Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	king_n	kingdom_n	4,596	5	5.5955	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41310	Political discourses of Sir Robert Filmer, Baronet, viz. Patriarcha, or the natural power of Kings. The free-holders Grand-inquest. Observations upon Aristotles politicks. Directions for obedience to government. Also observations upon Mr. Hobbs's Leviathan. Mr. Milton against Salmatius. Hugo Grotius de Jure Belli & Pacis. Mr. Hunton's treatise on Monarchy. With an advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching witches; Patriarcha.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1680 (1680)	Wing F925; ESTC R215623	53,592	159

Supreme and Sent proves plainly that the Governours were sent by Kings for if the Governours were sent by God and the King be an Humane Ordinance then it follows that the Governours were Supreme and not the King Or if it be said that both King and Governours are sent by God then they are both equal and so neither of them Supreme Therefore St. Peter's meaning is in short obey the Laws of the King or of his Ministers By which it is evident that neither St. Peter nor S. Paul intended other-Form of Government than only Monarchical much less any Subjecton of Princes to Humane Laws That familiar distinction of the Schoolmen whereby they Subject Kings to the Directive but not to the Coactive Power of Laws is a Confession that Kings are not bound by the Positive Laws of any Nation Since the Compulsory Power of Laws is that which properly makes Laws to be Laws by binding men by Rewards or Punishment to Obedience whereas the Direction of the Law is but like the advice and direction which the Kings Council gives the King which no man says is a Law to the King 4 There want not those who Believe that the first invention of Laws was to Bridle and moderate the over-great Power of Kings but the truth is the Original of Laws was for the keeping of the Multitude in Order Popular Estates could not Subsist at all without Laws whereas Kingdoms were Govern'd many Ages without them The People of Athens as soon as they gave over Kings were forced to give Power to Draco first then to Solon to make them Laws not to bridle Kings but themselves and though many of their Laws were very Severe and Bloody yet for the Reverence they bare to their Law-makers they willingly submitted to them Nor did the People give any Limited Power to Solon but an Absolute Jurisdiction at his pleasure to Abrogate and Confirm what he thought fit the People never challenging any such Power to themselves So the People of Rome gave to the Ten Men who were to chuse and correct their Laws for the Twelve Tables an Absolute Power without any Appeal to the people 5. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busyed with Wars or distracted with Publick Cares so that every private man could not have accesse to their persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then of necessity were Laws invented that so every particular Subject might find his Prince's Pleasure decyphered unto him in the Tables of his Laws that so there might be no need to resort to the King but either for the Interpretation or Mitigation of Obscure or Rigorous Laws or else in new Cases for a Supplement where the Law was Defective By this means both King and People were in many things ●eased First The King by giving Laws doth free himself of great and intolerable Troubles as Moses did himself by chusing Elders Secondly The people have the Law as a Familiar Admonisher and Interpreter of the King's pleasure which being published throughout the Kingdom doth represent the Presence and Majesty of the King Also the Judges and Magistrates whose help in giving Judgment in many Causes Kings have need to use are restrained by the Common Rules of the Law from using their own Liberty to the injury of others since they are to judge according to the Laws and not follow their own Opinions 6. Now albeit Kings who make the Laws be as King James teacheth us above the Laws yet will they Rule their Subjects by the Law and a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant so soon as he seems to Rule according to his Laws yet where he sees the Laws Rigorous or Doubtful he may mitigate and interpret General Laws made in Parliament may upon known Respects to the King by his Authority be Mitigated or Suspended upon Causes only known to him And although a King do frame all his Actions to be according to the Laws yet he is not bound thereto but at his good Will and for good Example Or so far forth as the General Law of the Safety of the Common-Weale doth naturally bind him for in such sort only Positive Laws may be said to bind the King not by being Positive but as they are naturally the Best or Only Means for the Preservation of the Common-Wealth By this means are all Kings even Tyrants and Conquerours bound to preserve the Lands Goods Liberties and Lives of all their Subjects not by any Municipial Law of the Land so much as the Natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Fore-Fathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the Publick Good of their Subjects 7. Others there be that affirm That ●lthough Laws of themselves do not ●ind Kings yet the Oaths of Kings at ●heir Coronations tye them to keep all ●he Laws of their Kingdoms How far this is true let us but examine the Oath of ●he Kings of England at their Coronation ●he words whereof are these Art thou ●leased to cause to be administred in all thy ●udgments indifferent and upright Justice ●nd to use Discretion with Mercy and Ve●ity Art thou pleased that our upright Laws and Customs be observed and dost thou promise that those shall be protected ●nd maintained by thee These two are ●he Articles of the King's Oath which concern the Laity or Subjects in General to which the King answers affirmatively Being first demanded by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury Pleaseth it ●ou to confirm and observe the Laws and ●ustoms of Ancient Times granted from ●od by just and devout Kings unto the English Nation by Oath unto the said People Especially the Laws Liberties and Customs granted unto the Clergy and Laity ●y the famous King Edward We may observe in these words of the Articles of the Oath that the King is required to observe not all the Laws but only the Upright and that with Discretion and Mercy The Word Upright cannot mean all Laws because in the Oath of Richard the Second I find Evil and Unjust Laws mentioned which the King swears to abolish and in the Old Abridgment of Statutes set forth in Henry the Eighth's days the King is to swear wholly to put out Evil Laws which he cannot do if he be bound to all Laws Now what Laws are Upright and what Evil who shall judge but the King since he swears to administer Upright Justice with Discretion and Mercy o● as Bracton hath it oequitatem proecipia● misericordiam So that in effect the King doth swear to keep no Laws but such as in His Judgment are Upright and those not literally always but according to Equity of his Conscience join'd with Mercy which is properly the Office of a Chancellour rather than of Judge and if a King did strictly sweat to observe all the Laws he could not without Perjury give his Consent to the Repealing or Abrogating of any St●tute by

to ordain over themselves a King or Consul or other Magistrates and if there be a lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom into an Aristocracy or Democracy Thus far Bellarmine in which passages are comprised the strength of all that ever I have read or heard produced for the Natural Liberty of the Subject Before I examine or refute these Doctrines I must a little make some Observations upon his Words First He saith that by the Law of God Power is immediately in the People hereby he makes God to be the immediate Author of a Democratical Estate for a Democracy is nothing else but the Power of the Multitude If this be true not only Aristocracies but all Monarchies are altogether unlawful as being ordained as he thinks by Men whenas God himself hath chosen a Democracy Secondly He holds that although a Democracy be the Ordinance of God yet the people have no power to use the Power which God hath given them but only power to give away their Power whereby it followeth that there can be no Democratical Government because he saith the people must give their Power to One Man or to some Few which maketh either a Regal or Aristocratical Estate which the Multitude is tyed to do even by the same Law of Nature which Originally gave them the Power And why then doth he say the Multitude may change the Kingdom into a Democracy Thirdly He concludes that if there be lawful Cause the Multitude may change the Kingdom Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful Cause ●f the Multitude for I see no Body else can then this is a pestilent and dangerous Conclusion 3 I come now to examine that Argument which is used by Bellarmine and ●s the One and only Argument I can find produced by my Author for the proof of the Natural Liberty of the People It is thus framed That God hath given or ordained Power is evident by Scripture But God hath given it to no particular Person because by Nature all Men are Equal therefore he hath given Power to the People or Multitude To Answer this Reason drawn from the Equality of Mankind by Nature I will first use the help of Bellarmine himself whose very words are these If many men had been together created out of the Earth they all ought to have been Princes over their Posterity In these words we have an Evident Confession that Creation made man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Father-hood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmie deny this also That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly Power their Deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with subordination to the First Parent wh● is Lord-Paramout over his Children Children to all Generations as being the Grand-Father of his People 4 I see not then how the Children of Adam or of any man else can be free from subjection to their Parents And this subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself It follows that Civil Power not only in general i● by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents which quite takes away tha● New and Common distinction which refers only Power Universal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the Special Form of Government to the Choice of the people This Lordship which Adam by Com●●nd had over the whole World and Right descending from him the Pa●●●archs did enjoy was as large and ●ple as the Absolutest Dominion of ●y Monarch which hath been since the ●eation For Dominion of Life and ●eath we find that Judah the Father ●onounced Sentence of Death against ●amar his Daughter-in-law for play●●g the Harlot Bring her forth saith 〈◊〉 that she may be burnt Touching ●ar we see that Abram commanded an ●rmy of 318 Souldiers of his own Fa●ily And Esau met his Brother Jacob ●ith 400 Men at Arms. For matter of ●eace Abraham made a League with ●●imelech and ratified the Articles with ● Oath These Acts of Judging in Ca●al Crimes of making War and con●●uding Peace are the chiefest Marks of ●overeignty that are found in any Monarch 5 Not only until the Flood but ●fter it this Patriarchal Power did con●●nue as the very name Patriarch doth ●● part prove The three Sons of Noah ●ad the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them ●● the whole World over-spread according to the Benediction given to him a● his Sons Be fruitful and multiply a● replenish the Earth Most of the Civil● Nations of the Earth labour to fet● their Original from some One of t●● Sons or Nephews of Noah which we● scattered abroad after the Confusion Babel In this Dispersion we must certainly find the Establishment of Reg● Power throughout the Kingdoms of t●● World It is a common Opinion that at th● Confusion of Tongues there were ●● distinct Nations erected all which we● not Confused Multitudes without Hea●● or Governours and at Liberty to choo●● what Governours or Government the● pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even i● the Confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families for so plainly it appears by the Text First after the Enumeration of the Son● of Japhet the Conclusion is By these ●ere the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations so ●t is said These are the Sons of Ham ●fter their Families after their Tongues ●● their Countreys and in their Nations The like we read These are the Sons of ●hem after their Families after their Tongues in their Lands after their Nations These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood In this Division of the World some are of Opinion that Noah used Lots for the distribution of it others affirm he ●ayled about the Mediterranean Sea in Ten years and as he went about appointed to each Son his part and so made the Division of the then known World into Asia Africa and Europe according to the Number of his Sons ●he Limits of which Three Parts are all ●ound in that Midland Sea 6 But howsoever the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children over which the Parents were Heads and Princes Amongst these was Nimrod who n● doubt as Sir Walter Raleigh affirms was by good Right Lord or King over his Family yet against Right did h● enlarge his Empire by seizing violentl● on the Rights of other Lords of Families And

had not been to hear their Voice in all things but rather when they asked an Egge to have given them a Scorpion Unless we will say that all Nations had Tyrant● Besides we do not find in all Scripture that Saul was Punished or so much a● Blamed for committing any of tho●● Acts which Samuel describes and if S●muel's drift had been only to terrifie th● People he would not have forgott● to foretell Saul's bloody Cruelty ●● Murthering 85 innocent Priests a● smiteing with the Edge of the Swo● the City of Nob both Man Woman and Child Again the Israelites ne● shrank at these Conditions proposed b● Samuel but accepted of them as such ●● all other Nations were bound u●● For their Conclusion is Nay but we ●● have a King over Us that We also may ●● like all the Nations and that Our K●●● may Judge us and go out before us to ●● our Battels Meaning he should ●● his Privileges by doing the work ●● them by Judging them and Fighting for them Lastly Whereas the mention of the Peoples Crying unto the Lord argues they should be under some Tyrannical Oppression we may remember that the Peoples Complaints and Cries are not always an Argument ●f their Living under a Tyrant No man can say King Solomon was a Tyrant yet all the Congregation of Israel complain'd that Solomon made their Yoke grievous and therefore their Prayer to ●ehoboam is Make thou the grievous Ser●ice of thy Father Solomon and his hea●y Yoke which he put upon us lighter and ●e will serve thee To conclude it is ●rue Saul lost his Kingdom but not ●or being too Cruel or Tyrannical to his ●ubjects but by being too Merciful to ●is Enemies his sparing Agag when he ●hould have slain him was the Cause why the Kingdom was torn from him 3. If any desire the direction of the New Testament he may find our Saviour limiting and distinguishing Royal ●ower By giving to Caesar those things ●at were Caesar 's and to God those things that were God's Obediendum est in quibus mandatum Dei non impeditur We must obey where the Commandment of God is not hindred there is no other Law but Gods Law to hinder our Obedience It was the Answer of a Christian to the Emperour We only worship God in other things we gladly serve you And it seems Tertullian thought whatsoever was not God's was the Emperours when he saith Bene opposuit Caesari pecuniam te ipsum Deo alioqui quid erit Deisi omnia Caesaris Our Saviour hath well apportioned our Money for Coesar and our selves for God for otherwise what shall God's share be if all be Coesar's The Fathers mention no Reservation of any Power to the Laws of the Land or to the People S. Ambrose in his Apologie for David expresly saith He was a King and therefore bound to no Laws because Kings are free from the Bonds of any Fault S. Augustine also resolves Imperator non est subjectus Leg● bus qui habet in potestate alias Leges ferr● The Emperour is not subject to Laws who hath Power to make other Laws For indeed it is the Rule of Solomon that We must keep the King's Commandment and not to say What dost Thou because Where the Word of a King is there is Power and All that he pleaseth he will do If any mislike this Divinity in England let him but hearken to Bracton Chief Justice in Henry the Third's days which was since the Institution of Parliaments his words are speaking of the ●ing Omnes sub Eo Ipse sub nullo ●●si tantum sub Deo c. All are under ●m and he under none but God on●● If he offend since no Writ can go ●ainst him their Remedy is by Peti●ning him to amend his Fault which he shall not do it will be Punishment sufficient for him to expect God as Revenger Let none presume to Search to his Deeds much less to Oppose ●●em When the Jews asked our Blessed Sa●ur whether they should pay Tri●e he did not first demand what the ●w of the Land was or whether there ●● any Statute against it nor enquired ●ether the Tribute were given by ●●nsent of the people nor advised ●● to stay their payment till they should grant it he did no more but look upon the Superscription and concluded This Image you say is Caesar's therefore give it to Caesar Nor must it here be said that Christ taught this Lesson only to the conquered Jews for in this he gave direction for all Nations who are bound as much in Obedience to their Lawful Kings as to any Conquerour or Usurper whatsoever Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers some have strained these word to signifie the Laws of the Land or else to mean the Highest Power as well Aristocratical and Democratical as Regal It seems S. Paul looked for such Interpretation and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor and to let it be known that by Power he understood Monarch that carryed a Sword Wi●● thou not be afraid of the Power that i● the Ruler that carryeth the Sword fo● he is the Minister of God to thee ●● he beareth not the Sword in vain It not the Law that is the Minister of God or that carries the Sword but the R●ler or Magistrate so they that say th●● Law governs the Kingdom may as we●● say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House and not the Carpenter for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler And S. Paul concludes for this cause pay you tribute also for they are Gods Ministers attending continually upon this very thing Render therefore Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom He doth not say give as a gift to Gods Minister But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Render or Restore Tribute as a due Also St. Peter doth most clearly expound this place of St. Paul where he saith Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him Here the very self same Word Supreme or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Paul coupleth with Power St. Peter conjoineth with the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thereby to maniest that King and Power are both one Also St. Peter expounds his own Words of Humane Ordinance to be the King who is the Lex Loquens a Speaking Law he cannot mean that Kings themselves are an human Ordinance since St. Paul calls the Supreme Power The Ordinance of God and the Wisdom of God saith By me Kings Reign But his meaning must be that the Laws of Kings are Human Ordinances Next the Governours that are sent by him that is by the King not by God as some corruptly would wrest the Text to justifie Popular Governours as authorized by God whereas in Gramatical Construction Him the Relative must be referred to the next Antecedent which is King Besides the Antithesis between