Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	king_n	parliament_n	3,554	5	6.8839	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43922	The History of the divorce of Henry VIII and Katharine of Arragon with the defence of Sanders : the resutation of the two first books of the history of the reformation of Dr. Burnett, by Joachim le Grand : with Dr. Burnett's answer and vindication of himself.		1688 (1688)	Wing H2157; ESTC R12003	14,763	16

to the Bottom the Laws and History of England For the Truth was this They read in that Assembly the two oaths which the Bishops took the one to the Pope the other to the King and in regard they found them to be Contradictory as being two oaths of Homage and Fidelity which could only be sworn to one Soveraign they abolish'd that which was made to the Pope and let that stand in it's full vigour which was sworn to the King I have given an undeniable Example of their oaths sworn to the King by the Bishops in former Ages which is to be seen in an Act at the head of the Collection of the Pieces that justifie my History If M. Le Grand had only the French Translation where those Pieces are not he might have consulted the English Edition at Mr. Bulteau's where they are all to be seen He might have there seen in the Act which I cite Cardinal Adrian renounce not only all the Clauses of the Bulls which were contrary to the Kings Prerogative or the Laws of England but also swear an Oath of Fealty to the King in the same Terms which our Kings have since continued to receive them from the Bishops The Oath to the Pope which is an Innovation not known till before the XII Age contains besides so many large and unlimited Clauses which neither accord with the Doctrine of the Gallican Church nor with that submission and duty which Prelates owe their lawful Prince since it is apparently an Oath of Homage and Fidelity to a Foreign Power V. Mr. Le Grand labours might and main to make Cranmer to be look'd upon as one of the most wicked men in the world He accuses me for making him a Gentleman but I have said nothing of it though I well knew him to be so not believing that Quality considerable enough to be mentioned in the Eulogies due to the memory of so great a Personage He cannot believe That Cranmer was in Germany when Warham died nor that he was named in his Absence to be Bishop of Canterbury nor that he stay'd Seven weeks after he received the News of his Nomination because he assisted at the Marriage of the King with Anne Bolen He cannot allow what I say That this Affair went on slowly since it was but three Months between September and January before this Prelate was known to be exalted at Rome Nor will he be perswaded That the Provincial Synod of Canterbury pronounced any positive sentence upon the Marriage of the King See here more mistakes than Varillas himself could have been guilty of For in the Criminal Process against Cranmer which is Printed we find that he calls his Judges to witness with what reluctancy he accepted the Primacy of England and that he did not return out of Germany till Seven Weeks after the King had signified to him his Intentions Nor did the Bishops who knew his Judges and who had been Eye-witnesses of his behaviour at that time say any thing to it as not being able to contradict what he said Twelve Weeks passed from the Twenty third of August that Warham died to the Fourteenth of November that the King was married so that although the Courrier had staid Fifteen days by the way Cranmer might have delay'd his departure for Seven Weeks and yet have come time enough to be at the Nuptials of the King But our Author to change Five Months into three excludes September and January out of his Account for this only Reason That he found it requisite to retrench them As for the Judgment of the Synod of Canterbury the Sentence of Divorce has it in express Terms That the two provincial Synods of England had decided the King's Cause But M. Le Grand above all things makes it a Crime in Cranmer that he took an Oath of Obedience to the Pope when he was consecrated and for that he made a Protestation by which he gave divers Restrictions to the said Oath But he reports all that he says concerning this Matter upon the Authority of certain passionate Scriblers and quite contrary to the Faith of the publick Acts. The Protestation of the Archbishop was read twice before the Altar while he was consecrating and it is clear that he had no design to make use of Equivocals since what he did he did in publick and for that the Bishops usually made Protestations by which they renounced all Clauses of their Bulls which were contrary to the Kings Prerogative It seems the Canonists accustomed to this doubling Equivocation had so much Power over Cranmer as to encline him to take the Oath and restrain it by a publick Protestation made at the same time so that if he did any thing amiss in so doing it was rather a Defect of Judgment in that Prelate than any want of Sincerity VI. The Author says that the King pardoned Moore and Fisher the Business of the Maid of Kent and though he confess that the first ridicules her for an idle silly Nun in one of his Letters yet he seems not to have seen a long long Letter of Moore 's which I published in my justifying Pieces belonging to the Second Volume where he speaks of the pretended Revelations of that religious Wench as one of the most horrid Impostures that ever were As for Fisher whatever the Author says he was condemned for favouring that Imposture To this M. Le Grand adds That the Chancellour having demanded of Fisher and Moore what they thought of the Statutes made in the last Parliament they would make no Answer only they said That being cut off from civil Society they minded nothing but their Meditation upon their Saviour's Passion which Answer cost them their Lives Here is a Corruption of History which I shall not call so bad as it deserves which is so much the more odious for that writing things as they were transacted and according to publick Acts he could represent them after a manner so favourable to his own Cause These two great Men were condemned at first by virtue of a Praemunire which is loss of Goods and perpetual Imprisonment for having refused to take the Oath concerning the Succession by reason of the Kings Marriage according to an Act of Parliament After that they were farther prosecuted because they opposed the King's Supremacy or his Title of the supreme Head of the English Church There is one thing too in Moore 's Process which might be sufficient to make a Man Guilty of High Treason where he says That a Parliament can both make a King and depose a King Now In regard I have consin'd myself within these Six Heads I shall go no farther but the abundance of Matter makes me that I have much ado to hold here I cannot but wonder the Author has forgot so many important Things in his History and that he could find in the Collection of Letters printed by Camuzat which I never saw until he did me the Honour to give them unto me He