Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,554	5	6.8839	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50542	Jus regium, or, The just, and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland : maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphthali, Dolman, Milton, &c. / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.; Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691. That the lawful successor cannot be debarr'd from succeeding to the crown.	1684 (1684)	Wing M162; ESTC R39087	83,008	208

write upon that Subject and who define Absolute Monarchie to be a Power that is not limited or restricted by coactive Law Arnisaeus de essentia Majest cap. 3. num 4. By the 25. Act Parl. 15. Ia. 6. The Parliament does acknowledge that it cannot be deny'd but his Majesty is a free Prince of a Soveraign Power having as great Liberties and Prerogatives by the Laws of this Realm and Priziledge of his Crown and Diadem as any other King Prince or Potentat whatseever And by the 2. Act Parl. 18. Ia. 6. The Parliament consenting to his Majesties restoring of Bishops declare and acknowledge the absolutenesse of our Monarchy in these words The remeed whereof properly belongs to his Majesty whom the whole Estates of their bound n duty with most hearty and faithful affection humbly and truly acknowledge to be a soveraign Monarch absolute Prince Iudge and Governour over all Persons Estates and Causes both Spiritual and Temporal within his said Realm And by the first Act of that same Parliament The Estates and whole Body of this present Parliament acknowledge all with one voluntar humble faithful united heart mind and consent his Majesties soveraign Authority Princely Power Royal Prerogative and priviledge of his Crown over all Persons Estates and Causes whatsoever within his said Kingdom And because no Acts were ever made giving Prerogatives nor even declaring Prerogatives to have been due until some special controversie did require the same so that Possession and not positive Law was the true measure of the Prerogative therefore the Parliament doth in that same Act approve and perpetually confirm all the Royal Prerogatives as absolutely amply and freely in all respects and considerations as ever his Majesty or any of his Royal Predecessors possessed used and exercised the same and they promise that his Majesties Imperial Power which God has so enlarg'd shall never be in any sort impar'd prejudg'd or diminished but rather reverenc'd and augmented as far as possibly they can In the preface to our Books of Law call'd Regiam Majestatem it is acknowledg'd that the King has no Superiour except the Creator of Heaven and Earth who Governs all Forreign Lawyers also such as Lansius de Lege Regiae num 49. and others do number the King of Scotland amongst the absolute Monarchs My second Argument for proving our King to be an absolute Monarch shall be from my former position wherein I hope I have prov'd sufficiently that our Kings derive not their Right from the People for if the King derive not his Power from the People the Monarchy can never be limited by them and consequently it must be an absolute Monarchy for there could be nothing more unjust more unnatural and more insolent then that the People should pretend a Right to limit and restrict that Power which they never gave and the only reason why Buchannan and his Complices do assert our Monarchy to be a qualified and limited Monarchy being that the People when they first Elected our Kings did qualifie and restrict their Government This position being false as appears by the absolute Oath and original Constitution above set down which is lessened or qualified by no condition whatsoever therefore the conclusion drawn from it must be false likewise The third Argument shall be deduced from the Nature of Monarchy and in order thereto I lay down as an uncontroverted principle that every thing must be constructed to be perfect in its own Nature and no mixture is presum'd to be in any thing but he who alledges that the thing controverted is added against Nature must prove the same and therefore since Monarchy is that Government whereby a King is Supream the Monarch must be presum'd neither to be oblig'd to Govern by the advice of the Nobility for that were to confound Monarchy with Aristocracie nor by the advice of the People for that were to confound it with Democracie and consequently if Buchannan and others design to prove that our Kings are obliged to Govern by the advice either of the Nobility or People or are subject to be Chastised by them they must prove that our Kings at their first Creation were Elected upon these Conditions the very Essence and Beeing of Monarchy consisting in its having a Supream and absolute Power Arnisaeus c. 30. Vasquez l. 1. Contrav c. 47. Budaeus in l. princeps Zas ibid. ff de legibus pone enim says Arnisaeus populum in Regem habere aequalem potestatem neutrum pro summo venditari posse When we hear of a Monarch the first notion we have is that he is subject to none for to be a Subject and a Monarch are inconsistent but if we hear that his Nobility or People or both may Depose or punish him we necessarly conclude by the Light of Nature that they and not He are the supream Governours Thus we see that in allowing our King to be an absolute Monarch we have only allow'd him to be a Monarch and to have what naturally belongs to him and that by as necessary a consequence for as every Man is presumed to be reasonable because reason is the Essence of Man so is a King presum'd to be absolute except these limitations whereby the Monarchy is restricted could be prov'd by an expresse Contract 4 thly How is it imaginable but that if our Predecessors had Elected our Kings upon any such Conditions but they would have been very careful to have limited the Monarchy and this Contract had with these conditions been recorded whereas on the contrary we find that albeit great care was taken to record the Oath of Allegiance made to the King and to grave the same upon Marble Tables consign'd unto the custody of their Priests as sacred Oracles yet none of all our Historians make the least mention of any limitations in these Oaths or by any other Contract and to this day our Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance are clogged and lessened by no limitations If it be answered that these limitations do arise from the nature of the thing it self there being nothing more unreasonable and contrary to the nature of Government then that a Monarch who was design'd to be a Protector to his People should be allow'd to destroy them To this it is answered that Monarchy by its nature is absolute as has been prov'd and consequently these pretended limitations are against the nature of Monarchy and so arise not ex natura rei nor can there any thing be more extravagant than to assert that that which is contrare to the nature of Monarchy should arise from its nature and it might be with greater reason pretended that because the great design of men in Marriage is to get a Helper that therefore they may repudiat their Wives when they find them unsupportable and that the putting them away in such cases is consistent enough with the nature of their Oath though simple and absolute this cause of Divorce arising from the nature of Marriage it self This is after

that the Fanaticks who think that every throw of the Dice is influenc'd by a special Providence will not allow that God does by a special Providence take care who shall be his Representative who shall be the Pastor of his Flock and nursing Father of his Church let us therefore trust his Care more than our own and hope to obtain more from him by Christian Submission Humility and Obedience than we can by Caballing Rebelling and Sacrilegious-Murdering or Excluding the true Successor FINIS What follows is immediatly to be subjony'd to the Testimony of Calvin Page 90. I Know that to this it may be answered That the same Calvin does qualifie his own words which I have cited with this following Caution Si qui sunt saith he populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedemoniis regibus oppositi erant ephori quâ etiam fortè potestate ut nunc res habent fuguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines quum primarios conventus peragunt adeo illos ferocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmam quia populi libertatem cujus se tutores Dei ordinatione positos nôrunt fraudulenter produnt To which my reply is That these words must be so constructed as that they may not be incosistent with his former clear and Orthodox Doctrine of not resisting Supream Powers the former being his positive Doctrine and this but a supervenient Caution and they do very well consist for though Calvin be very clear that Kings cannot be resisted yet he thinks that this is only to be mean'd of those Kings who have no Superiors to check them by Law as the Kings of the Lacedemonians had who by the fundamental Constitution of their Monarchy might have been call'd to an accompt by the Ephori and so in effect were only Titular Kings Or of such Monarchs as had only a co-ordinate Power with the States of their own Kingdom and even in these Cases he does not positively assert that these Monarchs may be resisted but does only doubt whether if there be any such Superior or co-ordinate Magistrate representing the People they may not restrain the Rage and Licentiousness of their Kings But that Caution does not at all concern the Ius Regni apud Scotos because this cannot be said of the Kings of Great Britain since the States of Parliament are only call'd by the King and derive their Authority from him and the Legislative Power is solely in the King the States of Parliament being only Consenters he and not they can only make Peace and War and grant Remissions and against him and not them Treason only is committed and the Law Books of both Nations do affirm that the King is Supream and consequently even according to Calvin's Doctrine neither his People nor any of their Representatives can justly oppose and much less punish him I know that Grotius is by the Republicans and the Fanaticks oft-times cited to defend this their Doctrine of opposing Princes but though his Testimony might be justly rejected as being himself born under a Commonwealth yet he is most impudently cited for he lib. 1. cap. 4. does positively lay down as a general and undoubted Rule that Summum imperium tenentibus resisti non potest Those who have the Supream Power cannot lawfully be resisted whilch Rule he founds upon the Principles of Reason the Authority of Scripture and the Practice of the Primitive Church and though he limits the same thereafter by some exceptions yet it will easily appear that these exceptions extend not at all to our Case For the first relates only to such Kings as have receiv'd their Power with express condition that they may be try'd by other Magistrats The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5 th did and so the one may be oppos'd because they were only Titular Kings and the other because they left off to be Kings and consequently we are concerned in neither of these Cases The third limitation is only in the Case where he who was truly a King has alienated his Kingdom to Strangers In which Case Grotius does contend that Subjects may refuse to obey because he ceaseth to be their King But as this is not our Case so even in that Case Grotius is very clear that if this alienation be made by an Hereditary Monarch the alienation is null as being done in prejudice of the lawful Successor but he does not at all assert that the Monarch may be thereupon depos'd by his People The fourth relates only to such Kings as from a hatred to their Countrey design its Destruction and utter Ruine but as he confesseth himself Id vix accidere potest in Rege mentis compote and consequently can take only place in a mad Man in which Case all Laws allow the Kingdom to be rul'd by Governours and Administrators in the King's Name if the Madness be Natural and a total depravation of Sense But if by Madness be mean'd a moral Madness and design to ruine the Kingdom and the Subjects as was and is most impiously pretended against King CHARLES the first and King CHARLES the 2 d the best and most reasonable of Kings then Opposition in such Cases is not at all warranted by Grotius who speaks only of a Physical and Natural Madness for else every thing that displeaseth the People should be call'd Madness and so the exception should not limit but overturn the general rule and should arm all Subjects to rebel against their Princes and make them the Soveraign Judges in all Cases Which is inconsistent with Grotius's own Doctrine and is excellently refuted by his own Reasons The fifth relates only to Kings who by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are ty'd to such and such Conditions so as that if they fall in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally devided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is incase the King was at first invested by the People with express reservation to them to resist in such and such Cases and so is almost the same with the fifth and all these three differ little from the first And with Grotius good leave they err also in this that they are not properly exceptions from his own rule for the rule being only that Supream Powers cannot be resisted these Powers are not Supream and they needed not be caution'd by an exception since they did not fall under the rule But neither of these Cases extend to us since our King is by the Acts of Parliament fomerly cited declared to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes nor made our Predecessors any such express reservations at the first erection of the Monarchy and consequently by Grotius own positive

not only subject to erre because they have their passions as well as King but they are subject to moe passions for 1. These who Govern in Common-wealthes and Aristocrasies have Rivals whom they fear and against whom upon that account they bear Revenge which Kings want 2 They are not so much concerned in these they Govern as Kings the one considering the Common Interest as a Tennent does Lands of which he takes his present advantage though he should destroy it the other caring for it as a Proprietar does for his own Ground the one Jading it as a Man does a hired Horse the other using it as a Man does his own 3. The people are ordinarly Governed by these who are the worst of men for these ordinarly can flatter and cheat most and can best use the Hypocrites Vizorn Whereas the best Men ordinarly are abstemious modest and love a private Life and were there ever such Villains as Governed us in the last Age And in this too can we deny but our pretenders to Liberty and Property are the Cheats of the Nation Who to be in Employment hate such as are in it or are such as are discontented for being put out of it or are Bankrupts who resolve to make up their broken Fortunes by it 4. Even good Men when they are raised to Govern grow Insolent of which Princes are not capable for they are still the same 5. Kings and Princes know they will be Charged with what they do but the multitude knows that the publick in general and not any one Man will be blamed and so every private Man thinks himself secure whilst he shifts it over on another or else lessens it by dividing it amongst many 6. They are very subject to Factions most Men scorning to obey their fellow Subjects and when they are in Factions who knows whom to obey and those Factions will again subdivide in new ones and so in infinitum and when either prevails they spare none because their opposits are Enemies But Kings pity even Rebels remembring that they are their own And I dare say that moe were Murthered and Ruined in one year of the last Reforming Age than suffered by the great Turk the Mogul and the King of France in twenty years And more severity was exercised in one year by these Reformers than by all this Race of our Kings these 600. years 7. If it be said that Kings have ill Ministers so have Common-wealths and we observ'd in Scotland that after we had taken from our King the Prerogative of chusing Judges and Counsellours our Parliament did the next year choose the greatest Block-heads and Idiots in all the Nation whom the Ring-leaders advanced to the end they might Govern all themselves to which Cheat Kings cannot be lyable it being their Interest to have able Ministers And whereas Kings have no Interest to prefer one to another yet in popular Governments every one endeavours to prefer his own Relations 8. In difficult Cases haste and expedition requires that one should be trusted and even the Romans behoved in great dangers to imploy a Dictator who was accountable to no man for any thing he did 9. There can be no Secrecy in popular Governments as in Monarchy and what many must know all may 10. Enemies may alwayes get some in popular Governments to side with them and upon specious pretexts to retard all good Designs and when popular men are Debating for shadows the occasion slips away irrecoverably 11. Either Common-wealths imploy no extraordinary persons being ever jealous or if any man become such by great Actions or long Experience he is presently ruined And it is observable in this Age that the great Zobieskie durst never undertake any great thing since he became King of Pole And if we consider the severity of Venice against their Nobles and their Executing Men without citing or hearing them and that upon meer jealousies We must confess that there is less Liberty there than under the worst of Monarchies nor was ever any people so miserable as Rome during their Republick having been ruined in every age with civil Wars and having had no great man who died not miserably after many false and popular Accusations and did not de Witt find little of that Justice which he magnified in Republicks But whatever may be said against the inconveniencies arising from the passions humours and insolencies of the Populace in Common-wealths yet much more may be said against the allowing that Prerogative to them under a Monarchy for that were to Distract for ever the Government betwixt two contradictory Supream Powers and make the People miserable in not knowing whom to obey when they differ and to make Government which should defend against a Civil War become the cause of it for how can it be in reason expected but that if the People know they can controle the King ambitious and discontented Ring-lerders or ignorant and bigote Multitudes will be alwayes endeavouring to use this their Prerogative since it seems alwayes glorious and oft times advantagious to oppose Kings whereas on the other hand Kings cannot but be alwayes jealous of and fear popular Invasions and both these Powers shall like Neighbouring Princes be alwayes endeavouring to gain advantages upon one another and in these Contests shall be spent all the time and pains that should be bestowed in resisting the Common Enemy which cannot but very much lessen the Love which Princes ought to have for their People and the Respect which People ought to have for their Prince and how can it be imagined but that in this case the People shall alwayes groan under greater misfortunes then these which they felt betwixt the Bruce and the Baliol the King and Queen Pretended Factions in the Minority of K. Iames 6. and the Houses of Lancaster and York because the one can never end being inherent in the nature of the Government whereas the other are but accidental and temporary All which cannot but appear very probable as well as dreadful to those who consider the late Rebellion wherein the People pretending that the King had violated their Liberties they murder'd and pillag'd all such as were not of their Opinion and after they had ruin'd their Prince the People divided and fought one against another the greater part pretending they ought to be obeyed because of their numbers and the lesser pretending that they were the sounder part and had the better Cause and it is impossible in such a case to find a Judge of Controversies Which is another unanswerable Argument against the Peoples Supremacy by which all they can gain is an endless Liberty of ruining one another without hope of Redress Nor can Parliaments remedy this for we have seen opposite Parliaments Sitting at the same time Forfeiting one another whilst the astonished Multitude stood at a Gaze not knowing whom to obey and praying that God would Re-establish our lawful Monarchy with which when it was Miraculously Restored they were so