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	power_n	spiritual_a	1,510	5	6.4164	4	false

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

of St. Ambrose who being commanded to deliver up his Church to the Arians sayes Volens nunquam deferâm coactus repugnare non novi dolere potero flere potero gem●re potero adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae me● mea arma sunt talia enim sunt munimenta sacerdotis aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere Which Prayers and Tears are likewise call'd the only Arms of the Church by the great Nazianz in his first Oration against Iulian and by St. Bernard in his 221. Epistle But more of this is to be found Tom. 2. Concil Galliae pag. 533. Where it is fully prov'd that all Subjects ought humbly and faithfully to obey the Regal Power as being ordained by none but God with whom the wise Heathens agree for Marcellus Tacit. lib. 4. hist. pray'd for good Princes but obey'd bad ones and Plinij in his Panegirick to Trojan confesses that the gods had bestow'd on the Emperor the sole disposal of all things leaving nothing to Subjects save the honour of obedience But because these of that perswasion will believe better Calvin than the Fathers I have taken pains to consider in him these few passages cap. 20. lib 4. Institut § 27. Assumptum in Regiam Maj●statem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem § 29. Personam sustinent voluntale Domini cui inviolabile in Majestatem ipso impressit insculpsit § 31. Privatis hominibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum And all this Chapter doth so learnedly and judicially impugn this Doctrine that it is a wonder why Calvinists should differ from Calvin The Examples adduced by our Republicans of the revolt of Libra 2 Chron. 1.21 And from Ieroboam because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam because of Rehoboam his oppression 1 King 12. prove not all the lawfulness of the Subjects defection from their Kings because these defections are only narrated but not allow●d in Scripture and are recorded rather as instances of Gods vengeance upon the wickedness of these Princes than as examples justified in these Revolters and to be follow'd by such as read the Sacred History In which when Examples are propos'd by the Spirit of God for our imitation they are still honour'd with the Divine approbation And I hope my Readers will still remember that I design not by this Treatise to encourage Princes to wickedness by Impunity but only to discourage Subjects from daring to be the punishers The great esteem which the great Bishop Vsher has justly even among Republicans and Phanaticks for Learning and Devotion has prevail'd with me to set down two Objections used by him with his pious Answers thereto The first is Suppose say they the King or Civil Magistrate should command us to Worship the Devil would you wish us here to lay down our Heads upon the Block and not to repel the violence of such a Miscreant to the outmost of our power And if not what would become of Gods Church and his Religion To which the Holy Man Answers That even when the Worship of the Devil was commanded by the cruel Edicts of persecuting Emperours the Christians never took up Arms against them but used fervent Prayers as their only refuge And St. Peter animats them to this patient suffering 1 Pet. 4.12 13. Beloved think it not strange concerning the fiery trial but rejoice in as much as ye are partakers of Christs sufferings But let none of you suffer as a murtherer or a thief or as an evil-doer or as a busie body in other mens matters By which last words if I durst add to so great an Author as B. Vsher the Apostle seems expresly to me to have obviated the dreadful Doctrine of rising in Arms upon the pretext of Religion and the killing such as differ from them which if the Christians did allow they behov'd to pass for Murtherers and to discharge them to meddle in matters of Government upon this pretext because then they behov'd to suffer justly as busie bodies And here B. Vsher does most appositly cite St. Augustine in Psal. 149. The World rag'd the Lion lifted himself up against the Lamb but the Lamb was full stronger than the Lion The Lion was overcome by shewing cruelty the Lamb did overcome by suffering And St. Ierome Epist. 62. By shedding of blood and by suffering rather then doing injuries was the Church of Christ at first founded it grew by Persecutions and was crowned by Martyrdoms The second Objection is If mens hands be thus ty'd no mans estate can be secure nay the whole frame of the Common-wealth would be in danger to be subverted and utterly ruin'd To which he answers that the ground of this Objection is exceeding faulty and inconsistent with the Rules of Humanity and Divinity of Humanity because this would impower privat persons to Judge and so should confound all Order and invite all men to oppose Authority and make Subjects Accusers Judges and Executioners too and that in their own Cause against their own Soveraign and against Divinity because it is contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers who command Submission Humility and Patience Rex est si nocentem punit cede justitiae si innocentem cede fortunae Seneca de Iura lib. 2. cap. 30. If the King punish thee when thou art guilty submit to Justice If when thou art innocent submit to Fortune And if a Heathen could be induced by his vertue to submit to blind Fortune how much more ought a Christian to be prevail'd upon by Devotion to submit to the All-seeing Providence of the most wise God who maketh all things to work joyntly for good to them that love him And as St. Augustine piously adviseth Princes are to be suffered by their People that in the exercise of their patience temporal things may be born and external hop'd for The instance of King Iames the Third being punished by his Subjects is so far from being an Argument able to justifie Subjects rising in Arms against their King that this part of our History should for ever convince all honest men of the dangers that attend Defensive Arms For this excellent Prince was so far from being one of these Tyrants against whom Defensive Arms are only confest to be just that few Princes were more meek and careful of his Subjects But because he imploy'd such as himself had rais'd finding that the Nobility had too often been insolent Servants to their Prince and severe Task-masters to the People the Nobility thinking more upon this imaginary neglect than their own duty did from Combinations proceed to Arms and rejecting all conditions of peace they were at last curs'd with a Victory in which this Gentle Prince was murthered whilst he sought to save his Sacred life in a deserted Miln By which we may see that these Defensive Arms so much hallowed in