Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,039	5	6.6283	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30478	A vindication of the authority, constitution, and laws of the church and state of Scotland in four conferences, wherein the answer to the dialogues betwixt the Conformist and Non-conformist is examined / by Gilbert Burnet ...	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1673 (1673)	Wing B5938; ESTC R32528	166,631	359

far as concerns him in his Parliament hath obliged himself in the word of a Prince and his Son the Earl of Carrict afterwards Robert the third being constituted by the King for fulfilling of the premises so far as touches him gave and made his Oath the holy Evangils being touched by him and then the States of Parliament did also swear to maintain the Earl of Carrict made then Lieutenant under the King Now the reason why these mutual Oaths were then given is well known since the King's S●ccession was so doubtful But after that no Oath seems to have been given and tho King Iames the Second his Coronation be set down in the Records of Parliament there is not a word of an Oath given by any in his Name It is true in the 11. Parl. of that King cap 41. for securing of the Crown-lands from being alienated it is appointed That the King who then was should be sworn and in like manner all his Successors Kings of Scotland into their Coronation to the keeping of that Statute and all the points thereof But this is not such an Oath as you alledg Likewise in King Iames the Fourth his Reign 2. Parl. Ch. 12. where the Council was sworn it is added And our Sovereign Lord hath humbled his Highness to promit and grant in Parliament to abide and remain at their Counsels while the next Parliament But it is to be observed the King was then but 17 years old and so not of full age this promise was also a temporary provision Besides the very stile of it shews that it was below his Majesty to be so bound But the first Act for a Coronation Oath I can meet with is Cap. 8. of the 1. Parl. of King Iames the Sixth An. 1567. where the stile wherein the Act runs shews it was a new thing it bearing no narrative of any such former Custom the words of the Act are Item because that the increase of Vertue and suppressing of Idolatry craves that the Prince and the people be of one perfect Religion which of GOD'S mercy is now presently professed within this Realm Therefore it is statute and ordained by our Sovereign Lord my Lord Regent and the three Estates of this present Parliament that all Kings and Princes or Magistrates what 〈◊〉 holding their place which hereafter may happen to Reign and bear Rule over this Realm at the time of their Coronation and receipt of their Princely authority make their faithful promise by Oath c. Now you see the beginning of the Coronation Oath and I need not here reflect on the time when that Act passed it being so obvious to every one But I suppose it is made out that the Kings of Scotland have not their Authority from any stipulation used at their Coronation The next thing you alledg to prove the King of Scotland a limited Prince is because he must govern by Laws which cannot be enacted without the Authority of the three Estates in Parliament But this will not serve turn unless you prove that the Estates can cognosce on the King and coerce him if he transgress for which there is not a tittle in our Laws I acknowledg the Constitution of Parliaments to be both a rational and excellent Model and that the King becomes a Tyrant when he violates their Priviledges and governs without Law But tho his Ministers who serve him in such tyrannical ways are liable to punishment by the Law yet himself is subject to none but GOD. And from our Kings their Justice and goodness in governing legally by the Councils of their Parliaments you have no reason to argue against their absolute Authority for their binding themselves to such Rules and being tied to the observance of Laws enacted by themselves will never overthrow their Authority but rather commend it as having such a temperature of Sovereignty Justice and Goodness in it Isot. But was not King Iames the Third resisted and killed in the Field of Striveling and afterwards in his Sons first Parl. Act. 14. all who were against him in that Field were declared innocent and his slaughter was declared to be his own fault which was never rescinded As also Cap. 130. of Iac. 6. Parl. 8. the Honour and Authority of Parliament upon the free Vote of the three Estates thereof is asserted And are not you an impugner of the Authority of the three Estates who plead thus for the King 's Sovereign Power See Answer to the Letter written to the Author of Ius Populi Basil. I shall not engage far in the Story of King Iames the Third which even as it is represented by Buchanan lib. 11. no friend to Monarchy is very far from being justifiable on the side of those who fought against him nor was it the least part of their guilt that they forced his Son being then but fifteen years old to own their Rebellion And what wonder was it that they who had killed the Father and kept his Son in their power passed such an Act in their own favors But King Iames the Fourth quickly discovered what a sincere Penitent he was for his Accession to that Rebellion as appeared by the Iron Belt he wore all his life as a penance for this sin yet the meekness of his Spirit and the power of that Faction made that things continued in the posture they formerly were in It is true that Act was not expresly repelled which perhaps was not safe at that time to have attempted but it was really done by his Revocation ratified in his 6. Parl. cap. 100. wherein with consent of the three Estates He annuls and revokes all Statutes and Acts of Parliament which he had enacted in his former years that tended either to the prejudice of the Catholic Church his Soul or of the Crown declaring them to have no force but to be deleted and cancell'd out of the Books And it is not to be doubted but in this he had an eye to that former Act but for your Act asserting the Authority of Parliament look but what immediately precedes it and you will find the King's Authority and Supremacy fully established and I acknowledg that whosoever impugns the Authority of Parliament as the King 's Great Council doth incur a very high punishment but this will never prove an Authority in the States to coerce and resist the King One thing I must mind you of from that Act which is That none of the Lieges must presume to impugn the dignity and Authority of the said three Estates or to seek or procure the innovation or diminution of the Power and Authority of the same three Estates or any of them in time coming under the pain of Treason And can you be so ignorant of our Laws as not to know that the Church was one of these Estates for the small Barons which some called the Third Estate came not in till three years after Iac. 6. Parl. 11. cap. 113. And now from all these premises I think we

these things it appears that the King of Scotland is a limited King who as he originally derived his Power from their choice so is still limited by them and liable to them All which is at large made out by the Author of Ius populi Basil. Now you are on a rational Point which I acknowledge deserves to be well discussed for if by the Laws of Scotland the King be liable to his People then their coercing him will be no Rebellion But this point is to be determined not from old Stories about which we have neither Record nor clear account for giving light how to direct our belief nor from some tumultuary Practices but from the Laws and Records of the Kingdom and here the first word of our Laws gives a shrewd Indication that the King's Power is not from the People which is anno 1004 according to Sir Iohn Skeen's Collection of them King Malcome gave and distributed all his Lands of the Realm of Scotland among his men and reserved nothing in property to himself but the Royal Dignity and the Mure-hill in the Town of Scone Now I dare appeal to any Person whether this be not the Stile of a Sovereign and if this prove not the King's Title to the Crown to be of another nature than that of a voluntary Compact The next vestige is to be found in the Books of Regiam Majestatem held to be published by King David I. Anno 1124 and declared authentical by following Parliaments where the third Verse of the Preface is That our most glorious King having the Government of the Realm may happily live both in the time of Peace and of warfare and may ride the Realm committed to him by God who hath no Superior but the Creator of Heaven and Earth ruler over all things c. And let the plain sense of these words tell whether the King of Scotland hath his power from the People and whether he be accountable to any but to God It is also clear that all were bound to follow the King to the Wars and punishment was decreed against those who refused it see the Laws of Alexander II. Cap. 15. and Iac. 1. Parl. 1. Cap. 4. Iac. 2. p. 13. Cap. 57. And this shews they were far from allowing War against the King The Parliaments were also originally the Kings Courts at which all his Vassals were bound to appear personally and give him Counsel which proving a burden to the small Barons they were dispenced with for their appearance in Parliament 1. Iac. Parl. 7. cap. 101. which shews that the coming to the Parliament was looked on in these days rather as an homage due to the King than a priviledg belonging to the Subjects otherwise they had been loth to have parted with it so easily And 2. Fac. 6. Parl. cap. 14. It is ordained that none rebel against the King's person nor his Authority and whoso makes such Rebellion is to be punished after the quality and quantity of such Rebellion by the advice of the three Estates And if it happens any within the Realm openly or notoriously to rebel against the King or make war against the King's Laeges against his forbidding in that case the King is to go upon them with assistance of the whole Lands and to punish them after the quantity of the trespass Here see who hath the Sovereign power and whether any may take Arms against the King's command and the 25. Ch. of that same Parl. defines the points of Treason It is true by that Act those who assault Castles or Houses where the King's person was without the consent of the three Estates are to be punished as Traytors From which one may infer that the Estates may besiege the King but it is clear that was only a provision against these who in the minority of the Kings used to seize upon their Persons and so assumed the Government and therefore it was very reasonable that in such a case provision should be made that it were not Treason for the Estates to come and besiege a place where the Kings Person were for recovering him from such as treasonably seized on him And this did clearly take its rise from the confusions were in that King's minority whom sometimes the Governor sometimes the Chancellor got into their keeping and so carried things as they pleased having the young King in their hands The King is also declared to have full Jurisdiction and free Empire within his Realm 3. Fac. Parl. 5. cap. 30. And all along it is to be observed that in asserting his Majesties Prerogative Royal the phrases of asserting and acknowledging but never of giving or granting are used so that no part of the King's Prerogative is granted him by the Estates and Iac. 6. Parl. 8. cap. 129. his Majesties Royal Power and Authority over all Estates as well spiritual as temporal within the Realm is ratified approved and perpetually confirmed in the person of the King's Majesty his Heirs and Successors And in the 15. Parl. of that same King Chap. 251. these words are Albert it cannot be denied but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Sovereign Power having as great liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and priviledg of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentate whatsoever And in the 18. Parl. of the same King Act. 1. The Estates and whole body of that present Parliament all in one valuntary faithful and united heart mind and consent did truly acknowledge his Majesties Sovereign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledg of his Crown over all Estates Persons and Causes within his said Kingdom By this time I suppose it is past debate that by the Tract of the whole Laws of Scotland his Majesty is a Sovereign unaccountable Prince since nothing can be devised more express than are the Acts I have cited For what you objected from the Coronation Oath remember what was said a great while ago that if by the Coronation the King got his Power so that the Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance were of the nature of a mutual stipulation then you might with some reason infer that a failing of the one side did free the other but nothing of that can be alledged here where the King hath his Authority how soon the breath of his Father goes out and acts with full Regal power before he be crowned so that the Coronation is only a solemn inauguration in that which is already his right Next let me tell you that the King 's swearing at his Coronation is but a late practice and so the Title of the Kings of Scotland to the Crown is not upon the swearing of that Oath And here I shall tell you all that I can find in our Laws of the King 's swearing or promising The first instance that meets me is Chap. 17. of the Statutes of King Robert the Second where these words are For fulfilling and observing of all the premises the King so