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	pope_n	prince_n	1,488	5	5.9235	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79833	The golden rule, or, Justice advanced. Wherein is shewed, that the representative kingdom, or Commons assembled in Parliament, have a lawfull power to arraign, and adjudge to death the King, for tyranny, treason, murder, and other high misdemeanors: and whatsoever is objected to the contrary from Scripture, law, reason, or inconveniences, is satisfactorily answered and refuted. Being, a cleer and full satisfaction to the whole nation, in justification of the legal proceeding of the High Court of Justice, against Charls Steward, late King of England. The first part. / By John Canne.	Canne, John, d. 1667?	1649 (1649)	Wing C440; Thomason E543_6; ESTC R204183	32,291	40

the Kings of England have not been absolute Monarchs but the Supreame Soveraignty resided in the people is a thing certainly known and so abundantly proved by other hands as there cannot be any shew of reason brought against it 3. Seeing the King is under law and the representative of the people above the King to proceed in iustice against him hence it will necessarily follow that the King by law may lawfully be put to death for the law saith the highest or supreamest Judge upon earth cannot pardon and free the guilty of the punishment due to him A. de le l. non ideo minns Rom. 3,4 Deu. 1.17 And the reason is he is but the minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil And if the judgment be the Lords not mans not the Parliaments as indeed it is not he cannot then draw the sword against the innocent nor absolve the guilty except the would take upon him to be wiser then God respect persons in judgment and dispose of that which is proper to his master Now sure it is God only univocally and essentially as God is judge and God only and essentially and all men in relation to him are ministers legates deputies servants I say in relation to him equivocally and improperly Judges and meer created and breathing shadows of the power of the King of Kings And look as the Scribe following his own devise and writing what sentence he pleaseth is not an officer of the court in that point nor the pen and servant of the Judge so the Supream Councel of State and Representative of the Kingdom arraigning the King for murder Treason and other high misdemeanors would be but forged intruders and bastard Judges and go contrary to Law so far as they gieve not the very sentence of God and are not the very mouth of the Iudge of Heaven and Earth to pronounce such a sentence as the Almighty himself would do if he were sitting on the throne or bench 4. Howsoever there be some solemnities of the Law from which the King may be free which indeed are not Laws as Prickman proveth D. c. n. 78 but some circumstances belonging to the Laws Nevertheles if a king commit murder adultery theft and be a traitor a waster and destroyer of his people their goods lives Laws Liberties contrary to his oath and Coronation-Covenant in this case I confidently affirm there is no law that hath reason equity or justice for its bottom and ground against the putting of such a King to death by the great Councel of State as we have formerly shewed above him And the reason is cleer for the people have no power to make a law that the King shall not dy by the hand of Justice what wickednesse soever he should commit 5. I would gladly be informed by any Iurist or Statist If a Tyrant without a title may be killed yea by a private man why a Tyrant that hath lost his right and title to the Crown by the highest Judicature in the Kingdom may not lawfully be put to death Ut L. vim F de Justit jure ubi plene per omnes For the first the law gives it and it is so generally held by Vasquez Barclay and others Vasq l. 1 c. 8. n. 33. Bar. cont Monar l. 4 cap. 10 pag. 286. And for the latter observe what Royalists themselues acknowledge Winzetus against Buchan saith of Nero Wintzet adv Buc. p. 275. that he seeking to destroy the Senate and People of Rome and seeking to make new lawes for himself excidit jure Regni lost all right to the kingdom And Barclay saith a Tyrant such as Caligula spoliare se jure Regni spoileth himself of the right to the Crown So Grotius Groti de jure bell pac l. 1 cap. 4. Si Rex hostili animo in totius populi exitium feratur emittit regnum If he turn enemy to the kingdom for their destruction he loseth his kingdom because saith he Voluntas imperandi voluntas perdendi simul consistere non possunt A wil or mind to govern and to destroy cannot consist together in one 6 The cutting off of a contagious member that by a Gangreen would corrupt the whole body is wel warranted by nature and reason for the safety of the whole is to be preferred before a part But here perhaps it will be objected cut off a mans head and the life of the body is taken away so the King being the head destroy him and the whole body of the Common-wealth is dissolved I answer God cutteth off the spirits of Tyrannous Kings and yet the Common-wealth is not dissolved For 1. This or that tyrannous King being a transient mortal thing cannot be referred to the immortal Common-wealth as it is adequate correlate 2. If all the Kings of the earth were removed yet the Common-wealth would not leave off to be a body it would be only a casting off of one form of Government for another the worser for the better but the natural body without the head cannot live Lastly Mr. Pryn citing some Law-Books where the King is said to be the only Supream Governor of this Realm hath no Peer in his Kingdom ought not to be under man Soveraign power of Parl l. 1. p 104 105. Thus answereth 1. That the meaning of al these books is the king is above every one of his Subjects particularly distributively as single men but if we take them collectively in Parliament as they are one body and represent the whole kingdom then they are above the King and may yea ought to restrain and question his actions his male-Administrations if there be just cause 2. Bracton explains himself how he is highest and without a Peer to wit in distributing justice that is he is the highest Iusticiar in the Kingdom but as the Law as any in receiving justice And for the Oath of Supremacy it relates to the Popes forraign Princes authority formerly usurped in this Realm and not at all to be referred to Parliaments or their jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority not so much as once thought of by the subscribers of this Oath which had its creation and authority from the Parliament 15. Obje Some say For people to adjudge their King to death is without example either in Scripture or humane history Answ 1. We argue this negatively this is neither commanded nor practised nor warranted by promise Ergo. It is not lawfull But this is not practised in Scripture Ergo. It is not lawfull It followeth not I read not in all the word of God of a man put to death for lying with a beast for witchcraft for tempting the people to go a whoring and serving a false God yet these things are written and are all divine precepts 2. Physitians say that that Physick which only stirs the humors and doth not carry them away leaves the body worse then it found it so

to save any man who should commit such crimes as by the Law of God and nature deserveth death I say such a power the people never had never gave him and so consequently a King hath it not 3. The Law saith Illud possimus quod jure poscimus Again it is no power which is not a lawfull power and therefore if a King murder the innocent and do acts of sinfull iniustice this tyrannicall power is not from God otherwise then by way of permission as a power to sin in devils and men is and therefore such a power is restrainable and punishable by the subiect as being a power I say not from God at all 4. Note the conditions tacite or expresse upon which the Prince receiveth the crown For soedus conditionatum aut promissio conditionalis mutua facit vis alteri in alterum a mutual conditional covenant giveth Law and power over one to another I ask then why a subject breaking his covenant with the King by treason or rebellions should be punished for it justly and the King breaking his covenant and oath with the people in degenerating into a tyrant and murdering the innocent should not be punished likewise Specially seeing it is acknowledged That the States of the Kingdom who gave him the crown are above him and they may take away what they gave him as the Law of Nature and God saith Qui habet potestatem constituendi etiam jus adimendi Rutl plea for the people quest 26. pag. 234. l. nemo 37. l. 21. de reg jur l. ille a quo 13. S. 5. If the King turn a paricide a lyon a waster and a destroyer of the People as a man he is Subject to the coactive Laws of the land if any thing should hinder that a Tyrant should not be punished by law it must be either because he hath not a superior but God or nemo potest a se ipso cogi but this ground is false and absurd for a politick society as by natures instinct they may appoint a head or heads to themselves so also if their head or heads become ravenous wolves the God of nature hath not left a perfect society and free people remedilesse but they may arraign and punish the head or heads to whom they gave all the power that they have for their good not for their destruction 6. Where ever there is a covenant and oath betwixt two equals yea or superiors and inferiors the one hath some coactive power over the other If the father give his bond to pay the son a thousand pounds as his patrimony though before this ingagement the father was not oblieged but only by the law of nature to give a patrimony to his son yet now by a politique obligation of promise covenant and writ he is so oblieged to his son to pay a thousand pound that by the Law of Nations and the civil law the sonne hath now a coactive power by law to compel his father though his superior to pay him so much of his patrimony Even so though it should be granted which I shall never grant that the King stands superior to his Kingdom and States yet if the King come under covenant with his Kingdom as ours have don he must by that come under some coactive power to fulfill his covenant for omne promissum saith the Law cadit in debitum what any man doth promise falleth under debt If the Covenant be politique and civil then the King must come under a civil obligation to perform the covenant and though there be none on earth superior to King and people to compel them both to perform what they have promised yet de jure by the law of nations each may compel the other to mutual performance And this is cleer 1. By the law of Nations if one nation break covenant with another though both be Independant yet hath the wronged Nation power de jure to presse performance and to force the other to keep covenant or punish them for violation 2. This is proved from the nature of a promise or covenant described by Solomon Pro. 6.1,3 My son if thou be surety for thy friend if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth and art taken with the words of thy mouth The meaning is by a word of promise and covenant the creditor hath coactive power though he be an equal or an inferior to the man who is surety even by law to force him to pay and the Judge is obliged to give his coactive power to the debtor that he may force the creditor to pay If then the King giving not granting he were superior to his whole Kingdom come under a covenant to them to preserve their rights lives liberties but contrarywise destroys their persons goods cities by sword plunder and fire by his commissions granted to inhumane malignants and bloody Irish they have power to compel him to give satisfaction 3. The law shall warrant to loose the vassal from his lord when his lord hath broken his covenant Hippolitus in L. Si quis viduam col 5. dixit de quoest l. Si quis major 41. 161. Boltol n. 41. The Magdeburgens in libel de Offic. Magist Imperatores Reges esse Primarios vassallos imperii Regni proinde fi feloniam contra Imperium aut Regnum committant feudo privari proinde ut alias vasallos 14 obie I find this to be a main objection That there is no law for subjects to put their Kings to death for any crime It is saith Bodin a great difference to say that a King may be lawfully slain by a strange Prince or by his Subjects It is no commendation or grace given to the law that it should be like the spiders web that catcheth the little flies and lets the greater escape But to answer 1. It is an error and a great mistake to say that the Commons in the house of Parliament or the representative Kingdom are subjects to the King This I utterly deny to wit as they are Judges there to be subjects to the King neither doe they Judicially convent his Person before them censure and iudge him to death quatenus as subiects but thus He being a minister a steward or servant of the people and they representing the whole body of the people doe call him to an account not as Subiects to him but indeed as his lord and master and so have a Soveraign power to iudge him to death if his crimes deserve the same 2 In point of law Bodin gives us the whole cause Ibid. for he confesseth Where the Prince that bears rule is not an absolute Soveraign but the Soveraignty is either in the people or Nobility in such a case saith he there is no doubt but it is lawfull to proceed against a Tyrant in way of justice and to put him to death and gives for it the example of Nero and Maximinius That