Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	law_n	people_n	4,588	5	5.1230	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42235	The proceedings of the present Parliament justified by the opinion of the most judicious and learned Hvgo Grotivs, with considerations thereupon written for the satisfaction of some of the reverend clergy who yet seem to labour under some scruples concerning the original right of kings, their abdication of empire, and the peoples inseparable right of resistance, deposing, and of disposing and settling of the succession to the crown / by A lover of the peace of his country.	Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645.; Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645. De jure belli et pacis.	1689 (1689)	Wing G2124; ESTC R17553	9,269	34

fundamental Law of Nature and Reason is the Opinion of those Divines who hold all Kings to be Jure divino and consequently their Power absolute so also of those common Lawyers who would justifie that all Concessions made by the Prince to his People in diminution of his Prerogative Royal tho dangerous and destructive are void and revokeable Ib. Lib. 1. Ch. 4. Sect. 7. N. 3. Notandum est primo homines non Dei praecepto sed sponte adductos experimento infirmitatis familiarum segregum adversus violentiam in societatem civilem coiisse unde Ortum habet Potestas Civilis quam ideo Humanam Ordinationem Petrus vocat quanquam alibi Divina Ordinatio vocatur quia hominum salubre institutum Deus probavit Deus autem humanam legem probans censetur probare ut humanam humano more 'T is to be observ'd That Men did not originally unite into civil Communities by any Command from God but voluntarily and from the experience they had that separate Families were alone unable to resist any foreign Force From hence grew Civil Power which Peter therefore calls an Humane Ordinance tho elsewhere it is called a Divine Ordinance because God did approve thereof as suitable and convenient for the good of Mankind but when God approves of an Humane Law he must be suppos'd to do it as humane and after an humane manner In this Paragraph our Author traces a lawful Empire to its Originals he finds it then to reside in the People and derives it together with the reasons thereof from Them to such Person or Persons in whom it is by their Act and Sanction plac'd and confirm'd Ib. Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Sect. 7. N. 2. Ferri enim leges ab hominibus solent debent cum sensu humanae imbecillitatis Haec autem Lex de quâ agimus pendere videtur à voluntate eorum qui se primum in societatem civilem consociant à quibus jus porro ad imperantes manat Hi vero si interrogarentur an velint omnibus hoc onus imponere ut mori proeoptent quam ullo casu vim superiorum armis arcere nescio an velle se sint responsuri nisi forte cum hoc additamento si resisti nequeat nisi cum maxima Reipublicoe perturbatione aut exitio plurimorum innocentium quod enim tali circumstantia caritas commendaret id in legem quoque humanam deduci posse non dubito All Laws and Governments always are and ought to be establish'd by the first Legislators with respect to humane Frailty The Law we treat of viz. of Resistance in cases of inevitable necessity seems to depend upon the Intention of those who first enter'd into Civil Society from whom the Right of Governing is transferr'd to the Governor If such were ask'd Whether they intended to impose a Yoke equal to Death it self upon all who should offer to resist the Tyrannies of a superior Magistrate by force upon any account whatsoever I much doubt whether they would declare themselves in the Affirmative unless perhaps to avoid the Inconveniencies which might attend such a Storm in the State and the destruction of many Innocents for what in this case Charity would oblige may be received as a Law. Here our Author gives another touch at the Original of Empire and in effect tells us that as it first was in the power of the People to make the Laws of Government so it is absurd to think that they should not by those Laws secure themselves against the Passions and Infirmities of the Governour which they then made that thereby they might be justifiable in re-assuming their native Liberty so far as to repel by force the violence he should offer either to themselves or their Laws To this effect and more closely does Vasquius write Lib. 11. cont Illust cap. 82. n. 3. Semper licet subditis si possint in libertatem eam scilicet quae populi est se vindicare Quia quod vi partum est imperium vi possit dissolvi quod autem ex voluntate sit profectum in eo poenitere liceat mutare voluntatem Grot. de Jure Belli Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Sect. 13. Si Rex partem habet summi imperii partem alteram populus aut Senatus Regi in partem non suam involanti vis justa opponi potest quia eatenus Imperium non habet Quod locum habere censeo etiamsi dictum sit Belli potestatem penes Regem fore id enim de bello externo intelligendum est cum alioqui quisquis Imperii summi partem habeat non possit non jus habere eam partem tuendi Quod ubi sit potest etiam Rex sui imperii partem Belli jure amittere If the Supreme Power be divided between the King and the People he may justly be resisted by Force if he invade that part which is not his own because his Power extended not to it This I conceive must be allow'd though the King have the Power of Peace and War for this is to be understood of Foreign War. Whosoever hath any part of the Supreme Power must also necessarily have a Right to defend it and where the Government is so constituted the King himself may justly by the Right of War lose even his own part of the Empire This is plainly the Case of England where the Supreme Power is divided between the King Lords and Commons and where the King in his greatest Magnitude is always acknowledged to be Minor Vniversis It is evident then That if either of these three do break in upon the Rights and Priviledges of either of the other two Force is justifiable to repell this Invasion as for instance If any new Precept Ordinance or Command should be introduced as an obligatory Law or if any Law formerly made should be repeal'd or dispenc'd with which in effect are both the same by any one of these three Estates without the Concurrence of the other two in Parliament this is such an Invasion as Grotius here speaks of because this Power of making and repealing a Law is jointly in the King and People but in neither of them separately Now whether the erecting of an High Commission Court directly contrary to an Act of Parliament be not a virtual repealing of that Act Whether the dispensing with several other Statutes be not equivalent with the assuming of a Power to abrogate them Whether the establishing a standing Army in time of Peace be not a virtual Introduction of a new Law in it self and a Repeal of all the old ones in its Consequences and whether all these be not such an Invasion of that part of the Government which belongs to the People as will justifie Resistance let the World judge If so the Legality then of all that has been done or is farther likely to be done against such an Invader will easily appear Theodosius the Emperor often used this excellent Expression Tantum mihi licet quantum per leges

THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE Present Parliament c. THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE Present Parliament JUSTIFIED By the OPINION of the most Judicious and Learned HVGO GROTIVS With Considerations thereupon WRITTEN For the Satisfaction of some of the Reverend Clergy who yet seem to labour under some Scruples concerning the Original Right of Kings their Abdication of Empire and the Peoples inseparable Right of Resistance Deposing and of Disposing and Settling of the Succession to the Crown By a Lover of the Peace of his Country With Allowance LONDON Printed and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor 1689. The Opinion of the most Learned and Judicious HUGO GROTIUS c. THere are some I do observe amongst the Clergy of the Church of England who seem very much concerned for the late King's Interest and dissatisfied with the Management and Disposure of Affairs relating thereto by this Great and Honorable Convention of the Lords and Commons now assembled in Parliament All who cherish Resentments of this kind I dare not indistinguishably condemn because they may possibly be directed in some by a Principle of Honor and Honesty But those whose Intentions are honest and do not principally design thereby to betray their Country into Popery and Vassalage for such will be the natural Consequences tho not the Inducements to their Wishes I desire they would seriously weigh this Right they so much contend for in the Ballance of Law and Reason before they pass a Censure or ground an Opinion There can be no Right pretended either to Property or Dominion but by the Laws of Nature Nations or the Municipal Laws of the Country where such Right is claimed and altho the latter of these are grounded upon and derived from the two former yet do they notwithstanding take place in the deciding of all Difficulties so far as their Statutes or Presidents do extend But where the municipal Laws are silent or defective there Recourse is to be had to the Laws of Nature and Nations Upon this account it was that the Grave and Learned Serjeant Maynard being applyed unto as the fittest person in respect of his great Age and Learning to signifie what the Laws of the Land did direct in such an Exigence as this replyed That it was true he was the most ancient of all those who attended that Prosession that he had outlived several Kings and several Sets of Judges but now he had also outlived the Law it self Intimating thereby that the Case was so unusual and extraordinary that it went beyond the Direction of the municipal Laws and therefore must appeal to a more remote Tribunal The Reason why I do more particularly single out the Opinions of this famous Civilian upon this Occasion is because of the great Credit and Authority he has obtained in the World especially amongst the Clergy and is above all other of his Faculty most tender of the Rights and Prerogatives of Crowned Heads Upon this account there can nothing reasonably be objected to his Sense of those Scruples and Difficulties which some at present labor under Therefore I desire they would hear him in his own Words with the most fair and genuine Translation they will admit Grot. de Jure Belli Pacis Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Sect. 16. Si Bello injusto cui Juris Gentium requisita non adsint Imperium arripuerit aliquis neque pactio ulla secuta sit aut fides illi data sed sola vi retineatur possessio videtur manere belli jus ac proinde in eum licere quae in hostem licet qui à quolibet etiam privato jure potest interfici In reos Majestatis inquit Tertullianus publicos hostes omnis homo miles est If any one by an unjust War such as wants those Requisits which by the Laws of Nations it ought to have does usurp a Government nor afterwards enters into any Compact with the People nor is there any Trust reposed in him but his Possession is maintained by Force the right of War does in this Case still continue wherefore it is lawful to deal with him in all things as with an Enemy for he may be justly slain by any private person Tertullian tells us That against those who are guilty of usurping Majesty and against common Enemies every one is a Soldier I know but of three ways whereby Empire can be originally acquired The first is by Nature and the Governor a Patriarch who immediately presides over a Family or City of his own natural Generation or claims the Government by a Lineal Descent from him who was the common natural Ancestor of all his Subjects To this Title I think there is no Prince now in the World lays claim if there be let him produce his Pedegree and prove himself the Primogenitus by an Hereditary Line from the natural Father of his People and I will not farther contend it with him The second sort of Empire is by Conquest of which you see what Grotius says But put the case the Conqueror had a Right prior to his Conquest so that the War cannot be called unjust yet after he has acquired the Government he cannot at once be in by two Titles so as to exercise the respective powers given by both because if he holds by Conquest his power is Absolute if by Contract then limited and directed by the People and he cannot be both absolute and limited at the same time From hence it must necessarily follow that by every Act wherein he transgresses his limited power in usurping what he had no manner of Right to he renounces his lawful Title and rules by force and violence only and thereby the Conquerors unjust War and the Peoples just Right to vindicate themselves from this unjust usurpation is still continued As the Case stands now with us in England if the late King could have claimed by Conquest as many have pretended he might from William the Conqueror only to palliate some illegal Proceedings what has been done against him and much more in the Opinion of this learned Man had been both lawful and justifiable But if he claims neither as a Patriarch nor by Conquest then there is only left for him to claim by Compact under which Qualification I desire you would farther consider him by the Rules which our learned Author lays down Grot. de Jure Belli Lib. 2. Ch. 14. Sect. 4. Promissa quoque plena absoluta atque acceptata naturaliter jus transferre demonstratum supra est quod itidem ad Reges non minus quam ad alios pertinet ita ut improbanda sit hoc quidem sensu eorum sententia qui negant Regem teneri unquam his quae sine causa promisit That Promises fully made and accepted do naturally transfer a Right is already shewn Now this holds as well in Kings as in private Men their Opinions therefore are not to be allowed of who hold that what a King promises without a good cause is not obligatory Contrary to this