Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	concern_v	inferior_a	15	3	9.5591	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70306	The true Catholicks tenure, or, A good Christians certainty which he ought to have of his religion, and may have of his salvation by Edvvard Hyde ...	Hyde, Edward, 1607-1659.; Hyde, Edward, 1607-1659. Allegiance and conscience not fled out of England.	1662 (1662)	Wing H3868; ESTC R19770	227,584	548

false to the people for pretending to be the Kings Ministers when they were conspiratours and they were cruel to the King for complotting his death and destruction by which we may see what it is in the judgement of Gods word and those Divines that follow it to say unto a King What doest thou It is no less then to be guilty of wickedness of malice of folly of leasing of vanity of cruelty and of hypocrisie and who they are that say it even wicked malicious foolish vain lying bloud-thirsty and deceitfull men which brings me to discuss the second thing wherein consists a Kings Supremacie which is this that there is no Power above him a violence there may be above him a power there cannot be for Who can say unto him What doest thou Our Saviour Christ saith unto Pilate Thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above S. John 19. 11. If then Subjects have any power against or above their Sovereign let them shew when and where and how it is given them from above for to say 't is given them by the people is to say 't is given them from below not from above from below as low as earth we are sure for they are but Flii terrae sons of the earth if not as low as hell and indeed this doctrine seems to have risen from the bottomless pit which is like to throw so many souls down headlong thither but certainly not from above for the Doctrine which is from above is like the wisdome which is from thence first pure then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated full of mercy and good fruits without partiality or wrangling without hypocrisie Jam. 3. 17. But this doctrine is altogether impure unpeaceable ungentle hard to be intreated resolves upon non-addresses 't is void of mercy and all good fruits never without very great partiality or wrangling and greater hypocrisie therefore it cannot be from above The doctrine and wisdom from above saith Per me Reges regnant By me Kings reign Prov. 8. 25. which very Text Pope Adrian in his epistle to Charles the great of France alledgeth to justifie that expression of Constantine and Irene in their writings at the second Council of Nice Per eum qui conregnat nobis Deus a strange expression of theirs By him who reigneth together with us that is God yet had it been more strange if in stead of writing God their Fellow-Sovereign they had writ the people so but yet this expression being justified by a Pope so many hundred years after Christ may well perswade a moderate Papist to turn Protestant and confess that the power of Kings depends not upon the Pope however it must perswade a modest Protestant not to turn Pagan and profess that the power of Kings depends upon the people as the one tenent is Antichristian so the other is unchristian let those men therefore be ashamed that in this may learn of a Pope to be Protestants and of Antichrist to become Christians King David after he had murdered Uriah and with him questionless many more of his subjects yet saith Against thee onely have I sinned Psal. 51. 4. And that very Bishop of Millain which in the same case of murder did most sharply reprove and severely repeal the Emperour Theodosius in his person yet is most zealous from this same very text to justifie him in his authority Is it possible that a son should have a lawful power to destroy his Father a servant his Master or a man his God Did C ham onely discover his fathers nakedness and was he cursed for ever what then would God have done to him if he had whipt his father or if he had butchered him whiles he was naked If Cain were a runagate for killing Abel what would God have made him had he killed Adam I have heard that power belongeth unto God Psal. 62. 11. but I have not heard that it belongs unto the people either to give or to take it away And to shew that no subject can dispose of his Allegiance 't is here grounded upon the Supremacy that like as this is not of his making so that cannot be at his disposing but as the Supremacy is grounded upon the power so the Allegiance is grounded upon the oath of God and since Supremacy of power in Kings is grounded upon Gods power there can be no supreme over them but only God This was the Divinity of the Primitive Christians even before their Kings were Christian and God forbid the Church of Christ should so far act the part of a step-mother as to make them fare the worse for being her sons to make them lose their own Rights for defending hers for it were to reproach Christ to make men losers by Christianity Thus saith Iren. lib. 5. adv haer c. 20. Cujus enim Jussu homines nascuntur hujus Jussu Reges constituuntur By whose command men are brought into the world by his command are Kings appointed to govern them when they are there and to govern them not onely in temporals but also in spirituals or else not to govern them but onely a part of them and that the worst part their bodies whereas they are not men without their souls also But because this truth is strongly opposed on both sides as well by the Consistory as by the Conclave it is requisite that we farther declare this second Maxime concerning the Kings Supremacy That there is no power above him by these two ensuing conclusions First no Power but is inferiour to his in causes Secondly no Person but is inferiour to him in power First no Power but is inferiour to his in causes and that not onely in civil Causes which hath been hitherto asserted but also in Ecclesiastical Thus not Aaron but Moses gave the commands concerning the exercise of Religion from the first beginning of it Thus Joshua not the High priest succeeded afterwards in the same charge and the judges again after him or else one Levites idolatry anothers fornicacation would not have been ushered in with a Non erat Rex in Israel In those days there was no King in Israel to govern the Levites as well as others Judg. 17. 6. 19. 1. afterwards when Kings were established under that Title as Supreme in power over Israel 't is plain that David and Solomon Josiah and Hezckiah did both order Religion in its exercise and reform it from corruptions so that 't is the peculiar commendation of good Kings in the text that they did destroy idolatry and the reproach of wicked Kings that They did set it up and though we finde the people often reproved for worshipping yet we never finde them once reproved for not destroying the calves of Bethel or any other idol so that were there no prohibition in the Text against a popular reformation to conclude it sinfull for want of obedience yet since there is no precept nor example for it none that

and gives this reason why he requires it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We were ordained and appointed of God to preserve the faith holy and incorrupt as we received it the Pope will now tell the Emperour so sed non fuit sic ab initio from the beginning it was not thus no nor in many hundreds of years after and in the sixteenth Action of this Council the acclamations of the Bishops to the Emperour at first calling him Another Constantine another Martian another Theodosius another Justinian are a proof beyond exception for no History is so irrefragable as the Acts of a Council that those Emperours had called the forementioned Councils and the petitions at last of the same Bishops praying for him as the Defender of the Orthodox Religion as the bulwark of the Church and as the Defender of the Faith cannot but assure us that they thought it the Emperours duty to call those Councils because they thought them bound to defend the Faith and to protect the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You see the title of Defender of the Faith to a King is of much greater antiquity then our Henry the eight as well as the reason of it and so many several laws in the Code and in the Novels of the Catholick Faith of the Sacraments of Churches of Bishops of Synods of Hereticks will be an evidence to the worlds end of the Supremacy of Kings in causes Ecclesiastical no less then those other titles in the institutes and digests that concern liberty and property and the affairs of this world will be an invincible evidence of their Supremacy in civil causes But I may not insist longer upon this Argument such kinde of quotations being fitter for the school then for the pulpit I will onely add this one more from Pope Adrian's own mouth to Charles the Great of France whom he calls Spiritualem Compatrem that is either his Spiritual Godfather for his patronage and care over his Person or his Fellow-Father in spirituals for his jurisdiction and government over the Church and he labours to give him such punctual satisfaction in all particulars concerning the second Nicene Council as if he feared that of Franckford called by Charles would as indeed it did over ballance that of Nice procured by himself no less in truth then it did in authority but we think his Compater to his Lord and Master a little too high though his Successours will not stoop so low for as we allow the Supreme no superiour so we must allow him no equal which is my second conclusion No person but is inferiour to him in power as no power but is inferiour to his in causes whether Ecclesiastical or Civil so no person or persons whether Ecclesiastical or Civil but is and are inferiour to him in power we understand not that Singulis major Universis minor or if we understand it think that Omnis anima speaks as well Universis as Singulis and therefore not onely one and one by himself but also one and all Subjects together all are inferiour to their Sovereign because they are all bound to submit unto him Let every soul be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. 1. Their convening together doth as much take off their souls as it doth their subjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can never agree but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is joyned with the universis in the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore of them also no less then of single persons must the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next verse be necessarily understood Whosoever resisteth or How many soever resist both alike are comprehended in They that resist and they shall receive to themselves damnation The word here used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subordinetur let every soul be subordinate a word that more particularly points at the Ordines regni in the very signification of it because they can never want power to make resistance and seldom want chaplains that encourage them to make it but Ordines sunt ordinandi and subordinandi or else Ordines will be Confusiones Orders must be ordered and subordinate or though called States yet will be Ruines though called Orders will turn Confusions both of the text and of the kingdom and certainly the reasons alledged by S. Paul as equally concern Ordines regni as other Subjects and those as well all as some Universos as well as Singulos First Gods ordinance which may no more be rejected by all then by some by all together then by single persons in particular Secondly Damnation which may be incurred by all as well as by some by a Parliament as well as by Private Gentlemen 'T is true the King may not be so great a terrour to all as to some because all joyning together may not be afraid of his power What then yet I hope all have consciences as well as some and though happily it may not be said of the all of the whole kingdom Ye must needs be subject for wrath because all subjects holding together need not fear their Kings wrath yet it may and must be said of them all Ye must needs be subject for Conscience sake as 't is in the first verse For be they never so many that combine together that will give no satisfaction to the Conscience in regard of it self nor release in regard of God and yet even this very objection is sufficiently answered in the verse before in that he is said To bear the sword as the Minister of God and therefore Not to bear the sword in vain For though happily or rather unhappily in regard of his Person he may bear the sword in vain and perish under it yet in regard of his office he cannot for so he is the Minister of God and consequently a revenger of wrath that cannot fail of his revenge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Epiph. Haer. 40. adversus Archontichos He hath from God the right of the sword not from any other and he hath it for revenge Would to God those men who follow these Hereticks in multiplying powers and principalities though not in heaven yet in earth and in some other things too for these Archontici did abhor baptism and slight the Communion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. ibid. I say would those men who follow these Hereticks in this gross opinion would likewise seriously go along with this learned Father in his solid confutation there would never again be any cavilling disputes upon the 13 to the Romans His confutation in brief is this You Archontici think by multiplying powers in heaven to overthrow the dominion and power of one God but indeed you rather establish it For if in earth there may be so many principalities and powers in one kingdom all subject not repugnant to one King then much more so in heaven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In every kingdom upon earth there are many principalities but they are all under one King Nothing