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	majesty_n	3,146	5	6.1024	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86917	A treatise of monarchie, containing two parts: 1. concerning monarchy in generall. 2. concerning this particular monarchy. Wherein all the maine questions occurrent in both, are stated, disputed, and determined: and in the close, the contention now in being, is moderately debated, and the readiest meanes of reconcilement proposed. Done by an earnest desirer of his countries peace.	Hunton, Philip, 1604?-1682.	1643 (1643)	Wing H3781; Thomason E103_15; ESTC R5640	60,985	86

though not on the contrary for the necessary connexion of other power to it is one of the greatest limitations A subordination of Causes doth not ever prove the supreme Cause of limited virtue a co-ordination doth alwayes Reas 3 Thirdly I prove it from the ancient ordinary and received denominations for the Kings Majesty is called out Liege that is Legall Soveraigne and we his Liege that is his Legall Subjects what doe these names argue but that his Soveraignty and our subjection is legall that is restrained by Law Reas 4 Fourthly had we no other proofe yet that of Prescription were sufficient In all ages beyond record the Lawes and Customes of the Kingdome have been the Rule of Government Liberties have been stood upon and Grants thereof with limitations of Royall power made and acknowledged by Magna Charta and other publike and solemne acts and no Obedience acknowledged to be due but that which is according to Law nor claimed but under some pretext and title of Law Reas 5 Fifthly the very Being of our Common and Statute Lawes and our Kings acknowledging themselves bound to governe by them doth prove and prescribe them Limited for those Lawes are not of their sole composing nor were they established by their sole Authority but by the concurrence of the other two Estates so that to be confined to that which is not meerly their owne is to be in a limited condition Pleaders for defensive armes Sect. 2. 4. Some there be which have lately written on this subject who take another way to prove our Government limited by Law viz. by denying all absolute Government to be lawfull affirming that Absolute Monarchy is not at all Gods Ordinance and so no lawfull power secured from resistance What is their ground for this God allowes no man to rule as he list nor puts mens lives in the pleasure of the Monarch It is a power arbitrary and injurious But I desire those Authors to consider that in absolute Monarchy there is not a resignation of men to any Will or list but to the reasonable Will of the Monarch which having the Law of reason to direct it is kept from injurious acts But see for defence of this Government Part 1. cap. 2. Having set downe those Reasons on which my Judgement Sect. 3 is setled on this side I will consider the maine Reasons wherby some have endeavoured to prove this Government to be of an absolute nature and will shew their invalidity Many Divines perhaps inconsiderately perhaps wittingly for self ends have beene of late yeares strong Pleaders for Absolutenesse of Monarchicall Power in this Land and pressed Obedience on the Consciences of People in the utmost extremity which can be due in the most absolute Monarchy in the world but I seldome or never heard or read them make any difference of Powers but usually bring their proofes from those Scriptures where subjection is commanded to the higher Powers and all resistence of them forbidden and from Examples taken out of the manner of the government of Israel and Judah as if any were so impious to contradict those truths and they were not as well obeyed in Limited Government as in Absolute or as if Examples taken out of one Government do alwayes hold in another unlesse their aime were to deny all distinction of Governments and to hold all absolute who have any where the supreme power conveyed to them Among these I wonder most at that late discourse of Dr. Ferne who in my Judgement avoucheth things inconsistent and evidently contradictory one to the other For in his Preface he acknowledges our Obedience to be limited and circumscribed by the Lawes of the Land and accordingly to be yeelded or denied to the higher Power and that he is as much against an absolute Power in the King and to raise him to an arbitrary way of Government as against resistence on the Subjests part also that his power is limited by Law Sect. 5. Yet on the other side he affirmes That the King holds his Crown by conquest that it is descended to him by three Conquests Sect. 2. that we even our Senate of Parliament hath not so much plea for resistence as the ancient Romane Senate had under the Romane Emperours whose power we know was absolute Sect 2. that in Monarchy the judgement of many is reduced ro one that Monarchy settles the chief power and finall Judgment in one Sect. 5 what is this but to confesse him limited and yet to maintain him absolute Arguments on the contrary dissolved But let us come to the Arguments First say they our Kings came to their right by Conquest yea saies the Dr. by three Conquests He meanes the Saxons Danes and Normans as appears afterwards Therefore their right is absolute Here that they may advance themselves they care not though it be on the ruine of publique liberty by bringing a whole Nation into the condition of conquered slaves But to the Argument 1. Suppose the Antecedent true the Consequution is not alwaies true for as is evident before in the first Part. All Conquest doth not put the Conqueror into an absolute right He may come to a right by Conquest but not sole Conquest but a partiall occasioning a Right by finall Agreement and then the right is specificated by that fundamentall agreement Also he may by sword prosecute a claime of another nature and in his war intend only an acquiring of that claimed right and after conquest rest in that Yea farther he may win a Kingdome meerly by the Sword and enter on it by right of Conquest yet considering that right of conquest hath too much of force in it to be safe and permanent he may thinke conquest the best meane of getting a Kingdome but not of holding and in wisdome for himselfe and posterity gaine the affections of the people by deserting that Title and taking a new by Politique agreement or descend from that right by fundamentall grants of liberties to the people and limitations to his own power but these things I said in effect before in the first part only here I have recalled them to shew what a non sequitur there is in the Argument But that which I chiefly intend is to shew the infirmity or falsehood of the Antecedent it is an Assertion most untrue in it selfe and pernitious to the State Our Princes professe no other way of comming to the Crown but by right of succession to rule free subjects in a legall Monarchy All the little shew of proofe these Assertors have is from the root of succession So William commonly called the Conquerour For that of the Saxons was an expulsion not a Conquest for as our Histories record They comming into the Kingdome drove out the Britaines and by degrees planted themselves under their Commanders and no doubt continued the freedome they had in Germany unles we should thinke that by conquering they lost their own Liberties to the Kings for whom they conquered and

three undertake to doe them it is invalid it is no binding Act for in this case all three have a free Negative voice and take away the priviledge of a Negative Voice so that in case of refusall the rest have power to doe it without the third then you destroy that Third and make him but a Looker on So that in every mixed Government I take it there must be a necessity of concurrence of all three Estates in the production of Acts belonging to that power which is committed in common to them Else suppose those Acts valid which are done by any major part that is any two of the three then you put it in the power of any two by a confederacy at pleasure to disanull the third or suspend all its Acts and make it a bare Cypher in Government Assert 3 Thirdly in such a composed State it the Monarch invade the power of the other two or run in any course tending to the dissolving of the constituted frame they ought to employ their power in this case to preserve the State from ruine yea that is the very end and fundamentall aime in constituting all mixed Policies not that they by crossing and jarring should hinder the publike good but that if one exorbitate the power of restraint and providing for the publike safety should be in the rest and the power is put into divers hands that one should counterpoize and keep even the other so that for such other Estates it is not onely lawfull to deny obedience and submission to illegall proceedings as private men may but it is their duty and by the foundations of the Government they are bound to prevent dissolution of the established Frame Assert 4 Fourthly the Person of the Monarch even in these mixed Formes as I said before in the limited ought to be above the reach of violence in his utmost exorbitances For when a People have sworne allegeance and invested a Person or Line with Supremacy they have made it sacred and no abuse can devest him of that power irrevocably communicated And while he hath power in a mixed Monarchy he is the Universall Soveraigne even of the other limiting States so that being above them he is de jure exempt from any penall hand Assert 5 Fifthly that one inconvenience must necessarily be in all mixed Governments which I shewed to be in limited Governments there can be no Constituted Legall Authoritative Judge of the fundamentall Controversies arising betwixt the three Estates If such doe arise it is the fatall disease of these Governments for which no salve can be prescribed For the established being of such authority would ipso facto overthrow the Frame and turne it into absolutenesse So that if one of these or two say their power is invaded and the Government assaulted by the other the Accused denying it it doth become a controversie of this question there is no legall Judge it is a case beyond the possible provision of such a Government The Accusing side must make it evident to every mans Conscience In this case which is beyond the Government the Appeale must be to the Community as if there were no Government and as by Evidence mens Consciences are convinced they are bound to give their utmost assistance For the intention of the Frame in such States justifies the exercise of any power conducing to the safety of the Universality and Government established PART II. Of this particular MONARCHY CHAP. I. Whether the Power wherewith our Kings are invested be an Absolute or Limited and Moderated Power Sect. 1 HAving thus far proceeded in generall before we can bring home this to a stating of the great controversie which now our sins Gods displeasure and evill turbulent men have raised up in our lately most flourishing but now most unhappy Kingdome Wee must first looke into the Frame and Composure of our Monarchy for till we fully are resolved of that we cannot apply the former generall Truths nor on them ground the Resolution of this ruining contention Concerning the Essentiall Composure of this Government that it is Monarchicall is by none to be questioned but the enquiry must be about the Frame of it And so there are seven great questions to be prosecuted Quest 1. stated First whether it be a Limited Monarchy or Absolute Here the question is not concerning Power in the Exercise but the Root and being of it for none will deny but that the way of Government used and to be used in this Realme is a designed way Onely some speake as if this Definement were an act of Grace from the Monarchs themselves being pleased at the suit and for the good of the People to let their power run into act through such a course and current of Law whereas if they at any time shall thinke fit on great causes to vary from that way and use the full extent of their power none ought to contradict or refuse to obey Neither is it the question Whether they sin against God if they abuse their power and run out into acts of injury at pleasure and violate those Lawes which they have by Publike Faith and Oath promised to observe for none will deny this to be true even in the most absolute Monarch in the world But the point controverted is punctually this Whether the Authority which is inherent in our Kings be boundlesse and absolute or limited and determined so that the acts which they doe or command to be done without that compasse and bounds be not onely sinfull in themselves but invalid and non-authoritative to others Now for the determining hereof I conceive and am in Sect. 2 my Judgement perswaded Assert that the Soveraignty of our Kings is radically and fundamentally limited and not onely in the Use and Exercise of it And am perswaded so on these grounds and Reasons First Because the Kings Majesty himselfe who best Reas 1 knowes by his Councell the nature of his own power sayes that a Declar from Newmarket Mart. 9. 1641 the Law is the measure of his power which is as full a concession of the thing as words can expresse If it be the measure of it then his power is limited by it for the measure is the limits and bounds of the thing limited And in his Answer to both the Houses concerning the Militia speaking of the men named to him sayes If more power shall be thought fit to be granted to them then by Law is in the Crowne it selfe His Maiesty holds it reasonable that the same be by some Law first vested in him with power to transferre it to the these persons c. In which passage it is granted that the Powers of the Crown are by Law and that the King hath no more then are vested in him by Law Reas 2 Secondly because it is in the very Constitution of it mixed as I shall afterwards make it appeare then it is radically limited for as I shewed before every mixed Monarchy is limited

either of them or the diminishing of their Fundamentall Rights carries with it the dissolution of the Government And therefore those grounds which justifie force to preserve its Being allowes this case which is a direct innovation of its Being and Frame CHAP. VII Where the Legall Power of Finall judging in these cases doth reside Quest 7. in case the three Estates differ about the same IN this Question for our more distinct proceeding some Sect. 1 things are necessarily to be observed First The Question stated that we meddle not here with the judicature of Questions of inferiour nature viz. such as are 'twixt subject and subject or the King and a subject in matter of particular right which may be decided other way without detriment of the publike Frame or diminution of the priviledges of either of the three Estates Secondly difference is to be made even in the Questions of utmost danger First for it may be alledged to be either from without by invasion of forrain Enemies or by a confederacy of intestine subverters in which neither of the three Estates are alledged to be interessed and so the case may be judged without relation to either of them or detriment to their priviledges Here I conceive a greater latitude of power may be given to some to judge without the other for it inferres not a subordinating of any of the three to the other Secondly or else it may be alledged by one or two of the Estates against the other that not contenting it selfe with the Powers allowed to it by the Lawes of the Government it seekes to swallow up or entrench on the priviledges of the other either by immediate endevours or else by protecting and interessing it selfe in the subversive plots of other men Thirdly in this case wee must also distinguish betwixt first authority of raising Forces for defense against such subversion being knowne and evident secondly and authority of judging and finall determining that the accused Estate is guilty of such designe and endevour of subversion when it is denied and protested against This last is the particular in this Question to be considered not whether the People are bound to obey the authority of two or one of the Legislative Estates in resisting the subversive assaies of the other being apparent and self-evident which I take in this Treatise to be cleare But when such plea of subversion is more obscure and questionable which of the three Estates hath the power of ultime and supreme judicature by Vote or sentence to determine it against the other so that the People are bound to rest in that determination and accordingly to give their assistance eo nomine because it is by such Power so noted and declared Determination of the Question For my part in so great a cause if my earnest desire of publique good and peace may justifie me to deliver my minde I will prescribe to the uery Question for it includes a solecisme in government of a mixt temperature To demand which Estate may challenge this power of finall determination of Fundamentall controversies arising betwixt them is to demand which of them shall be absolute For I conceive that in the first part hereof I have made it good that this finall utmost controversie arising betwixt the three Legislative Estates can have no legall constituted Judge in a mixed government for in such difference he who affirmes that the people are bound to follow the Judgement of the King against that of the Parliament destroyes the mixture into absolutenesse And he who affirmes that they are bound to cleave to the Judgement of the two Houses against that of the King resolves the Monarchie into an Aristocracie or Democracie according as he places this finall Judgement Whereas I take it to be an evident truth that in a mixed government no power is to be attributed to either Estate which directly or by necessary consequence destroyes the liberty of the other Yet it is strange to see how in this Epidemicall division of Sect. 2 the Kingdome the Abettors of both parts claime this unconcessible Judgement But let us leave both sides pleading for that which we can grant neither and weigh the strength of their Arguments First Dr. Ferne layes downe two reasons Dissolution of Arguments placing it in the King why this finall Judgement should belong to the King● 1. Monarchie saies he Sect. 5. settles the chiefe power and finall Judgement in one This Position of his can be absolutely true no where but in absolute Monarchies and in effect his book knowes no other then absolute government 2. Seeing some one must be trusted in every State It is reason saies he Sect 5. the highest and finall trust should be in the higher and Supreame power I presume by finall trust he meanes the trust of determining these Supreame and finall disagreements and accordingly I answer It is not necessary that any one be trusted with a binding power of Judicature in these cases for by the foundations of this government none is yea none can be trusted with it for to intend a mixed government and yet to settle the last resolution of all judgement in one is to contradict their very intention Neither in a constituted government must we dispose of powers according to the guesse of our reason for mens apprehensions are various The Dr. thinkes this power fittest for the King His answerers judge it fittest for the two Houses and give their reasons for it too Powers must there reside where they are de facto by the Architects of a government placed he who can bring a fundamentall Act stating this power in any saies something to the matter but to give our conjectures where it should be is but to provide fuell for contention Dissolution of the ●rguments placing it in the two Houses On the contrary The Author of that which is called A Fuller Answer to that Dr. hath two maine Assertions placing this Judgement in the two Houses 1. The finall and casting result of this States Judgement concerning what these Lawes dangers and meanes of prevention are resides in the two Houses of Parliament saies he p. 10. 2. In this finall resolution of the States Judgement the people are to rest ibidem pag. 14. Good Lord What extream opposition is between these two sorts of men If the maintenance of these extremes be the ground of this warre then our Kingdome is miserable and our Government lost which side soever overcome for I have more then once made it good that these Assertions are destructive on both sides But I am rather perswaded that these Officious Propugners overdoe their worke and give more to them whose cause they plead then they ever intended to assume Nay rather give to every one their due give no power to one of these three to crush and undoe the other at pleasure But why doth this Answer give all that to the two Houses which ere while they would not suffer when the