Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	ecclesiastical_a	pope_n	1,524	5	6.4103	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37367	A Short surveigh of the grand case of the present ministry whether they may lawfully subscribe and declare as by the late Act of uniformity is required, and the several cases thence arising, especially about the covenant / by some conformable non-conformists.	M. D.	1663 (1663)	Wing D64; ESTC R14722	29,525	48

by the Covenant Case 9th Pa. 32.33 be sinful 1. THese two Cases contain your first Argument to prove the matter of the Covenant sinful and unlawful An Antagonist would much quarrel at your method management and terms in his discourse but we seeking satisfaction pursue your scope and pass by such Peccadilloes 2. Your major Proposition is determined in your second case viz. that to endeavour against the Right of the King as oblieged thereunto by the Covenant is sinful 3. In this Sir we shall not dissent from you we find Mr. Crofton grant it candidly conceding to the Oxford Reasons that no peace can be firm and well grounded which is not bottomed in Justice whose proper and adaequate act is Ius suum cuique unless the Authority Power and Liberty of King Parliament and Subject be preserved full and entire he therefore cryeth out Specifie the defect in this Covenant as to these particulars I cannot read or understand if they be not all secured by the same Truly Sir we cannot but do the Covenant that right as to observe it bindeth its Subject to preserve the Authority as well as the Person of the King and we cannot easily believe it bindeth in any thing against the Kings Right 3. We hope Sir we may without offence observe the Kings Right of Prerogative is ill pleaded by such who themselves despise and disregard it disobeying the directions of his Royal Declaration concerning Ecclesiastical affairs dictated by his Supremacy in Ecclesiastical causes they give cause to be suspected to throw it in the way of Antagonists as a stumbling stone on which to break their legs or necks who use it as a stepping stone in the way of their unwarrantable rigour and severity 4. Sir we are so heartily devouted to the service of the King that we dare not in the least detract from his Royal Prerogitive we well know England hath its Statute de Prerogativa Regis as Rome had her Lex Regia we unfeignedly wish this were amplified and made as legible as other Statutes yet Sir the severe censures passed in Parliament upon Dr. Manwaring and Sibthorp do loudly proclaim a possibility for Church-men to scrue the Prerogative of the King beyond its due pitch and the proportion of Englands Constitution 5. Your Major proposition allowed we might weigh your proof of the Mino● viz. your Eighth Case To endeavour to alter the Government of the Church is against the Right of the King 6. To the proofe of this you tell us it is against the Right of the King as Executor of the Law and you assign for your first Reason Church-Officers are the Kings Commissioners they taken away the head must fall Good Sir give us a cleare Answer to these two Enquiries 1. Are Ecclesiastical Officers essential to the Regality of the King No Bishop no King hath been an Eventnal but is it a Moral truth Were there no Kings where there was no Bishops Were not Kings in Nations when all Church Government was in the Pope and his Substitutes Supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical may add to the glory but not the being of the King Erastus himse would not say Kings cease to be King if they minde meddle not with Church-affaires we are not-yet perswaded that a Royal head must needs stand on Religious Shoulders and fall when these are withdrawn 2. Are these specifical Commissioners essential to the Kings Regality that Arch-Bishops Bishops c. taken away this Head must fall May not National Privincial and Classical Presbyteries become the Kings Commissioners in the slead of Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Commissaries Chancellors c May not the Kings Supremacy exsist in and be executed over and by them subsistuted thereunto 7. Your first Medium seemeth to be of little force to prove To endeavour after Church Government is against the Kings Right as Executor of the Law your next is more general viz. Con●… to endeavour to e●…pate the Government of the Church doth directly oppose the whole comse of our lives against the Kings Government and that lay you is the sense of the Covenanters themselves 8. Sir If you had said To endeavour to exstitpate doth oppose us ni to this Government the whole course of our affections you had indeed spoken the Covenanters sense yet they will not slick to extend it to the whole course of our lives under those limitations Acts lawful In our places and Callings through the grace of God But Sir they will tell you These are Acts of endeavour for exstirpation other then what you mention such are theological disputation submiss supplication popular Groans or Complaints of greivances by and under it which are consistent with submission to it whilst existent thus it may be in all Corperations and the Church is not excepted 9. But Sir some do and will deny this Government to be the Kings Government Established and animated by the Laws whereof it is his Right to be Executor this you attempt to prove and in its time and place we shall consider At present let it be observed this Government was not at first animated by the Kings authority Acted not in the Kings name but challenged somtimes a forinsecal but ever a Divine intrinsecal power for its principle distinct from yea opposite to the Kings Authority its subjects were with much difficulty and the pinch of Premunire brought to the submission of the Clergie after which the Kings Laws have indeed limited restrained regulated directed and in some things authorized ' these Governours who yet Acting in their name and under their own Seds and affirming themselves to be the upholding Essential animation to Regality by their Cry No Bishops no King make Covenanters conceive they yet think scorn to o●… this Government as animated by the King and his Laws though they object it as a stone on which they wish to see their Opposers run their heads until they dash out their brains 10. You further urge To endeavour the alteration of Church Government is against the Right of the King as Legislator Pa. 30. the Covenant binding to do without the Kings consent whether he would or no. 11. Sir to this we must tell you we do not finde in the Covenant any such words as that we shall endeavour to exstirpate or alter the Government without the Kings consent not do we finde in it any words which by a fair and genuine construction can bear any such sense and we finde the Covenanters do deny it Mr. Crofton whom you most assault doth own the King as chief Ana leps Ana lepth Pa. 98.99 though not sole Legislator and allots Acts of endeavour to procure the Kings consent to which the Covenant he saith doth oblige 12. Truly that limitation on the Covenant is so just ful and legible viz. Through the grace of God in our places and Callings that we cannot but yeild to Mr. Crofton the defence of the Kings power is not repugnant to the dutys of our particular Callings and

Law Pray Sir is it against Law for Subjects much more Legislators to endaevour the alteration yea the abrogation of some Laws and things thereby established this is that your Antagonists affirm must be proved and brought into the conclusion to prove the matter of the Covenant against Law and consequently sinful May not an obedient Son of the Church burdened with some Administration authorized by Law endeavour by all just means and swear he will so do to have that Law repealed if so how poor is your plain distinction 4. But you doubt not to assert that such an endeavour to Extripate Church Government as was Covenanted was against the Law both Antecedent to the Covenant and subsequent this done would much availe we shall attend your evidence Case XI Whether the present Government of the Church were Established by Law in England Case 11th pa. 41. before the taking of the Covenant 1. TO this you profess you have no insight into the Laws but so much is in the surface of them that you wonder at the doubt we do Sir believe you for in the Index of the statute book there is so large a Table of Bishops Arch-Bishops c. that it may well be wondred that any should doubt whether this Government be established by Law But had you taken the pains to read and consider the nature of the Laws you would find Fronti nulla fides your insight would find wanting what a superficial verive of the surface concludeth present 2. The fallacious use of established by law is in your own fancy your Antagonists never did limit it to an appointment of Statute but have traversed the Canon Civil and Common Law and in none they find an establishment by Law but have put the assertors thereof to prove it which task you have undertaken and thus you argue 3. Is it not pritty to observe that learned men should be so far subdued by prejudice Pa. 42. as to question whether Episcopacy be established by Law when Episcopacy hath so long had an hand in establishing the law it self 4. This Argument hath Sir little force we shall not be laughed into a perswasion that Episcopacy is established by Law and such establishment is a non sequitur to the Legislative Act of Bishops it cannot be both cause and effect its praeexistency to the Law doth suppose unto it a more sublime principle then the Law which we know not unless it be that of Nature or Scripture or as the Covenanters-plea doth well observe the Romane Papacy which forinsecal power existing in England as other Nations Usurped a Legislative power which it yet holdeth by this Episcopal root 5. Sir Would it not be pritty to hear a Jesuite retort and prove your Argument crying is it not pritty to observe learned men and Prelates are so far subdued to question whether the papacy were established by Law when the Papacie for a thousand years established yea made lawes to Christian Nations and disposed their Crowns an Scepters if laughing will do it the Papacy hath a good claim and you seem to us to admit succession in fact a sufficient title against the most manifest obtrusion invasion and usurpation which can be admitted 6. Such Divines who found Monarchie in nature and proclaim Monarchs to be above the Law will give you little thanks for this Argument which estateth their Title on an establishment by law because they are chief makers of the Law but you proceed to further demonstration of an establisnment by law 7. You say Pa. 43.44 you will venture to strike this scruple dead by a distinction or two 8. Your first distinction is this The law establisheth by appointing it de novo or by allowing and granting it on all occasions The first you yeild the second you hold upon and thus inferr Thus the Law doth sufficiently establish the Government of the Church not onely by those special lawes which relate unto it but indeed in every law which expresseth the consent and advice of the Lords Spirituall 9. A fair Establishment most lawes do indeed express the asscent and advice of the Lords Spiritual we hope Sir you did not forget Lords-Abbots and Lord Cardinal were some of them But Sir is every Hypothesis in law an undeniable position Will Arguments a facto conclude ad jus and ab esse a jure esse and yet Sir this only concludes for Bishops what becometh of Deans and Chapters Commissaries and Chansellors c. Are these Lords spiritual in the sence of the Law they do indeed exercise a spiritual Lordship in the Church Will an Argument from persons of existence in such a capacity conclude an Establishment of things Lords Spiritual were in Parliament Ergo the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Chapters and that Hyrarchie were established by Law will you stand by this Argument 10. That Bishops or Lords Spiritual were in Parliament De facto is granted but quo jure is the question the Romans will tell you by the Popes Spiritual Power and the Covenanters think how ever they are there preserved they were first planted by that Forinsecal Power 11. Your next Distinction is this Pa. 4. This Government as to its office is before the Law but as to its exercise it is Established by Lawes for its Names Iurisdictions Crimes and Punishments are mentioned in the Lawes 11. The first of these we allow you but tell you that is the thing in debate for the Establishment of a Government is the Creation of such an Office in Execution of which men shall have the Power Titles Names and Honors of such Officers And herein your Government must be yielded to be the Popes Creatute for we find no English lawes which ever framed or founded the same 12. As to the Exercise of this Government in its way and order by Courts Canons and visitations we must tell you we find its names Crimes and some punishments in our Lawes yet we question whether it were Established by Law because we find these things are inserted into our Lawes to limit regulate and restraine the same which existing from a Forinsecal Power grew exorbitant and called for Boundaries from our municipal lawes which rides it with a prohibition as its bridle and scourgeth it with a premunire Both which Writts do know it to be a Power and Government distinct from that Established by Law 13. Sir This is far from an Establishment by Law be not offended if we tell you Usury hath as good an Establishment by law as this amounteth unto it is limited regulated restrained by law and kept under the Cudgel of the Statutes against Extortion But I pray you is it so established by law that the oppressed poor man may not swear he will in his Place and Calling endeavour the Exstirpation of biting Usury or pinching Prelacy 14. Your third Distinction is this Government Established by a Statute immediately appointing such a Forme Pag 45 or immediately by a Statute