Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50712
|
Observations upon the laws and customs of nations, as to precedency by Sir George Mackenzie ...
|
Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.
|
1680
(1680)
|
Wing M186; ESTC R5733
|
107,612
|
141
|
preferred because he dwells in a house where Christianity was first professed which were in it self very ridiculous And if the first Christian Race be allowed the Preference the King of Scotland ought to be preferred for Donald King of Scots imbraced the Christian Faith in anno 199. before either William the Conquerour succeded to England or Hugh Capet to France and long before Spain obeyed this Race of Monarchs for which we can cite not only our own Historians but Baronius ad annum 449. Duchesne and many others and particularly Beda and Polidor the worthiest of English Historians Beda relates That imbuebantur a Scotis parvuli Anglorum quin ipse Alsridus Anglorum Rex in Insulis Scotorum operam dedit sacras Literas didicit lib. 3. hist. c. 27. Reges Angliae cupidi salutis aeternae Legatos ad Eugenium quartum Scotorum Regem miserunt ut ille digneretur Viros idoneos mittere per quos illi Christianae Fidei Rudimenta docerentur sacro Baptismatis fonte abluerentur quod ille haud gravate indulsit Which clears fully that our Kings were Christian before those of England and so ought to be preferred to the Kings of England by their own Arguments and their own Authors King Donalds Conversion is attested by Bellar. in his Answer to King Iames by Barronius ad annum 429. Sanderus lib. 4. de clav David Arnoldus de conversione Gentium c. And since King Donald was before Fergus the second it appears clearly even from Forreign Histories that we had Kings before Fergus the II. I cannot deny but that in the Council of Constans England and France were preferred to Scotland but that proceeded as Gothofred observes from the partiality of the Church of Rome which alwayes preferred those who were able to do them most Service but if we consider the Principles of the Christian Religion according to these that Race ought to be preferred whose Title is justest and I am sure that according to this Rule Scotland ought to be preferred for its Kings have not Usurped over the People which they Governed And not only does Religion consider this ground of Preference as suteable to Devotion but the Law considereth it as suteable to Justice And Lawyers have therefore thought a Succession of Kings enjoying a just Title free from Violence and Tyrrany one of the chief Grounds of Preference and Precedency And thus Vasquez in praefat ad illustres questiones sayes That multum ad nobilitatem praelationem confert ex veris legittimis Regibus non a Tyrannis descendisse Nor does the Custome either of Courts or Councils invert the Precedency which is founded upon Antiquity and the right of Blood from which Consuetude cannot derogat in the matter of Precedency since that Consuetude is only respected in Law quae in se rationabilis juri nec naturae nec gentium contrariatur And likewayes since this matter of Precedency is setled by Lawyers upon these solid Foundations for securing the publick Peace and Interest of mankind it were unjust that the same should be so easily overthrown by the Partiality of Interested Church-men or the Pride and Power of other Competing and Rival Princes and therefore to secure the Rights of Justice and Blood against all such Invasions Lawyers have unanimously concluded that Consuetudine induci non potest ut prior in dignitate praeferatur posteriori Crus de praeemi cap. 12. Which Principle they so farr assert as to conclude that this could not be conceded even by express Paction Rumellin dissert 1. thes 18. even though that Paction were confirmed by an Oath Rippa ad l. 3. ff de donat And albeit it may seem that every man may renounce that which is introduced in his own favours yet to this it is answered That men cannot renounce what is introduced in their own favours when that which they renounce was not principally introduced in their favours but arose to them necessarily by the Laws of Nature and Nations or was introduced principally in favours of the common interest of Mankind rather than of them and in which third parties would likewise be concerned All which is clear not only by the principles of Reason but by L. 3. ff de pactis and it cannot be denyed but that the Precedency from the Antiquity of blood is no such private Right as may be renounced it being a priviledge not given by Law but arising from nature Lex non data sed nata and introduced for regulating the common Interests of mankind and preventing their differences or oppressions whereas how unfortunate or irregular should men be if subjects might force their Magistrates or younger brothers the Elder or stronger Princes the weaker to Renounce by Paction or might serue from them by Custom and Inadvertance the Seniority and Precedency due to them whereas now the impossibility of prevailing in such Designes takes happily away all lusting after them and whatever may be ascribed to Consuetude or Decisions in that Precedency which because it sprung meerly from Custome may be regulated by it or in dubious Cases where a grain weight may cast a ballance yet I see no Law nor Reason that can be adduced for taking away by Decisions Negligence or Consuetude a clear right of Precedency founded upon the Antiquity of Blood Especially since all who writ upon precedency are clear That no man can prejudge his Successors as to the precedency due to them by blood Licet positus in dignitate suo ipsius facto possit sibi prejudicium afferre non tamen praejudicare potest quoad successores suos Dec. consil 21. num 74. vid. Gothofred de praeced pag. 55. Rub. decis 298. qui tradit ea quae a genere natura tribuuntur non obstante facto majorum manent incolumia Which Rule should rather hold in Kings than in any else because they are but Administrators But in this case there is no Decision against our Kings nor have they ever consented to any such preference And therefore whatever may be said for others against them in a possessory Judgement the matter of Right is still intire Vasquez the illustrious Spainish Lawyer did at the Council of Trent adduce several Arguments for the precedency of the king of Spain which if they were well founded would I confess inferr a Precedency to England and France and which I shall the willinglier adduce and answer that I have heard them urged for France and Spain against the King of Britain and because they are the generall topicks and common places which are necessary to be known and understood for clearing not only the Precedency of Princes but even of the Nobility and Gentry The first is That these who are most powerfull and greatest ought still to be preferred c. statuimus de major obed and he must be accounted most powerful who is most powerfull the time of the debate Nam qualitas adjecta verbo debet intelligi secundum tempus verbi l.
1654. Excepting onely the Ambassadours of Austria and the Ambassadours of Forreign Kings were still allowed to take place from all the Electors except the King of Bohemia in all the Solemnities of the Empire But the Ambassadours of Common-wealths having claimed the same precedency The Emperour Leopold has Decerned against them in favours of the Electors Crus lib. 4. cap. 4. The eldest Sons of the Electors preceed all the other Princes of the Empire The Arch-dukes of Austria have the first Seat next to the Electors CHAP. VII Of the Precedency of Church-men I Need not debate the Differencies that have fallen in amongst the Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Ierusalem Those of Rome and Constantinople having claimed Precedency because their See were the seats of the Roman and Grecian Empires Those of Ierusalem claiming preference because the chief Priest-hood was once settled there Those of Antioch claiming precedency because Antioch was the first seat of Christianity as is clear by the 11. chapter of the Acts And those of Alexandria pretending that they were equal to the Roman Patriarch at least because Alexandria was the chief City of the East before the building of Constantinople and the Church thereof being by Euseb. lib. 11. said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Salmas de Primat pap cap. 12. Thus far did Precedency invade even Religion and raise Emulation amongst those who pretended to be the greatest Paterns of Humility The Roman Patriarch was by Phocas the Emperour raised above all the rest in the year 606. since which time they have raised themselves by several Degrees to the Papacy though it cannot be denyed but even before that time the Bishops of Rome had the first Seat in all Councils as is clear by Iustinians Novella 131. cap. 2. And in the Council of Nice Adrian Bishop of Rome had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or the power of preceeding did still belong to the Emperours as hath been fully cleared by Crusius and others And though it be pretended that Constantine the Great did from Christian Humility prefer the Successour of St. Peter as Vicar of IESVS CHRIST to himself and that in the Canon Law cap. Constantinus 14. Dist. 96. the Emperour Constantin is brought in acknowledging himself to have led the Popes Bridle and in the Famous Ceremonial of Rome Fol. 21. the Emperour is allowed no higher place then the Popes Foot-stool Yet Frederick the 1. Emperour did contentiously Debate this Precedency with Adrian the fourth since which time it hath been variously acquiesced in by Popes and Emperours And though the Legats be Representatives of the Popes yet Thuan tells us lib. 98. That the Learned Brissonius President of the Parliament of Paris would not suffer the Popes Legat to preceed him And at the Coronation of Charles the fifth the Pops Legat was denyed the precedency from the Electors The Cardinals have Debated for Precedency with the Patriarchs though by the Novella 132. c. 2. Iustinian places Patriarchs next to the Pope And Panormit in cap. antiqua X de privileg excess Praelat prefers the Patriarchs to the Cardinals and now by the Concession of Sextus Quintus that Pope hath raised the Cardinals to an equal Degree with Kings and if Kings be present at Table or other Solemnities with Cardinals If there be but one King he is to sit after the first Cardinal Bishop and if there be moe Kings they sit mixtly with the Cardinals first a Cardinal and then a King But though this holds amongst Popish Princes yet the Authour of Les Memoirs des Ambassadeurs does Observe That Leicester Grotius and the other Ambassadours of PROTESTANT Princes never yeelded Precedency to Cardinals till Lockhart Ambassadour for Cromwel yeelded it to Cardinal Mazarine Where he likewise observes That though the Prince of Condie yeelded the Precedency to Cardinal Rechlieu yet the Count of Soisson refused it The Bishops of Scotland preceed in this manner Arch-bishops of St. Andrews Arch-bishops of Glasgow Bishops of Edinburgh Bishops of Galloway Bishops of Dunkel Bishops of Aberdeen Bishops of Murray Bishops of Rosse Bishops of Brechin Bishops of Dumblane Bishops of Caithness Bishops of the Isles Bishops of Argyl Bishops of Orknay I find by Letter in anno 1625. that before King Iames going into England the Marquesses of Scotland did take place from the Arch-bishops But now the Arch-bishops take place from all Dukes and Marquesses in imitation of England And by a Letter in anno 1626. renewed in anno 1664. The Arch-bishop of St. Andrews is to take place from all Subjects which is to be limited as not to exclude the Kings Children and Brothers as I conceive And de facto the Arch-bishops of St. Andrews ceds to the Chancellour since the Letter The Bishops of England Preceed thus Arch-bishops of Canterbury Arch-bishops of York Bishops of London Bishops of Durham Bishops of Winchester Bishops of St. Davids Bishops of Ely Bishops of Norwich Bishops of Hereford Bishops of Salisbury Bishops of Peterborough Bishops of Carlisle Bishops of Worcester Bishops of Rochester Bishops of Landaff Bishops of Lincoln Bishops of Bangor Bishops of Exeter Bishops of Chichester Bishops of St. Asaph Bishops of Oxford Bishops of Lichfield and Coventrie Bishops of Bristol Bishops of Glocester Bishops of Chester Bishops of Bath and Wells CHAP. VIII General Observations concerning the Precedency of Subjects NObility is devided with Us as in England in Nobiles Majores Minores the Greater and the Lesser Nobility Under the Greater are comprehended all such as are Lords of Parliament Under the Lesser are comprehended Knights and Gentlemen And though all these be not Peers of Parliament yet they are all Peers to one another And thus a Gentlemen may be offered to a Dukes Daughter whose Ward and Marriage falls to the King as has been often decyded nor can that Match be refused upon the account of Inequality And it hath been found that though Noblemen must be judged by their Peers yet Landed Gentlemen may pass upon their Assyse and a Nobleman is oblieged to accept of a Challenge from a Gentleman as his Peer where Duels are Lawful Under the word Barron all Our Nobility are comprehended as is clear by the 81. Act. Parl. 14. Ia. 2d And the Inscription of the first Parliament of K. Ia. 5th where the Parliament is said to be holden per Regis Regni tutorem una cum Praelatis Barronibus Burgorum Commissariis Albeit the Parliament of Rob. 1. was cum Episcopis Abbatibus Prioribus Comitibus Barronibus aliis Magnatibus which shews that there were other Magnates infra Barrones It may be Doubted Whether the Younger Son of Dukes Marquesses c. are to be Ranked inter Nobiles majores since they sit not in Parliament Or inter Nobiles Minores since they are designed Lords and take place from many of the Nobiles Majores The Sons of the Kings of France were all Kings and Soveraigns in