Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	council_n	parliament_n	privy_a	2,717	5	9.7040	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50551	Jus regium, or, The just and solid foundations of monarchy in general and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland, maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphtali, Dolman, Milton, &c.	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.	1684 (1684)	Wing M163; ESTC R945	87,343	224

Energy of that Priviledge without respect either to what Land they possess or what number of People they represent And thus the Nobility and Bishops sit there by vertue of the Kings Creation and the King may Create a hundred Noblemen that morning that the Parliament is to sit though none of all the hundred have one foot of Land in Scotland and though the Knights Barons must have some Land else they cannot Represent any Shire yet though a Gentleman had 5000. pounds Sterling a year he could not sit there except he be the Kings immediate Vassal and hold his Lands of His Majesty in capite So that he sits not by vertue of his Land but as Capacitated by the King And though those who Represent the Burrows Royal are Commissionated by the people of their Burghs yet the people who send them are not considered in that Commission but the Power only which the King gives them to send For though a Town had a hundred thousand Inhabitants and another only twenty Inhabitants yet these hundred thousand could not be Represented in Parliament except the King had erected their Town into a Burgh Royal From which I evince two things 1. That the Parliament is the Kings Council in which he may call any He pleases and not as the peoples Representatives only since there are great multitudes in the Nation Represented by none there For though they Represent their Constituents in Parliament yet the power of sending Representatives is derived from the King Originally and flows not from any proper Right inherent in those whose Representatives they are 2. That Judicature cannot have a Co-ordinate power with the King which he needs not call unless He pleases and which he can dissolve when He pleases and in which when they are assembled He has a Negative Voice by which He can stop all their Proposals and Designs For if they were Co-ordinate with the King then par in parem non habet imperium and it is against common Sense to think that these two can be equal since the Power of the one flows from the other By which is likewise clear that the great principle laid down by Buchannan viz. That the King is Singulis Major Vniversis Minor greater than any one but less than the collective Body of the Parliament taken together is absolutely false because he has a Negative Voice over that collective Body and as they cannot Meet without him so he can dissolve them when he pleases and I confess it seems to me unintelligible how they can be greater than the King by vertue of a power which they derive from the King 4. The Parliament is called the Kings Council as is clear from the Inscriptions of all our old Parliaments Thus the Statutes of Alexander the Second begin Alexander By the Grace of God King of Scots did by the Common Council of his Earls Decree c. The Statutes of King Robert the First bear to be by the Common Council of his Prelates c. The first Statute of King Robert the Second bears that none who is elected to be of the Kings Council shall bring another to it who is not elected The 8. and 13. Parliaments of King James the First and the 2. 3 4. and 7. of King James the Second bear for inscriptions The Parliament or general Council of such Kings And the first Act of that 8. Parliament of King James the first Bears Quo Die Dominus Rex deliberatione consensu totius Concilii c. And it is against Sense to think that any mans Counsel can have Authority over him for as we say Counsel is no Command 5. The Parliament was but the Kings Baron Court as is very clear to any man who will read the old Registers of Parliament in which he will see that the Parliament was assembled and the Suits were called and Absents Outlawed as in other Baron Courts whereof many publick Records are extant and I shall only set down that of the 8. Parliament Ja. 1. The words of which Inscription are In the eighth Parliament or General Council of the Illustrious Prince James by the Grace of God King of Scotland holden at Perth and begun ratified and approved by the three States of the Kingdom as sufficiently and rightly summoned the twelfth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand four hundred and twenty eight continued from Time to Time the Bishops Abbots Priors Earls Barons and all Free-holders which hold in Chief of our said Lord the King and certain Burgesses of every Burrow of the Kingdom being summoned and called in due and wonted manner all those assembling that ought would and might be concerned but some were absent some of which were lawfully excused others absenting themselves through Obstinacy whose Names appear in the Rolls of the Suits were every one of them amerc'd ten pounds for his Contumacy And that the King was Judge what Barons should come to the Parliament is most clear by the 75. Act Par. 14. Ja. 2. whereby it is declared No Free-holder under the sum of twenty pounds shall come except he be specially called by the King either by his Officer or by Writ and though afterwards the King allowed two Barons of every Shire to be sent to represent all the Barons for saving Expences yet even after that Concession it is declared by the 78. Act Par. 6. Ja. 4. That no Freeholder be compelled to come except our Soveraign Lord writ specially for them It being thus clear that the Parliament is the Kings Baron Court it seems a wonder to me how it could have entered into the heart of any sober man to think that any mans Baron Court and much less the Kings Baron Court should have power and jurisdiction over him and that it should be lawful to them as Buchannan and these other Authors assert to punish him or lay him aside all which Assertions are equally impious and illegal 6. When the King resolves to lessen any way his own Power this is not done by the Authority of the three Estates as certainly it would be if they had the power to lessen his Authority but the King does the same from his own proper Motive as when the King binds up his own Hands form granting Remissions in cases of fore-thought Fellony Ja. 4. Par. 6. Act 63. And when an Act was to be made forbiding the Lords of the Session to admit of private Writings from the King to stop the procedure of Justice this is not Enacted by the three Estates but only by the King and is founded upon the Kings own promise Act 92. Par. 6. Ja. 6. And in all Acts of Parliament the King only Statutes as Legislator and the Parliament only Advise and Consent which shews that they are not Co-ordinate with the King as is asserted by Buchannan and others much less above him And the Acts of Parliament in the late Rebellion having run thus Our Soveraign Lord and the three Estates contrary to the

by God but that it is immediatly bestowed by God upon Kings and Refutes Bellarm. de laico c. 6. maintaining That the Jesuits Doctrine in this lessens Authority and raises Factions and contradicts both the Design and Word of God Duvalius de suprem potest Rom. Pontif. p. 1. q. 2. Asserts that Kings derive their Rights by the Laws of God and Nature non ab ipsa Republica hominibus and in all this the Fanaticks and Republicans agree with the Jesuits against Monarchy In the Civil Law this is expresly asserted Cod. de vet Cod. enucleand Deo anctore nostrum gubernante imperium quod nobis a coelesti majestate traditam est Nov. 6. in init Nov. 133. in proem in Nov. 80. 85 86. Justinian acknowledges his Obligation to care for his People because he received the Charge of them from God and certainly Subjects are happier if their Kings acknowledge this as a duty to God than if they only think it a Charge confer'd on them by their People and that they are therefore answerable to them That the Doctors and Commentators are of this opinion is too clear to need Citations vid. Arnis cap. de Essentia Majest Granswinkel de jur Maj cap. 1. 2. As to the Heathens Hesiod in Theog ver 96. says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Kings are from God Homer sayes their Honour is from God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iliad 1. verse 197. Themistous asserts that the Regal Power came from God Orat. 5. whith whom agrees Dion Chrysostom Orat. 1. diotog apud Stob. serm c. Plat. de legibus c. But above all Aristotle in polit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Plutarch Agis Cleom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If to these Statutes and Citations it be answered That God Almighty may indeed be the principal and chief Author of Monarchy and that Monarchs may derive their Power from him as from the Supream Being that directs all more immediate Causes and yet the People may be the immediate Electors of Monarchs and so Kings may derive immediately from them their Power and thus these Statutes are not inconsistent with the principle laid down by Buchannan and others whereby they assert That Kings in general and particularly the Kings of Scotland derive their Power immediately from the People To this my answers are that first If we consider the propriety of the Words there can be nothing more inconsistent then that Kings should derive their Power from God Almighty alone and yet that they should derive it from the People for the Word Alone is of all other words the most exclusive 2dly The design of the Parliament in that acknowledgement was to condemn after a long Rebellion the unhappy Principles which had kindled it and amongst which one of the chief was that our Kings derived their Power from the People and therefore they might qualifie or resume what they at first gave or might oppose all Streaches in the Power they had given and might even punish or depose the King when he transgressed none of which Principles could have been sufficiently condemned by acknowledging that though God was the chief Author yet the People were the immediate Electors 3dly There needed no Act of Parliament be made for acknowledging God to be the chief Author and first Fountain of every Power for that was never controverted amongst Christians 4thly That foolish glosse cannot at all consist with the Inferences deduced from that Principle in the former Statutes for in the 2. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. It is inferr'd from His Majesties holding His Royal Power from God alone that therefore he hath the sole choice of his own Officers of State Privy Counsellors and Judges And in the 5th Act it is inferr'd from the same Principle that because he derives his Power from God alone that therefore it is Treason to rise in Arms without his Consent upon any pretext whatsoever and in the 2 d. Act Par. 3. Char. 2. It is concluded that because our Kings derive their Power from God Almighty alone therefore it is Treason in the People to interrupt or divert their Succession upon any Difference in Religion or other pretext whatsoever whereas all this had been false and improper Reasoning if the design of the Parliament had not been to acknowledge that our Kings derived not their Power from the People for though they derived their Power from God as the supream Being only and not as the immediate bestower and if the People were the immediat bestowers of that Power then the People might still have pretended that they who gave the Power might have risen in their own Defence when they saw the same abused and might have diverted the Succession when it descended upon a person who was an enemy to their Interest but how false this glosse is will appear more fully from the following Arguments and it is absolutely inconsistent with St. Augustins opinion formerly cited wherein he forbids to attribute the giving of Kingdoms to any other but to God My second Argument for proving that Kings derive their Power from God alone and not from the People shall be from the principles of Reason For First The Almighties design being to manifest his Glory in Creating a World so vast and regular as this is and his goodness in Governing it and that Men might live peaceably in it having both Reason and Time to Serve him it was consequential that he should have reserved to himself the immediate dependence of the supream Power to shut out the extravagant and restless multitude from those frequent Revolutions which they would make and Desolations which they would occasion if they thought that the Supream Power depended on them and that they were not bound to obey them for Conscience sake so that those expressions in Scripture were very useful in this to curb our Insolencies and to fix our restlesness and it seems that Kings are in Scripture said to be gods to the end it might be clear that they were not made by Men. 2dly God Almighty being King of Kings it was just that as inferiour Magistrates derived their Power from the King so Kings should derive their Power from God who is their King and this seems to be clear from that analogy which runs in a Dependence and Chain through the whole Creation 3dly as this is most suitable to the principles of Reason so it is most consonant the analogy of Law by which t is declar'd that no Man is master of his own Life or Limbs nemo est Dominus membrorum suorum and therefore as no Man can lawfully take away his own Life so neither can he transfer the power of disposing of it to any other Man and consequently this Power is not derived to Kings and Princes by privat Men but is bestowed upon them by God Almighty who is the sole Arbiter of Life and Death and who can only take it a away because he gave it And if it be objected that this last branch

since it is not lawful for the Wife to judge her Husband or for the Body to cut off the Head The 3. Conclusion which I shall draw from the former Principles shall be That as it is not lawful for Subjects to punish their Kings so neither is it to rise in Arms against them upon what pretext soever no not to defend their Liberty nor Religion Which Conclusion also I shall endeavour to Establish on sure foundations of Positive Law Reason Experience and Scripture As to our Positive Law it is clear for by the 3. Act Par. 1. Ja. 1. It is declared Rebellion to rise in Arms against the Kings Person And by the 14. Act 6. Par. King Ja. 2. It is Treason to Rebel against the Kings Person or Authority By the 25. Act Par. 6. Ja. 2. It is Treason to rise in fear of War against the Kings Person or his Majesty or to lay hands upon his Person violently whatever age they be of or to help or supply those who commit Treason By the 131. Act 8. Par. Ja. 6. All the Subjects are forbid to Convocate for holding of Councils or other Assemblies without his Majesties express Warrant and by the 12. Act 10. Par. King Ja. 6. The entring into Leagues or Bonds without his Majesties special Command is declared to be Sedition Most of which Acts are prior to Buchannans time and consequently he was very inexcusable in advancing this Rebellious Principle And these Laws having excepted no case exclude all cases and pretexts of rising in Arms against the Lawful Monarch but our unhappy Country-men having by a long and open Rebellion opposed the most devout and most just of all Kings upon the false pretence of Liberty and Religion the Parliament of this Kingdom from a full Conviction of the Villainies of those times and to prevent such dangerous Cheats for the future they did by the 5. Act Par. 1. Char. 2. declare it to be Treason for any number of his Majesties Subjects to rise in Arms upon any pretence whatsoever and to shew that all such Glosses as were us'd by Buchannan were absurd and did not make void the first Laws though general the Parliament did by the 4. Act of that 1. Parliament declare that any Explanation or Gloss that during the late Troubles hath been put upon these Acts as that they are not to be extended against any Leagues Councils Conventions Assemblies or Meetings made holden or kept by the Subjects for Preservation of the Kings Majesty the Religion Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom or for the publick Good either of Church or Kingdom are false and Disloyal and contrary to the true and genuine meaning of these Acts. Which Statute is a clear decision against Buchannan finding that the Statutes that were prior to his time and all other such general Statutes made in favours of the King did formerly strike against his Principles and Distinctions As also to preclude all avenues to Rebellion by teaching defending or encouraging others to Rebel upon these pretexts as the former Act declared that actual rising in Arms was Rebellion So by the 2. Act Sess 2. Par. 2. Charles 2. It is declared Treason for any Subject to maintain these Positions viz. That it is Lawful for Subjects upon Pretence of Reformation or any other Pretence whatsoever to enter into Leagues or Covenants or to take up Arms against the King or any Commissionated by him 2. All the Arguments formerly produc'd against the power of the Subject to punish His Person do fully prove likewise that they have no power to rise in Arms against him For either the collective Body of the Subjects are superiour to him and if so they may not only rise up in Arms against him but they may punish him but if the King be superiour to them as has been formerly prov'd then it cannot be lawful for Subjects to rise up in Arms against him no more than it is to punish his Person Nor can I see how all such as declare for a Defensive War are not to be concluded guilty of designing to murther the King for if the King come in Person to defend His own Right as certainly he will and must Can it be thought they will shoot at none lest they kill him and if they shoot how can they secure His Sacred Person and if they kill him in the Field are they less guilty of his murther than those Ruffians who lately design'd it Or doth it lessen the Guilt that these design'd to kill him alone privately whereas our moderate men will in face of the Sun and with display'd Banners against God and him kill with him all such as being perswaded that they are obliged before God to assist him expose their lives for their Duty 3. That dangerous though specious Principle of defensive Arms is inconsistent with that order of Nature which God has established and which is absolutely necessary amongst all other humane Relations and by the same Analogy by which we allow Subjects to rise against their Prince we may much more allow Children to rise against their Parents Servants against their Masters Souldiers against their Officers and the Rabble against their Magistrates for the King does eminently comprehend all these relations in his Soveraignty as inferiour Branches of that Paramount Monarchial power And what a glorious state should Mankind be left in if Anarchy were thus Established and every man should be invested with power to be his own Judge Or dares any reasonable man assert that this is fit to be allowed in the present condition of Mankind for since the generality of men can scarce be contained in their Duty by the severest Laws that can be made what can be expected from them when they are loosed from all Law and are encouraged to transgress against it If the Multitude could prove that they were Infallible and that no Oppression could be expected from them something might be said why we might ballance them with Authority But since both Reason and doleful Experience teach us that generally the Multitude consists of Knaves and Fools who alter not to the better by Conspiring together nor become juster for being led by such ambitious and discontented Spirits as ordinarily lead on Rebellions it is safer to obey those of the two fallible Governours whom God hath set over us and whom the Law ties us to obey and to whom also we are bound by the Oath of Allegiance especially seeing thus we may probably expect that they will be more careful of us as being their own than meer Strangers who use us only for their own Ends. And at the worst in the King we can have but an ill Master whereas in allowing Subjects to usurp we may fight to get our selves hundreds of Tyrants and these too fighting one against another so that we shall not even know which of these Divils to obey 4. This Position is against the very Nature not only of Monarchy but of all Governments For who will