Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	judge_n	king_n	law_n	5,155	5	5.2571	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85293	The anarchy of a limited or mixed monarchy. Or, A succinct examination of the fundamentals of monarchy, both in this and other kingdoms, as well about the right of power in kings, as of the originall or naturall liberty of the people. A question never yet disputed, though most necessary in these times.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1648 (1648)	Wing F910; Thomason E436_4; ESTC R202028	34,573	45

chooseth Lay Councelors and nominates the Bishops and whom He will have to be His Privy Counsell He is absolute disposer of the Revenews of the Crown He is absolute establisher of the decrees of the Diets it is in His power to advance and reward whom He pleaseth He is Lord immediate of His Subjects but not of His Nobility He is Soveraigne Judge of His Nobility in criminall causes The power of the Nobility daily encreaseth for that in respect of the Kings election they neither have law rule nor forme to do it neither by writing nor tradition As the King governs His Subjects which are immediately His with absolute Authority so the Nobility dispose immediately of their vassals over whom every one hath more then a regall power so as they entreat them like slaves There be certaine men in Poland who are called EARTHLY MESSENGERS or Nuntios they are as it were Agents of Jurisdictions or circles of the Nobility these have a certaine Authority and as Boterus saith in the time of their Diets these men assemble in a place neer to the Senate House where they choose two Marshals by whom but with a tribune-like authority they signifie unto the Counsell what their requests are Not long since their authority and reputation grew so mightily that they now carry themselves as heads and governours rather then officers and ministers of the publike decrees of the State One of the Counsell refused his Senators place to become one of these officers Every Palatine the King requiring it cals together all the Nobility of His Palatinate where having propounded unto them the matters whereon they are to treate and their will being known they choose four or six out of the company of the EARTHLY MESSENGERS these deputies meet and make one body which they call the order of Knights This being of late years the manner and order of the government of Poland it is not possible for the Observator to find among them that the whole community in its underived Majesty doth ever convene to do Justice nor any election or representation of the Community or that the people assume its owne power to do it self right The EARTHLY MESSENGERS though they may be thought to represent the Commons and of late take much upon them yet they are elected and chosen by the Nobility as their agents and officers The Community are either vassals to the King or to the Nobility and enjoy as little freedome or liberty as any Nation But it may be said perhaps that though the Community do not limit the King yet the Nobility do and so he is a limited Monarchy The Answer is that in truth though the Nobility at the choosing of their King do limit his power and do give him an oath yet afterwards they have alwayes a desire to please him and to second his will and this they are forced to do to avoid discord for by reason of their great power they are subject to great dissentions not only among themselves but between them and the order of Knights which are the earthly messengers yea the Provinces are at discord one with another and as for Religion the diversity of Sects in Poland bred perpetuall jars and hatred among the people there being as many Sects as in Amsterdam it self or any popular government can desire The danger of sedition is the cause that though the Crown depends on the election of the Nobility yet they have never rejected the Kings successour or transferred the Realme to any other family but once when deposing Ladislaus for his idlenesse whom yet afterward they restored they elected Wencelaus King of Bohemia But if the Nobility do agree to hold their King to his conditions which is not to conclude any thing but by the advise of his Counsell of Nobles nor to choose any wife without their leaves then it must be said to be a Common-weal not a Royalty and the King but only the mouth of the Kingdome or as Queen Christina complained that Her Husband was but the shadow of a Soveraigne Next if it be considered how the Nobility of Poland came to this great power it was not by any originall contract or popular convention for it is said they have neither Law rule nor forme written or unwritten for the election of their King they may thanke the Bishops and Clergy for by their holy admonitions and advise good and Religious Princes to shew their piety were first brought to give much of their Rights and Priviledges to their Subjects devout Kings were meerely cheated of some of their Royalties What power soever generall Assemblies of the Estates claime or exercise over and above the bare naked act of Counselling they were first beholding to the Popish Clergy for it it is they first brought Parliaments into request and power I cannot find in any Kingdome but onely where Popery hath been that Parliaments have been of reputation and in the greatest times of Superstition they are first mentioned As for the Kingdome of Denmarke I read that the Senators who are all chosen out of the Nobility and seldome exceed the number of 28 with the cheif of the Realme do choose their King They have alwaies in a manner set the Kings eldest Son upon the Royall Throne The Nobility of Denmarke withstood the Coronation of Frederick 1559 till he sware not to put any Noble man to death untill he were judged of the Senat that all Noble men should have power of life and death over their Subjects without appeal and the King to give no office without consent of the Councell There is a Chancelour of the Realme before whom they do appeal from all the Provinces and Islands and from him to the King himselfe I hear of nothing in this Kingdome that tends to popularity no Assembly of the Commons no elections or representation of them Sweden is governed by a King heretofore elective but now made hereditary in Gustavus time it is divided into Provinces an appeale lieth from the Vicount of every teritory to a Soveraigne Judge called a Lamen from the Lamens to the Kings Councell and from this Councell to the King himself Now let the Observator bethinke himself whether all or any of these three Countries have found out any art at all whereby the people ●r community may assume its owne power if neither of these Kingdomes have most Countries have not nay none have The people or Community in these three Realms are as absolute vassals as any in the world the regulating power if any be is in the Nobility Nor is it such in the Nobility as it makes shew for The election of Kings is rather a formality then any real power for they dare hardly choose any but the Heire or one of the blood Royall if they should choose one among the Nobility it would prove very factious if a stranger odious neither safe For the Government though the Kings be sworne to raigne according to the Laws and are not to do any thing without the consent of their Councell in publick affaires yet in regard they have power both to advance and reward whom they please the Nobility and Senators do comply with their Kings and Boterus concludes of the Kings of Poland who seem to be most moderated that such as is their valour dexterity wisdome such is their Power Authority and Government Also Bodin saith that these three Kingdomes are States changeable and uncertaine as the Nobility is stronger then the Prince or the Prince then the Nobility and the people are so far from liberty that he saith Divers particular Lords exact not only customes but tributes also which are confirmed and grow stronger both by long prescription of time and use of Judgements The End

a fundamentall variance betwixt the Monarch and the Community he is ashamed to put the question home I demand of him if there be a variance betwixt the Monarch and any of the meanest person of the Community who shall be the Judge for instance The King commands me or gives judgment against me I reply His commands are illegall and his judgment not according to law who must judge if the Monarch himself judge then you destroy the frame of the State and make it absolute saith our Author and he gives his reason for to define a Monarch to a law and then to make him judge of his owne deviations from that law is to absolve him from all law On the other side if any or all the people may judge then you put the Soveraignty in the whole body or part of it and destroy the being of Monarchy Thus our Author hath caught himself in a plaine dilemma if the King be judge then he is no limited Monarch If the people be judge then he is no Monarch at all So farewell limited Monarchy nay farewell all government if there be no Judge Would you know what help our Author hath found out for p. 14. this mischief First he saith that a Subject is bound to yeild to a Magistrate when he cannot de jure challenge obedience if it be in a thing in which he can possibly without subversion and in which his act may not be made a leading case and so bring on a prescription against p. 17. publike liberty Again he saith if the act in which the exorbitance or transgression of the Monarch is supposed to be be of lesser moment and not striking at the very being of that Government it ought to be borne by publick patience rather then to endanger the being of the p. 49. State The like words he uses in another place saying if the will of the Monarch exceed the limits of the law it ought to be submitted to so it be not contrary to Gods law nor bring with it such an evill to our selves or the publick that we cannot be accessary to ● by obeying These are but fig-leaves to cover the nakednesse of our Authors limited Monarch formed upon weak supposals in cases of lesser moment For if the Monarch be to govern only according to law no transgression of his can be of so small moment if he break the bounds of law but it is a subversion of the government it self and may be made a leading case and so bring on a prescription against publick liberty it strikes at the very being of the Government and brings with it such an evill as the party that suffers or the publick cannot be accessory to let the case be never so small yet if there be illegality in the act it strikes at the very being of limited Monarchy which is to be legall unlesse our Author will say as in effect he doth That his limited Monarch must governe according to law in great and publick matters onely and that in smaller matters which concerne private men or poor persons he may rule according to his own will p. 17. Secondly our Author tells us if the Monarchs act of exorbitancy or transgression be mortall and such as suffered dissolves the frame of Government and publick liberty then the illegality is to be set open and redresment sought by petition which if failing prevention by resistance ought to be and if it be apparent and appeale be made to the consciences of mankind then the fundamentall laws of that Monarchy must judge and pronounce the sentence in every mans conscience and every man so farre as concernes him must follow the evidence of Truth in his own soul to oppose or not to oppose according as he can in conscience acquit or condemne the act of the governour or Monarch Whereas my Author requires that the destructive nature of illegall commands should be set open Surely his mind is That each private man in his particular case should make a publique remonstrance to the world of the illegall act of the Monarch and then if upon his Petition he cannot be relieved according to his desire he ought or it is his duty to make resistance Here I would know who can be the judge whether the illegality be made apparent it is a maine point since every man is prone to flatter himselfe in his owne cause and to think it good and that the wrong or injustice he suffers is apparent when other moderate and indifferent men can discover no such thing and in this case the judgement of the common people cannot be gathered or known by any possible meanes or if it could it were like to be various and erronious Yet our Author will have an appeale made to the conscience of all Man-kind and that being made he concludes the fundamentall Lawes must judge and pronounce sentence in every mans conscience Whereas he saith The Fundamentall Lawes must judge I would p. 18. very gladly learne of him or of any other for him what a Fundamentall Law is or else have but any one Law named me that any man can say is a Fundamentall Law of the Monarchy I confesse he tells us that the Common Lawes are the foundation and the Statute Laws are superstructive yet I think he dares not say that there p. 38. is any one branch or part of the Common Law but that it may be taken away by an Act of Parliament for many points of the Common Law de facto have and de jure any point may be taken away How can that be called Fundamentall which hath and may be removed and yet the Statute Lawes stand firme and stable it is contrary to the nature of Fundamental for the building to stand when the foundation is taken away Besides the Common Law is generally acknowledged to be nothing else but common usage or custome which by length of time onely obtaines authority So that it followes in time after government but cannot goe before it and be the rule to Government by any originall or radicall constitution Also the Common Law being unwritten doubtful and difficult cannot but be an uncertaine rule to governe by which is against the nature of a rule which is and ought to be certaine Lastly by making the Common Law onely to be the foundation Magna Charta is excluded from being a Fundamentall Law and also all other Statutes from being limitations to Monarchy since the Fundamentall Lawes onely are to be judge Truly the conscience of all Man-kind is a pretty large Tribunall for the Fundamentall Lawes to pronounce sentence in It is very much that Lawes which in their owne nature are dumb and alwayes need a Judge to pronounce sentence should now be able to speak pronounce sentence themselves such a sentence surely must be upon the hearing of one party onely for it is impossible for a Monarch to make his defence and answer and produce his witnesses in every mans conscience

in each mans cause who will but question the legality of the Monarchs Government Certainly the sentence cannot but be unjust where but one mans tale is heard For all this the conclusion is Every man must oppose or not oppose the Monarch according to his owne conscience Thus at the last every man is brought by this Doctrine of our Authors to be his owne judge And I also appeal to the consciences of all mankinde whether the end of this be not utter confusion and Anarchy Yet after all this the Author saith this power of every mans judging p. 18. the illegall acts of the Monarch argues not a superiority of those who judge over him who is judged and he gives us a profound reason for it his words are it is not authorative and civill but morall residing in reasonable creatures and lawfull for them to execute What our Author meanes by these words not authorative and civill but morall perhaps I understand not though I think I doe yet it serves my turne that he saith that resistance ought to be made and every man must oppose or not oppose according as in conscience he can acquit or condemn the acts of his governour for if it inable a man to resist and oppose his Governour without question t is authorative and civill whereas he addes that morall judgement is residing in reasonable creatures and lawfull for them to execute he seemes to imply that authorative and civill judgement doth not reside in reasonable creatures nor can be lawfully executed Such a conclusion fits well with Anarchy for he that takes away all Government and leaves every man to his owne conscience and so makes him an Independent in State may well teach that authority resides not in reasonable creatures nor can be lawfully executed I passe from his absolute and limited Monarchy to his division or partition for he allowes no division of Monarchy into simple and mixed viz. of a Monarch the Nobility and Community Where first observe a doubt of our Authors whether a firme p. 25. union can be in a mixture of equality he rather thinks there must be a priority of order in one of the three or else there can be no unity He must know that priority of order doth not hinder but that there may be an equality of mixture if the shares be equall for he that hath the first share may have no more then the others so that if he will have an inequality of mixture a primity of share will not serve the turne the first share must be greater or better then the others or else they will be equall and then he cannot call it a mixed Monarchy where only a primity of share in the Supream power is in one but by his own confession he may better call it a mixed Aristocracy or mixed Democracy then a mixed Monarchy since he tells us the Houses of Parliament sure have two parts p. 56. of the greatest legislative authority and if the King have but a third part sure their shares are equall The first step our Author makes is this The soveraigne power must be originally in all three next he finds that if there be an equality of shares in three Estates there can be no ground to denominate a Monarch and then his mixed Monarch might be thought but an empty title Therefore in the third place he resolves us that to salve all A power must be sought out wherewith the Monarch p. 25. must be invested which is not so great as to destroy the mixture nor so titular as to destroy the Monarchy and therefore he conceives it may be in these particulars First a Monarch in a mixed Monarchy may be said to be a Monarch as he conceives if he be the head fountain of the power which governs p. 26. executes the established Laws that is a man may be a Monarch though he doe but give power to others to govern and execute the established Laws thus he brings his Monarch one step or peg lower still then he was before at first he made us believe his Monarch should have the Supream power which is the legislative then he falls from that and tells us A limited Monarch must govern according to law onely thus he is brought from the legislative to the gubernative or executive power only nor doth he stay here but is taken a hole lower for now he must not govern but he must constitute Officers to govern by laws if chusing Officers to govern be governing then our Author will allow his Monarch to be a Governour not else and therefore he that divided Supream power into legislative and gubernative doth now divide it into legislative and power of constituting Officers for governing by Laws and this he saith is left to the Monarch Indeed you have left him a faire portion of power but are we sure he may enjoy this it seems our Author is not confident in this neither and some others doe deny it him our Author speaking of the government of this Kingdome saith The choice of the Officers p. 38. is intrusted to the judgement of the Monarch for ought I know he is not resolute in the point but for ought he knows and for ought I know his Monarch is but titular an empty title certaine of no power at all The power of chusing Officers only is the basest of all powers Aristotle as I remember saith The common people are fit for nothing but to chuse Officers and to take accompts and indeed in all popular governments the multitude perform this work and this work in a King puts him below all his Subjects and makes him the onely Subject in a Kingdome or the onely man that cannot Govern there is not the poorest man of the multitude but is capable of some Office or other and by that means may sometime or other perhaps govern according to the laws onely the King can be no Officer but to chuse Officers his Subjects may all Governe but he may not Next I cannot see how in true sense our Author can say his Monarch is the head and fountain of power since his doctrine is that in a limited Monarchy the publick society by originall constitution confer on one man power is not then the publick society the head and fountain of power and not the King Again when he tels us of his Monarch that both the other States as well conjunctim as divisim be his sworn subjects and owe obedience to his commands he doth but flout his poor Monarch for why are they called his Subjects and his Commons he without any complement is their Subject for they as Officers may governe and command according to Law but he may not for he must judge by his judges in Courts of Justice onely that is he may not judge or governe at all 2. As for the second particular the sole or chiefe power in capacitating persons for the Surpeame power And 3. As to this third