Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	lord_n	sovereign_a	12,705	5	9.8164	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61098	The case of our affaires in law, religion, and other circumstances examined and presented to the conscience	Spelman, John, Sir, 1594-1643.	1643 (1643)	Wing S4935; ESTC R26250	27,975	42

of the soveraigne power of the Peeres and Commons indeed in both there were much what the same pretences and both had much what the same warrant But all those Parliaments as they were called in the troublesome Times of Faction and Civill War so were they ever swayed by those that were the Heads of the most potent Faction and while they alwayes acted in favour of them and their Designe they are so farre from being instances of the power and authoritie of the two Houses as that cleane contrary they are plain instances of the weaknesse and unsteadinesse of them when forsaking the moderation and guidance of their naturall Head they suffered themselves to be lead by the private conduct of every popular pretender and so even among the precedents which he citeth we see that when Canutus prevailed by his Armes he could have a Parliament resolve that his Title was the best When Hen. 4. had an Armie of 60000. he could have a Parliament depose R. 2. and conferre the Crown upon himselfe When Edw. Duke of Yorke grew potent he could have a Parliament be the instrument of determining the Raigne of H. 6. and leave him onely the name of King for his life but give the Duke the very Kingdom under the names of Protectour and Regent Edw. 4. could by Parliament procure H 4. H. 5. H. 6. to be declared Kings in fact but not in right R. 3. though an Usurper could procure a Parliament to declare him a lawfull King Henry 7. could procure the forementioned Acts in favour of Edw. 4. R. 3. to be adnulled Hen. 8. could have a Parliament authorise his Divorces And Queen Elizab. could by Parliament make it High Treason to say that the Queen could not by Act of Parliament binde and dispose the rights and Titles which any person whatsoever might have to the Crown when yet we know that no Act of Parliament no not an Attainder by Parliament can disable the right Heire to the Crown because the descent of the Crown upon Him purges all disabilities whatsoever and makes Him capable of it This is the summe and true estimate of all the Authorities which he cites in which if the Acts could be granted to be the meer Acts of the two Houses yet did they no more prove the soveraigne power to be in the two Houses than the Popes deposing of Kings proves the right of deposing them to be in him that the things were done is no proofe that they were lawfully done and yet as idle and vile a collection of examples not to be imitated as he hath made he is fain to belie them to makem seem to serve his turne for truly though he affirmes that the popish Parliaments c challenged or claimed greater jurisdiction over Kings than any ever since yet his instances prove no more claime of Soveraignitie than a robber claimes when he exercises an arbitrary power over a mans person and fortunes what they did they did de facto upon some inferiour reasons not upon claime of the Soveraignitie they neither taught nor ever learn'd that Jesuitique depth of Sathan that the Soveraignitie over the Soveraigne is placed in the Bodie Representative of the Subject All claime therefore of either the Soveraignitie it selfe or of the rights thereof by any Representative of the Subject is a transcendent impietie beyond the parallell of all his unimitable examples in which I cannot but the more wonder that he should ascribe the Acts unto the two Houses when by making the Acts theirs he makes all the long miserie and bloodshed that ensued upon those Acts to have been brought upon the Land by the meer Act of the two Houses Considering therefore the every way faulty Argument of that Book both in citing and applying I am forced to conclude with the same words that in the frontispice of his Book he begins with The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously yea the treacherous dealers have dealt exceeding treacherously As for the second part of the same Author that came since forth under a title that pretends to shew the lawfulnes of a defensive war that answers it selfe that it comes nothing to the case in question where the War is acknowledged to be an Invasive War to take from His Majestie certain Counsellours pretended to be evil Counsellours If possibly therefore he should prove what he undertakes to maintain that Subjects may make a Defensive War against their Soveraigne yet being nothing to our case deserves at all no answer here I therefore returne again unto my purpose That the Soveraignitie with all the rights claimed by His Majestie is in the King inseparably inherent in the person of His Majestie we have not onely the forementioned testimonies and reasons but we have the witnesse of the two Houses themselves for whom our deceiving Pamphlets do now make all the new arguments of pretence For first we have as I have said the whole current and bodie of our very Acts of Parliament acknowledging it in these very termes Our Soveraigne Lord the King We have the Parliament 25. H. 8 declaring thus This Your Graces Realme recognizing no Superiour under God but Your Grace The Parliament 16. R. 2.5 affirming 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 regalitie of the said Crown and to none other In the 25. H. 5. both Houses declare That it belongeth to the Kings regalitie to grant or denie what petitions in Parliament he pleaseth In the 15. E. 3. The King being unwillingly drawn to consent to certain Articles prejudiciall to the Crown and to promise to seale the Statute thereupon made least otherwise his affaires in hand might have been ruinated Another Statute the same year reciting the matter enacted in these words It seemed to the said Earles Barons and otherwise men that since the Statute did not of Our free will proceed the same be void and ought not to have the name nor strength of a Statute and therefore by their counsaile and assent We have decreed the said Statute to be void c. In the Statute of Banishment of H. Spencer the first Article against him is for making a Bill wherein he affirmed Homage and alleageance to the King is more by reason of their own than of the person of the King The word hath a note of a Parliament roll Diarie of H. 4. The Commons in Parliament pray the King that They may not be made parties to any judgement in Parliament but where in rei veritate they are parties for that the judgement belongs onely to the King except where it is given by Statute As for the Militia the Shippes and Forts of the Kingdom The King and His Predecessours have not onely been ever in possession of them commanded and disposed of them even during the sitting of Parliaments but have enjoyed that possession