Selected quad for the lemma: head_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A93661
|
A view of a printed book intituled Observations upon His Majesties late answers and expresses.
|
Spelman, John, Sir, 1594-1643.
|
1643
(1643)
|
Wing S4941; Thomason E245_22; ESTC R6700
|
54,336
|
47
|
universalitie or body collected As he is head so is he in place power and dignitie above the body politique or universalitie and not otherwise the head of any particular but as he is a part of that universalitie As out of the Embrion saith Fortescue ariseth a body naturall ruled by one head even so of a multitude of people ariseth a kingdome which is a body mysticall governed by one man as by its head As then in the naturall body the head is improperly said to be the head of the arme or of the leg but the head of the body so in truth must the King be made the head of the misticall body not of the particular members The King is but one head and therefore but of one body not then of the particulars which are many bodyes but of the universall one body There is a politique body wich is the Vniversalitas Angliâ— hath this body politique no head or is the head inferiour to its body and yet no Monster The Observator will object that the politicall head must be sâ—bservient to its body for that it received its first being and subsistence from the body we shall hereafter prove that the Regal power hath alwayes its being from God though it be sometimes with the peoples approbation And as the politicall head hath its subsistence with the body and must be destroyed by its dissolution so if you destroy the head or kingly power you destroy the kingdome and dissolve it into a Chaos and confused multitude Nec populus Acephatus saith Fortescue corpus vocari meretur quiaut in naturalibus capite detruâ—cato residuum non corpus sed truncum appellamus Sic in politicis sine capite communit as nullatenus corporatur But admitting that in the body politique the head hath its power authority derived meerly and solely out of the politique provision that radically and habitually was in the people to provide for its own safety and weale yet I cannot see how it will follow that therefore the Regall power must be subservient and subject unto the people for as in the naturall body the heart being primum vivens distributeth blood and spirit unto all the members and giveth life and vertue unto the head it selfe yet must that and the whole body be subject unto the head which as Supreame governeth and directeth the whole man A second kingly Attribute is this that he is Sponsâ—s regni and at his Coronation wedded with a Ring unto the kingdom The Observator saith this must be applyed to subjects taken devisim not conjunctim Otherwise as the wife is inferiour to the husband so would the people be in politiques to the King But in sadnesse is the King wedded to the particular men and women within this kingdome with beards and without I pray how many wives will he so have The Observator foresaw the Arguments which might be drawne from these and other attributes whereby Princes are 〈◊〉 Gods Lords Fathers c. and that therefore subjects must stand by the same relation as Creatures Servants Children c. all Which he would shift off by his misapplyed distinction of Kings are such singulis but not universis But indeed a King is said to be a Father or Pater patriae that is of the universalitie not of particular persons And elsewhere the King is termed an Oeconomus or Paâ—eâ—familuis which with no congruity can be said in respect of particulars Nor can the Observator satisfie any man considering that Domesticall government is the very Image and modell of Soveraignty in a Common-weale why children and servants might not as wel use this distinction against their Parents and Masters as subjects against their Soveraign for may it not be objected though the Father in relation to his Children or a Master of a Family in relation to his servants be singulis major yet Vniversis minor and therefore if all the sons or servants hold together they may command their Father or Master or turn him out of doores which was wisely foreseen by Agesilaus when he returned this answer to a Citizen of Sparta that desired an alteration of the Government That kind of Rule which a man would disdain in his own house were very unfit to governe great Regions by But the Observator will object that the relation holds not alike betwixt King and Subjects as between Master and servants For that the Master saith he is more worthy then his servants and above them all but this holds not in relation betwixt a King and his Subjects Why that 's the question For proofe whereof although he neither doth or can alleadge any one authority yet to prove the contrary that the people neither conjunctim nor divisim and much lesse then representatives are more worthy or above the King amongst many peruse these few Bracton l. 1. cap. 8. Omnis quidem sub eo rege ipse sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo parem non habet in regno suo quia sic amitteret praeceptum nam par in parem non habet imperium item nec multò fortiùs superiorem nec potentiorem habere debet quia sic esset inferior sibi subditis If he be tantum sub deo then not under the people or their representatives 19. E. 4. 6. If all the people in England would make a warre yet if the King will not assent it cannot be said a warre but the King alone may make a warre or league Is not the King in this above all the people in England 24. H. 8. cap. 12. Where by divers sundry old authentique histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realme of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the world governed by one Supreame head and King having the Dignity and royall estate of the Imperiall Crowne of the same unto whom a body politique compact of all sorts and degrees of people been bounden and owen to beare next to God a naturall and humble obedience c. Note the King the supreame head true saith the Observator singulis not universis unto whom a body politique compact of all sorts been bounden and owen next to God Then no mediate underived Majestie 'twixt God and him a naturall obedience that is due by the law of nature or the Divine Law not onely by the pactions and agreement of politique Nations 25. â—â— 8. 25. H. 8. This your Graces Realme recognizing no Superiour under God but only your Grace By Realme is meant either Subjects divisim or conjunctiâ— If divisim then no particular is subject to Judges and Justice nor to the Lords and Commons in Parliament but onely to the King which is absurd If conjunctim then is the King in the act recognized Major universis Camb. Eliz. pag. 39. The Queene explaines the Oath of Supremacie that she claymes nothing thereby Quam quod ad coronam Angliae jam olim jure spectavit scilicet se sub Deo
Houses without the King represent the Universall Realm shall be considered anon passing that by I conceive that the Parliament truely so called is above the King taken solely for that it doth involve the King without whom they are not truely a Parliament The Parliament then thus considered is a whole compared with some part and the King but a part though the most excellent part of the whole Now every whole is greater then any part the Head though more excellent then all the other Members yet not more excellent then the whole Man whereof the Head is but a part But the King solely compared with the Parliament or rather the Houses of Parliament excluding or not involving the King is superiour and above them whether you consider them scorsim or conjunctim for taken conjunctim they make but a Body which though it be greater then then the Head in Bulk yet doth the Head excell in Vertue Excellence and Authority And although by vertue of representation they are the Body of the whole Kingdom yet is the King the Head of that Body and the Representative of God himself who I am sure is above the Body they represent It is a Principall undeniable Pax in parem non habet imperium multo minus in superiorâ—â—â— If then the Houses be above nay if but equall with the King He can have no Command over them But it is evident He hath Command over them He calls and commands them to assemble being assembled or united together He may command them to prorogue or adjourn for time or place upon which Command it is then their Duty to rise and remove and again at His pleasure He can dissolve them Although for this time His Majesty hath been graciously pleased to restrain Himself from the exercise of that Power yet the Power it self is still in Him as an Inheritance inseparable from His Crown The Representatives of the Kingdom either are Subjects or not That they are not Subjects by reason that they are assembled is absurd and so would not the Kings Protection due unto Subjects belong unto them If they are Subjects then doth the King remain their Soveraign and Superiour And indeed so far is their uniting and assembling in Parliament from diminishing the Kingly Soveraignty to which they were before all and every one Subject as that the Regall Majesty is thereby much more encreased and augmented Cromp. Jurisâ— 10. We are informed by Our Judges saith King H. 8. to His Parliament That We at no time stand so highly in Our Estate Royall as in the time of Parliament wherein We as Head and you as Members are conâ—oyned and knit together in one Body Politique If the Houses as representing the Universall Realm are above the King then they may judge Him punish or depose Him But they cannot judge Him 22 Edw. 3. 3. Le Roy per cux ne doit estre ajuge 3 Edw. 3. 19. Scrope Those which are Judges of Parliament are Judges of their Pâ—â—rs but the King hath no Peer within His Own Kingdom and therefore ought not to be judgedly them And for deposing a King or depriving Him of His Right and Authority or any necessary part thereof no Act of Parliament can prevail much lesse the Lords and Commons An Attainder by Parliament could not barre the title to the Crowne from descending on King H. 7. nor was an act of Parliament disabling King H. 6. to reassume the Government of his people of any force but without any repeale in it selfe frustrate and voyd 7. Rep. 14. Calvins case an act of Parliament cannot take away the Kings protection or the Subjects service which is due by the Law of nature 11. Rep. Sur de la wares Case William de la ware although disabled by act of Parliament was neverthelesse called by Q. Eliz. to sit as a Peere in Parliament for that it seemes the Queene could not be barred of the service and Counsell of any of her Subjects 2. H. 7. 6. A statute that the King by no non obstante shall dispence with it is void because it would take a necessary part of Governement out of the King If then no act of Parliament be of force to take away the government or any necessary part thereof from the King then surely is not any Ordinance of the Lord and Commons of force to doe it And consequently the Lords and Commons as representing the vniversall Realme cannot be above the King but inferior to him Before the King commanded them to assemble each particular and all of them were his Subjects and inferior to him If by assembling into one body and the vertue of representation they cease to be his Subjects and inferiors why doe they then in all their petitions and declarations or Answers proceeding from them not as particular men but as houses of Parliament united stile him Their gracious Soveraigne and themselves His Majesties most humble Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament Let our Observator judge whether these representatives have not ill discharged their duty to the Kingdome by debasing thus the underived Majestie so he calls it of the people by petitioning in so low and humble a forme him that is but their creature and in whom there is no Majestie but what is from them derived downe unto him for so the Obseruator conceives it But now to answer the Observators Argument which is thus There is nothing saith he more known or assented to then this that although the King be singulis major yet universis minor being below the people then in universali he must likewise be below the representatives of that universalitie I will not stand to question what necessary connexion these propositions have The people are above the King therefore their representatives are so The King of England is above the King of Spain doth the English Embassadour therefore take place of the King of Spain But admitting a necessary Connexion The people are above the King ergo the houses representing them Why then è converso The houses representing are not above the King ergo the people represented are not and so having proved the houses below the King I have already proved the King above the people yet a word more 'T is true as the Observator saith nothing is more known or assented to then this that the King solely is Minor universis the universalitie including the King For no part be it the head can exceed or be greater then the whole But againe if the King and universalitie bee contradistinguished nothing is more known or assented to then this That the King I speake of the King of England a Soveraign King not a Duke of Venice is not onely singulis major but major universis Nay most properly is the King above the people considered as an entire Congregation For chiefly as he is King he is above all others Now King relates to kingdome Rex to Regnum and Kingdome or Regnum denotes an