnder the grant argues thus It is impossible that the same trust should be irrevocably committed to Us and Our heires for ever and the same trust and a power above that trust for such is the power they pretend be committed to others did not the people that sent them look upon them as a body but temporary and dissoluble at Our pleasure and can it be beleived that they intended them for Our Guardians and comptrollers in the managing of that trust which God and the law hath granted to Us and Our posterity for ever Strange it is that affection should so blinde the understanding and worke mens beliefe not according to reason but desire I must needs think the let lies only in his will else he could never satisfy himselfe with such weak answers It is true faith he two supreames cannot be in the same sence and respect If he had not hoped to hide himselfe in generalls he would have descended to particulars and told us in what sence what respect and what matters the King was supream in what the two Houses But an application would have discovered the truth even to weak understandings Nothing is more knowne or assented to then this that the King is singulis major and yet universis minor I have already evidenced the contrary yet I will speak something to it here By universis he must mean the representative all which therefore he concludes to be above and have greater power then the King that is such a power as He is bound to obey So it seems the King hath taken the oath of allegiance as well as we and we may call Him our fellow subject Yet the oath of Supremacy he tells us is no waies endangered The sense of his reason is because he is a better man then any one of us take us single He tels us He is better then any one He does not tell us He is better then two if the Kings supreamacy be no more but this it is no more then possibly He might have and probably had before He was King It is not the Prince singulis major nay may not any Lord in the Land challenge the same supreamacy over all the Knights any Knight over all esquiers to be singulis major though universis minor But perhaps some othes limitation may be found out the meaning shortly shall be that he is above the Pope in these his dominions not but that He is under His subjects to take of these and all other corrupt glosses I shall refer him to cap. 12. vices 4o. Hen 8. In the preface of which statute the Kings supreamacy not over single persōs but the body Politique is clearly delivered The words are these Where by divers sundry old authentick histories chronicles it is manifestly declared expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the world governed by one Supream head and King having the dignity and Royall estate of the Imperiall Crown of the same unto whom a Body