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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A40719 A review of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully declare and subscribe as by the late act of uniformity is required? : in reply to a book entitled A short surveigh of the grand case, &c. : wherein all their objections against both the declarations are considered and answered / by the same hand. Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693. 1663 (1663) Wing F2514; ESTC R20121 61,527 240

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

gaining or increasing of grace or peace our prayers are a means not onely of asking but of effecting the same but to alter law and government is a thing of that nature that we can onely ask it we can Act no further towards it all the work for the effecting of it belongs to our Governours put any Familiar Instance with your selves and resolve the double will you say that the Childe desiring his Father to wind up his Watch is the Childs Endeavouring the winding it up or to wind it up 4. I can easily Consent that Conatus is not effectus yet you acknowledge it is a motion towards the Effect which you call a Natural power and I doubt not we agree that Conatus hath essentially in it a Natural tendency and operation towards the effect Endeavoured 5. Now simple and bare Petition or submiss supplication hath not so it hath indeed a verbal motion for the thing desired but no real Operation or Natural Motion towards the effecting of it 6. The subject by Petition doth desire it but the Parliament in all those legal methods of debating veting committing engrossing c. do properly endeavor the Abolition of any thing legally established 7. Truly I soberly discern this distinction of Petition and Endeavour both in the Covenant and in the Act of Vniformity 8. The Covenant saith we shall Endeavour the Extirpation of Prelacy not desire or perswade but Endeavour it Neither can you possibly perswade your selves that such as then imposed and took the Covenant did at first intend such Endeavors as you mean who took other courses you well know to effect the same 9. It is added Constantly and zealously must we be always zealous and hot in our Petitions must we perpetually sollicite King and Parliament with our supplications this will hardly consist with submiss Supplication 10. Indeed it is plainly Seditions in it self take Endeavour in your own sence publikely to engage by Covenant zealously and constantly to Petition the Alteration of Government this is to declare to the World that we will never be quiet under it 11. Thus also it is in the Act we are to declare there lies no Obligation to Endeavour a change it is not said that we shall not Petition that others may Endeavour it 12. Rational Endeavour implies that the persons endeavouring have probably a power to effect but it is certain before hand that without the Supream Legislative Power the Subjects cannot effect the Extirpation of Episcopacy therefore they cannot rationally or lawfully endeavour it therefore if they promise or Covenant so to do it is sinful and they may lawfully declare they are not obliged unto it that is to endeavour what they have no power by Law to do neither can the Act be thought to intend any more Stultum est Conari quod nequeas efficere 13. Lastly If submiss supplication be yet thought to have any spice of endeavor in it it cannot be rationally thought to be intended in the word endeavour in the Act you observe that Endeavour in the Act and in the Covenant are of one measure and it is too evident there was more in endeavour in the Covenant then meer Petition and submiss supplication which ran us upon those sad consequences that in all reason the Intention of this new Act is but to secure us from you say to make Laws against simple Endeavor is certainly destructive to the Liberty of the Subject and Priviledge of Parliament Methinks then you should not apprehend such a simple and bare endeavour is to be disclaimed as is essential in your own Judgements to the liberty of the Subject and priviledge of Parliament SECT 6. Whether to endeavour c. be at all times sui Juris to every Subject c. 1. I Cannot yet consent that to endeavor to alter the overnment of the Church is at all times or at this time sui Juris to every or to any Subject or indeed to any person in the Nation to speak home 2. The King is the proper Judge of what Government is fittest for the Church both as he is Supream Governour over it and as he is the Head of the Parliament 3. As he is supream Governor over the Church of England he is supream Judge in all Causes into whom the last Appeal resolves and consequently he is supream Judge in this of the fitness of the Government of the Church unto whom the last Appeal for a final definitive sentence and determination is only to be made 4. Again as he is Head of the Parliament he is no less For though the 2 Houses be also Judges of the fitness of the Government yet still with submission and reservation to the highest Judge thereof their Sovereign Lord the King who hath a Negative upon both Houses and gives life or death with his own word to any Bill tendred to him 5. So that in matters Legally existing the King hath this great advantage above his 2 houses the King hath power of himself to continue the existence of any such thing without his two houses that is whether they will or not and they cannot remove or abolish any such thing without the King or whether he will or no. 6. Suppose it be granted that the people may petition both houses may proceed so far as to frame a Bill against a Government absolutely considered and without respect to any Prior Obligations by Oath or otherwise upon the King and tender this unto the King in Order to the extirpation of the same yet if the King refuse to pass the Bill that Bill so once rejected cannot be revived during that Parliament neither may any person in either house so much as move it any more by the laws of Parliament which nothing can warrant against but the necessity of the things so to be revived upon the Word of God 7. The same Reason perswades me that when both King and Parliament have by fresh law declared their dissent to alter the Government against all endeavours used to that end and so they have done by the late Statutes for its restauration then we the Subjects cannot be bound any longer to endeavour it if we were bound before 8. To be bound still to vex the King and Parliament with perpetual repetition of Petitions to remove a Government which they have still do signifie they will not remove yea which they do signally own and ratifie so much the more is to be bound to go contrary to authority as well as Law to trouble the peace of Church and State and the Government over us and indeed to endeavour or labour in vain all hopes of prevailing being taken away at postquam palam desperata est constat fieri non posse cessat obligatio ex jam dicto fundamento quod Nemo Teneatur ad impossibile 6. This must needs pass without all controll if we add to the consideration that the King is known to be born to and bound to take an Oath by