Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	king_n	kingdom_n	1,417	5	5.6187	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26069	The royal apology, or, An answer to the rebels plea wherein the most noted anti-monarchial tenents, first, published by Doleman the Jesuite, to promote a bill of exclusion against King James, secondly, practised by Bradshaw and the regicides in the actual murder of King Charles the 1st, thirdly, republished by Sidney and the associators to depose and murder His present Majesty, are distinctly consider'd : with a parallel between Doleman, Bradshaw, Sidney and other of the true-Protestant party.	Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1684 (1684)	Wing A4038; ESTC R648	26,293	69

THE Royal Apology OR AN ANSWER TO THE Rebels Plea WHEREIN The most Noted Anti-Monarchical TENENTS First Published by DOLEMAN the Jesuite to promote a Bill of EXCLUSION against King JAMES Secondly Practised by BRADSHAW and the Regicides in the actual Murder of King CHARLES the 1st Thirdly Republished by SIDNEY and the Associators to Depose and Murder his Present MAJESTY Are distinctly consider'd With a PARALLEL between DOLEMAN BRADSHAW SIDNEY and other of the True-Protestant PARTY LONDON Printed by T. B. for Robert Clavel and are to be sold by Randolph Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1684. TO THE READER IN the Year 1594. the Jesuit PARSONS published a Conference under the Name of DOLEMAN The Design of which Pamphlet as every one knows was to promote a Bill of Exclusion against King JAMES And though the Jesuites malice was herein defeated as to the Person of that King yet how much it influenc'd the Sufferings of his late Majesty is a sad story to repeat For he who shall peruse the many virulent Libels which first occasion'd and then fomented that unnatural Rebellion he will easily be instructed how that Conference was Transcribed and Transprosed by the Patrons of the Faction And to speak in our Modern Language he cannot but observe That the Popish DOLEMAN is the Oracle of the TRVE-PROTESTANT Party Now that this may not be rejected as a slandering Design only to make them odious to Authority as is commonly Objected I have here drawn for the Readers satisfaction a short PARALLEL between Doleman Bradshaw Sidney and some others Upon perusal of which it will plainly appear that the Jesuites Principles as managed by Bradshaw and the Regicides did cut off the Head of King CHARLES the first And since the same Principles have been transcribed by the Brethren of the ASSOCIATION we have just reason to suspect the fame Practices likewise And that those who defend the Murder of King CHARLES the first would doubtless if they had Power in their Hands Depose and Murder King CHARLES the Second If any Republican shall think fit to doubt that the following Discourse is either Partial or Vnconconcluding i. e. that I have either said something that is false or else have omitted in any Instance the very Strength of their Cause let him make known his Grievance And I do here faithfully promise upon such notice given I will through Divine Assistance endeavour his Satisfaction THE CONTENTS THe Occasion of this Treatise Pag. 1. Which Consists Of an Objection p. 3. and its Answer p. 5. Containing these Particulars viz. The Government of England not a mixt Monarchy p. 6. The King not one of the three Estates p. 16. In what sence the King of England is an Absolute Monarch p. 19. And how he is Limited p. 43. That known saying of BRACTON Lex facit Regem how to be understood p. 20. That other controverted Passage Rex habet Superiorem Deum Legem etiam Curiam largely considered p. 25 ad p. 37. Of the Coronation Oath p. 38. Of the Kings Prerogative p. 45. THE Royal Apology OR AN ANSWER TO THE Rebels PLEA ALthough the Kings Title to his Crown and Dignity together with his just Right and Authority over all Persons and in all Causes are beyond Exception establish'd by the Ordinance of God and the known Laws and Constitutions of these Kingdoms yet so far hath Prejudice or something worse prevail'd with some Men and those not of the meanest Rank as to suffer themselves to be led into a Belief That the Original of all Government is from the People and that the Power which Kings and Princes have was derived unto them from the People by way of Pact or Contract Particularly That the King of England as appears from his Coronation-Oath having solemnly engaged to his People to maintain Religion to execute Justice and to keep the Laws and rightful Customs of the Kingdom upon these Conditions was admitted to the Kingly Power The which Conditions if he shall omit to observe and of this they themselves will be Judges they then fancy that he hath forfeited his Crown and that the People who first made him King may by their Representatives in Parliament dethrone and Depose him That this is the Scheme of some Mens Policy the many Treasonable Papers such as The Association Vox Populi Appeal to the City Coll. SIDNEY'S Papers c. together with the late horrid Conspiracy grounded thereupon do sufficiently demonstrate And therefore I hope it will be no unseasonable Undertaking but may through Gods Blessing contribute somewhat to secure the King's Liege-People in their due Obedience whilst I endeavour to evince the Falseness and destructive Consequences of these Anti-monarchical Principles Which that I may the more effectually and with the greater clearness perform I shall first lay down the utmost Strength of their Cause in one intire Objection and then endeavour their satisfaction in the following Answer OBJECTION THE Government of England is a mixt Monarchy consisting of Three Estates King Lords and Commons And therefore the King of England is not an Absolute but a limited Monarch and as Such is to govern by and according to the Laws of the Land and not otherwise And by the Oath which he hath taken at his Coronation he is obliged to use the Power Trust and Office then committed to him for the Good and Benefit of the People and for the preservation of their Rights and Liberties Now if the King thus entrusted to keep the Laws and preserve Religion should be guilty of a wicked Design to subvert our Laws and destroy our Religion by introducing an arbitrary Tyrannical Government he must then understand that he is but an Officer of Trust And the Parliament of England the Representatives of the People in whom all Power doth originally reside they are to take order for the Animadversion and Punishment of such an offending Governor Parliaments were ordain'd to restrain the exorbitant Power of Kings and to redress the Grievances of the People It is very true what some have said Rex non habet parem in Regno But this is to be understood in a limited Sense For though major singulis yet he is minor universis This we know to be Law from that famous Lawyer BRACTION Rex habet Superiorem Deum Legem etiam Curiam Which is thus Interpreted by Mr. SIDNEY For this Reason Bracton saith That the King hath Three Superiors to wit Deum Legem Parliamentum That is The Power originally in the People of England is delegated unto the Parliament SIDNEY'S Tryal pag. 23. This is as I conceive the Sum of all that hath been and the utmost of what I suppose can be said in this matter To which I return this ANSWER THAT this Phrase a mixt Monarchy though somewhat frequent in the Mouths of these Men is yet no very plain or intelligible Expression For if by a mixt Monarchy they design such a Government wherein though the Supream Power may reside

turn to the Office for the 5th of November In the Preface of which he thus reads A Form of Prayer with Thanksgiving for the happy Deliverance of the King and the Three Estates of the Realm And in the Collect before the Epistle We acknowledg the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God in preserving the King and the Three Estates of this Realm assembled in Parliament It thus evidently appearing That the King is not One of the Three Estates and consequently that his Anthority is not limited or restrain'd by the Coordinate Power of the other Two we may with better assurance proceed to examin the Truth of their next Suggestion viz. That the King of England is not an Absolute Monarch In which Inquiry least I should diminish the Kings just Right and Prerogative on the one hand or encroach upon the Subjects Freedom and Liberty on the other I must neither affirm nor deny without due Distinction Now the Kings Power and Authority doth admit of a Twofold Consideration For either we may observe it 's efficient Cause the Spring and Fountain from whence it flows or else may take notice of the Execution and Administration of it As to the First of these If the Question should be asked whence hath the King this Power to Rule and Govern these Nations Who gave him this Authority To this a just Answer may be suggested from His Majesties Royal Motto DIEU ET MON DROIT God and my Birth-right have given me these Kingdoms If it further be demanded How Birth-right doth Entitle to a Crown 'T is then truly replyed That it is a Fundamental Law of England That the Crown doth descend to the next in Blood England being not an Elective but an Hereditary Kingdom And from hence we are occasionally instructed how to understand that Controverted Place in Bracton which I therefore mention because I find it repeated with great Triumph in several Pamphlets Lex facit Regem the Law makes the King Lib. 1. c. 7. f. 5. and Lib. 3. c. 9. f. 107. The Law i. e. The Law of Succession In which Sense doubtless my Lord Cook as I have somewhere read told King James That the Law set the Crown upon his Head And it is the same Law that set the Crown upon the Head of His Present Majesty For though His Majesties personal Qualifications deserve a Crown yet it was not any Acceptance or Consent of the People express'd at his Coronation or otherwise but it was his Birth-right only which made him King because Son and Heir apparent of King Charles the First This is the full Import and Meaning of that saying of Bracton But now from hence to infer as some canting Polititians have done That because The Law in this Sense as now explain'd makes the King therefore the Law is Superior to the King therefore the Law hath a Coercive Power over the King therefore If the King shall neglect to Discharge his Trust the Parliament of England who are not only the highest Expounders but the sole Makers of Bradshaw's Harangue at the Kings Tryal the Law can by that Law which made him King censure and condemn him for his Neglect I say thus to infer is not only false and explosive in it self but Treasonable to the King and Destructive to the Kingdom But of this God willing more fully in it's proper Place It may suffice at present to observe that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown i. e. Such a Crown which as to the Coercive part is not subject to any human Tribunal or Judicature whatsoever as most plainly appears from our Law-Books and Statutes It was asserted in our Laws in the Time 16 R. 2. c. 5. of King Richard the Second That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times that it hath been in no EARTHLY SUBJECTION BUT IMMEDIATELY SUBJECT TO GOD in all things touching the Regalty of the same Crown and to none other And in 24 H. 8. it was declared in Parliament 24 H. 8. c. 22. That this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World govern'd by one Supreme Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politick of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and owen to bear NEXT TO GOD a natural and humble Obedience And 25 H. 8. It is Declared That 25 H. 8. c. 21. This Realm recognizing NO SUPERIOR UNDER GOD BUT ONLY THE KING hath been and is free from Subjection to any man's Laws but only to such as have been devized within the same V. 1 Eliz. cap. 3. 1 Jac. c. 1. which are very pertinent to be perused in confirmation of these preceding Statutes And if private Authorities may not seem superfluous after the recital of such Authentick Records I might largely confirm this Supreme Independent Power of the King by the repeated Testimonies of our most eminent and noted Writers But because I would not be too tedious I shall mention none but the forecited Bracton Lord Chief Justice under Henry the 3 d. And I the rather take notice of Him because some passages in his Works have been perverted and abused by the IGNORANCE or MALICE of ill designing Men. From this Learned and Judicious Author we are thus instructed (a) Omnis quidem sub eo ipso sub nullo nisi tantum sub Deo Parem autem non habet in Regno suo quia sic amitteret preceptum All Ranks and Degrees of Men are subject to the King but the King himself is under none but God There is none equal to him or coordinate with him in the Kingdom such a fancy being wholly inconsistent with his Kingly Power (b) Si autem ab ro petatur cum brevo non currat contra ipsum locus erit supplicationi quod factum suum corrigat emendet quod quidem si non fecerit satis sufficet ei ad paenam quod Dominum expectet ultorem Nemo quidem de factis suis praesumat disputare multe fortius contra factum suum venire Vid Bracton de Leg. Ang. Lib. 1. cap. 8. Sect. 5. fol 5. And if any Man hath occasion to implead the King since no Writ can be taken out against him he must then proceed by way of Petition But if the King shall still refuse to do him right it will be sufficient punishment for him to expect the Lord as an Avenger Doubtless no man should presume to question the Kings Actions much less to oppose them by force And in his 5th Book de Defaltis Cap. 3. Sect. 3. he speaks the same Language For having put the Case That if the King being Petition'd to redress the Grievances of his Subjects should yet neglect to grant them Justice what further course the Subject might take for his Relief He Rules it thus (c) Quo casu cum Dominus Rex super hoc fuerit interpellatus in eadem

World These are my present Thoughts of this difficult Passage And whether I have yet given it's proper Sence is humbly submitted to the Impartial Reader But whether I have or have not the Republican Objector is again desired to take notice That whatever else can be the meaning of these Words yet our Bracton doth not affirm this Curia to be superior to the King Such an Interpretation being inconsistent with Grammar as well as Loyalty We have this Rule in our Syntaxis that If the Relative be referr'd to two Clauses or more then the Relative shall be put in the Plural Number If therefore this Relative word Superior do refer not only to Deum but also to Legem and Curiam it should not be Superiorem in the Singular but Superiores in the Plural Bracton was not only very learned and judicious as to his Sence but also considering the Age he lived in and the Subject he discours'd on very polite and elegant as to his Style and consequently we must not suppose him guilty of so gross a Solaecism which the meanest School-Boy is able to correct If the Patrons of the Faction who are very hard to please shall think fit to Reply That it is a most unusual and Pedantick Method to interpret a Law-Maxim by a Rule in Grammar and thence are unalterably resolv'd to insist upon it That unless we can explain in what Sence this Curia is Superior to the King all that hitherto hath been said on this occasion is trifling and explosive If I say these Republicans will not otherwise be contented let them then take it thus Rex habet superiorem Curiam i. e. The King can do more with the Advice and Assistance of his Curia then without it Or more plainly thus The Kings of England have more Power and Capacity in Parliament then out of Parliament If this will not satisfie Cras respondebo For at present I think fit to add no more in this matter This passage of BRACTON which hath given us so large a Digression being thus dispatch'd we shall now return to our former Discourse 'T is undeniably evident from the Authentick Records of the Kingdom not to mention private Authorities That the King of England hath no Superior but God That His Majesty did not receive his Authority from any Earthly Power That he is not Foeudatory either to the Pope or any other Foreign Prince much less to his own People That he was not admitted to his Kingdoms with any Limitations or Conditions As the Kings of Poland and some others are And consequently since the Terms Absolute and Conditional are opposite and contradistinct If the Kings Power and Authority with respect to its Original Efficient Cause be neither Conditional nor Dependent it is then Absolute as well as Independent And therefore we may safely conclude in this sence as now explained The King of England is an absolute Monarch But here I expect it will be reply'd and 't is a very Popular Objection That the Coronation Oath in which there is a plain Contract and Bargain between the King and his People doth sufficiently intimate That the Crown is Conditional i. e. was conferr'd upon his Majesty with certain Limitations and Conditions For the King having promised to keep and defend the Laws and rightful Customs of the Kingdom c. He is then publickly shew'd to the People and their consent to his Coronation being first demanded he is by that solemn Action accepted as their King Plainly insinuating that without such a Promise on his part he would not have been accepted on theirs And from hence Mr. SIDNEY a very Authentick Author with some men doth infer That there is a mutual Compact between the King and his Subjects and if the King doth not perform his Duty the Subjects are discharg'd from theirs His words are these That those Laws were to be observ'd and the Oaths taken by them having the Force of a Contract between Magistrate and People could not be violated without danger of dissolving the whole Fabrick Which in plain English is this If the King breaks his Oath and doth not govern according to Law he then forfeits his Crown and the People are absolved from their Obedience In Answer to which we are to take notice that this plausible Objection is raised upon a false Foundation viz. That the Coronation Oath makes the King which is a most gross as well as dangerous Mistake the King being as perfect and compleatly King before his Coronation as after 'T is a Maxim in our Law The King never dyes There being no such thing here in England as an Interregnum For the very same moment that the Predecessor deceaseth the Rights of Majesty descend and fall upon the Successor And herein I am instructed by those eminent Lawyers the Lord Chancellor Egerton and Sir Edw. Coke By the former thus The Soveraignty is in the Person of the King L. Chanc. Egerton Postnat p 73. the Crown is but an Ensign of Soveraignty The Investure and Coronation are but Ceremonies of Honour and Majesty The King is an absolute and perfect King before he be Crowned and without those Ceremonies By the latter in these Words If the Crown descend to the rightful Heir he is Rex Cooks Inst part 3. p. 7. before Coronation For by the Law of England there is no interregnum and Coronation is but an Ornament or Solemnity of Honour And so it was resolv'd by all the Judges Hil. 1. Jac. in the Case of Watson and Clark Seminary Priests For by the Law there is always a King in whose name the Laws are to he maintain'd and executed otherwise Justice should fail Thus he But that I may effectually convince our Associators of their mistake in this matter I thus argue ad hominem Was his present Majesty actually King i. e. King de facto as well as de jure before his Coronation or was he not If they acknowledg that he was the Cause is then decided But if they say he was not I must then remind them of another point of Law laid down by that Oracle of the Law in the preceding words a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void Now when they have first consider'd That the Act of Oblivion was made before the King was Crown'd I shall then leave it to themselves to determine the Case Doubtless upon second Thoughts which are usually the best they will readily confess That his present Majesty was actually King before his Coronation and consequently That the Oath which he then took was not any Condition preparatory to his admittance to the Kingly Power Coronation then is but a Ceremony and no part of his Title I say it is but a Ceremony and yet that I may remove some impertinent Scruples against it it is no trifling insignificant Ceremony For First The solemn Splendor in which the King appears in that Action the generality of People being much affected