Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	law_n	5,150	5	5.4995	4	true

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

in one single Person yet the Monarch is so limited in the Execution of that Power that he cannot legally perform several Acts of Soveraignty without the Concurrence of his Subjects as with us here in England the King neither makes LAWS nor doth raise Taxes without his Parliament If this be the utmost they design when they call England a mixt Monarchy then though the Expression is very improper an arrand Bull a flat Contradiction in adjecto yet where we are agreed in the Thing we shall not contend about VVords but may safely grant that in this Sense as now explain'd The Government of England is a mixt Monarchy But if by a mixt they denote such a Monarchy wherein though the Style and Title of King together with some Ceremonious Appendices of Royalty as Cap and Knee Guards c. are indeed invested in One single Person yet the Supreme Power and Soveraignty is not solely and intirely in the Monarch exclusively to all others as with us here in England say these Men the Soveraignty by way of Coordination is partly in the King partly in the Lords and partly in the Commons and for this reason they are styled the Three Estates of the Kingdom if this be their Notion of a mixt Monarchy as most plainly it is if Actions may interpret Intentions it is then not only false and absurd but dangerous and destructive And therefore in this Sense we do peremptorily deny That the Government of England is a mixt Monarchy For The Supreme Power is solely in the King and consequently the King is not by way of Coordination One of the Three Estates but the HEAD and Soveraign of them all In order to his Conviction the Dissenting Republican who denyes this Truth may please to consider That he who shall desire to inform himself rightly where the Supreme Power in any Government is plac'd as also by whom how and how far such Power hath from time to time been either exercis'd or restrain'd he must of necessity have recourse to the Publick Laws and Constitutions of such Government Particularly here in England he who designs to be truly instructed in this matter he must not receive his notice from the Discourses of private men which are many times fallacious partial and uncertain but he ought to consult the Known Laws and Statutes those Authentick Records of the Kingdom Now the Oath of Supremacy establish'd by several Parliaments doth expresly Declare That the Kings Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal Words as plain and intelligible as the Wit of Man could devise From whence 't is obvious to make this Inference That if the King is Supream then he hath no Superior if only Supream then no equal If over all Persons and as such the 55th Canon enjoyns us to acknowledg him in our Prayers then All Persons in these his Realms and all other his Dominions and Countries are subordinate or Subject unto him and if subordinate then none of them either severally or joyntly are coordinate with him Now is it possible after so plain and express a Determination for any Man to doubt That the Supream Power is solely in the King I observe it is possible For some Men who will not be satisfy'd with Reason do thus urge That the Oath of Supremacy being expresly levell'd against the Usurpations of the Church of Rome was consequently so fram'd as to discover those who are Popishly affected For the Persons taking that Oath are obliged only to Declare That they Renounce all Foreign Jurisdictions i. e. They do swear That the King of England is no Feudatory Prince and that he holds not his Crown in Fee either from the Pope or any Foraign Power whatsoever But what is all this say these men to the Parliament Or how comes this Oath to be urg'd against the Jurisdiction of the two Houses Since in those very Statutes in which this Oath is enjoyn'd the Legislative Power which doubtless is the Supream Power is expresly Established in the Parliament as well as in the King in these Words Be it Enacted by the Kings most Excellent Majesty the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons do Enact joyntly with the King and therefore have a Coordinate Power To which it is thus Reply'd That when this Oath of Supremacy was first framed the Pope being then the most noted Usurper was for that reason more particularly mention'd than any other but from thence to infer That it was design'd by way of Test to discover Those who are Popishly-affected is a very great Mistake For the Supremacy of the Kings of England being the chief Prerogative of the Crown was always challeng'd and maintain'd by (a) V. 27. Ed. 3. c. 1. 3 R. 2 c. 3. 7 R. 2. c. 12. 16 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 4. 6 H. 4. c. 1. 24 H. 8. c. 12. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 26 H. 8. c. 1. 37 H. 8. c. 17. Parl 2. 1. Mar. c. 1. Popish Princes as well as Protestant (b) 1 Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 13 Eliz c. 2. as appears by these several Statutes here mention'd in the Margent The Intent then of this Oath was not to discover who are Papists but in plain Terms who are Traitors And therefore let Mens Pretences to Religion be otherwise what they will if by scrupling this Oath they refuse to give assurance to the Government that they will be honest and loyal they are to be esteem'd if not Traitors yet at least Trayterously affected And whereas they further urge That the Coordinate Power of the Parliament is no way condemn'd by this Oath which only takes notice of a Foraign Usurpation They are for their satisfaction desired to consider That since rectum est Judex sui obliqui Domestick Usurpation is hereby excluded as well as Foreign The Soveraignty of the People as well as of the Pope And as to that which is pleaded from the Form of the Statute by the Authority of the same as if the Lords and Commons did by their Authority make and enact Laws joyntly with the King To this I do humbly Answer That this Expression if duly consider'd doth not in the least favour the Republican Fancy of a Coordinate Power Which I shall best express to vulgar Capacities for whom this Discourse is chiefly design'd thus faithfully by representing the Matter of Fact Although the Legislative Power is solely in the King yet His Majesty doth not make Laws without the concurring Advice and Approbation of his Subjects For the King like other Men being mortal and of limited Capacity is neither omniscient nor omnipresent He cannot be in all Parts of his Dominions at one and the same time and consequently can no otherwise be acquainted with

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

such height of Treason as deserves a sharper Confutation than can be given it from this Treatise As to the point of Non-Resistance most seasonable to be enforc'd at this time I did once design very fully to have enlarg'd upon it To have shew'd its Obligation from all Laws Natural Positive Divine Human. As also to have Answer'd the most Popular Pleas for such Resistance But I am so happily prevented by the Learned Labours of others particularly my Lord Bishop of VVinchester Dr. Falkner and Dr. Sherlock who have indeed exhausted that Subject that I shall give no further trouble but conclude my short Discourse with this following Argument The Supream Power must not be resisted But the King of England hath Supreme Power Therefore His Majesty cannot lawfully be resisted The Proposition is the voice of Nature There can be no Order nor Government unless this Truth be admitted Reason tells us Par in parem non habet potestatem much less hath an Inferior a Coercive Power over his Superior To which let me observe That even the late Rebels themselves were convinc'd in this matter For to vindicate their former Treasons and to patronize their intended Murder of that Blessed Prince they voted Jan. 4. 1648. Resolv'd That the People are under God the Original of all just Powers That the Commons of England Assembled in Parliament being chosen by and representing the People have the Supreme Power in the Nation That whatsoever is Enacted or declared for Law by the Commons in Parliament hath the Force of a Law and the People concluded thereby though consent of King and Peers be not had thereunto Plainly insinuating That whilst the Subjects of England according to their Duty did acknowledg the Supreme Power to be in the King they must needs apprehend That the War was Rebellion and his pretended Judges were Traitors And as to the Assumption viz. That the King of England hath Supreme Power this I hope hath been so fully prov'd in this little Treatise that I might suppose the Conclusion without any further Enlargement But because some late Seditious Pamphlets have very impertinently advanc'd the Power of Parliaments I shall ex abundanti thus undeniably convince them That the Parliament of England is Subject to the King Mr. SIDNEY Informs us That the Sidney's Paper p. 2. Right and Power of Magistrates in every Country is that which the Laws of that Country make it to be If therefore it do appear by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom That the Parliament of England is Subject to the King then the Controversy is at an End For Proof of this they are desired to Consult 12 Car. 2. c. 30. Where the Lords and Commons thus Petitioned to his Majesty We your Majesties said Dutiful and Loyal Subjects the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled do beseech your most Excellent Majesty that it may be Declared That by the undoubted and fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament nor the People Collectively or Representatively nor any other Persons whatsoever ever had have hath or ought to have any Coercive Power over the Persons of the Kings of this Realm Words so plain and undeniably evident that they are not capable of any further Explication Only it will be pertinent to observe Two Things First the Lords and Commons do not here petition that it may be Enacted but that it may be Declared intimating that the Kings Supremacy was not first establish'd in this Statute as if before the making of this Act the Parliament had been Superior to the King but is here only Declared to have been Establish'd by the undoubted Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom i. e. by such Laws as are the Foundation of the Government Whoever therefore shall Affirm That the Parliament hath a Coercive Power over the Person of the King he alters the Foundation and destroys the Government Secondly I do from this Statute observe That their famous Axiom major singulis minor universis will no longer support their Cause it being plain from this Act That the King is major universis as well as singulis When our Republican Clubs who talk so much of Law shall have answer'd this Statute they may then expect to hear further from me In th' interim I shall recommend a Text to be held forth in all their Conventicles the next time of their meeting Prov. 24. 21 22. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change For their Calamity shall rise suddainly and who knoweth the ruin of them both From whence may be raised these good Obversations viz. Honesty is the best Policy and Loyalty the best Religion FINIS THE PARALLEL DOLEMAN THERE can be no doubt but that the Common-Wealth hath Power to chuse their own fashion of Government as also to change the same upon reasonable Causes In like manner is it evident that as the Common-Wealth hath this Authority to chuse and change her Government so hath she also to limit the same with what Laws and Conditions she pleaseth Conference about Succession Part. 1. cap. 1. pag 12 13. All Law both Natural National and Positive doth teach us That Princes are subject to Law and Order and that the Common-Wealth which gave them their Authority for the Common good of all may also restrain or take the same away again if they abuse it to the Common-evil The whole Body though it be governed by the Prince as by the Head yet is it not Inferior but Superior to the Prince Neither so giveth the Common-wealth her Authority and Power up to any Prince that she depriveth her self utterly of the same when need shall require to use it for her defence for which she gave it Part. 1st cap. 4. p. 72. And finally the Power and Authority which the Prince hath from the Common-wealth is in very Truth not Absolute but Potestas vicaria delegata i. e. a Power Delegate or Power by Commission from the Common-Wealth which is given with such Restrictions Cautels and Conditions yea with such plain Exceptions Promises and Oaths of both Parties I mean between the King and Common-wealth at the day of his Admission or Coronation as if the same be not kept but wilfully broken on either Part then is the other not bound to observe his Promise neither though never so solemnly made or sworn Part 1st cap. 4. pag. 73. By this then you see the ground whereon dependeth the righteous and lawful Deposition and Chastisement of wicked Princes viz. Their failing in their Oath and Promises which they made at their first entrance Then is the Common-wealth not only free from all Oaths made by her of Obedience or Allegiance to such unworthy Princes but is bound moreover for saving the whole Body to resist chasten or remove such evil Heads if she be able for that otherwise all would come to Destruction Ruine and publick

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