Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	blood_n	matter_n	part_n	1,493	5	4.5242	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93123	The Kings supremacy asserted. Or A remonstrance of the Kings right against the pretended Parliament. By Robert Sheringham M.A. and Fellow of Gunvill, and Caius-Colledge in Cambridge	Sheringham, Robert, 1602-1678.	1660 (1660)	Wing S3237A; ESTC R231142	93,360	138

greatest enemies to justice are set up in their places some are bereft of their estates others are driven out of the Kingdome and forced to seek a forraign ayre where they may breath more freely then in their own The whole Nobility Clergy Commonalty walk desolately mournfully up and down being no more like the men they were then the skinnes of sacrificed beasts are like their living bodies And after all these indignities offered to the King and people they endevour contrary to the lawes to alter the government and to pull up the very foundation of the Kingdome calling their new frame and structure a Free Estate and themselves the keepers of the freedome of England Thus having guilt over this Idol of their own fancy they force all men to fall down and worship it they whose vertue oblige them to refuse are cast into a furnace hotter then that of Babylon Seeing the body of the Kingdome devoured thus to the very entrails I could not withont horrour behold such a miserable carkasse so rent and torn in every part nor could I satisfie mine own conscience if I should not endevour according to my poor abilities to oppose the rage and sury of these men which are grown so fat with the blood and spoile of others My intention therefore is reserving matters of fact to speak here of matters of right and to shew the injustice of their cause and discover the falshood of all those Principles whereby they endevour to justifie their proceedings not doubting but I shall so far convince the understanding of all those that shall read this insuing discourse that they shall not hereafter enter into any combination with the rebels or continue with them in them in case they be already engaged except their hearts be hardened so far as they dare act in matters of such concernment contrary to their consciences The Principles and grounds whereby they endevour to justifie this present war against the King are two First they say that it is lawful for the people to resist their soveraign and supreme governours by force of arms in case they be Tyrants and bent to subvert the laws and religion established or by illegal proceedings invade the lives estates or liberties of their subjects But there is some disagreement amongst them in the restriction and limitation of their Principle for some give free scope and liberty to all private persons to resist and with their swords in their hands to defend their lives and estates against the unjust invasion of all Kings and governours whatsoever Others do a little stint the people and limit the bounds of resistence permitting none to have that power but subordinate Magistrates or the people collectively taken and their subsistutes in Parliament Yet these content themselves with the same particular instances brought by others alledging little besides particular examples as the example of David who as they say would have resisted Saul if occasion had been offered The example of the Priests who as they say assaulted Uzziah and such like examples of particular men which were neither the people collectively taken nor their substitutes in Parliament nor yet the greater part subordinate Magistrates But some have thought upon an other way how to make good their rebellion confessing the former assertion to tend directly to the ruine and subversion of government and to be also contrary to the law of God these proceed upon another Principle namely that supreme jurisdiction belongs to the people the King they say is major singulis but minor universis greater and hath more authority then any one of his subjects taken by retaile but taken in the gross his subjects are greater and have more authority then he and these agree altogether in this that they teach all authority to be originally in the people tanquam in primo subjecto creato as in the first subject immediately under God and from them translated to Magistrates Yet these are also divided amongst themselves about the extent latitude of the power that may be translated for some of them say that the rights of soveraignity belong to the people by the law of nature and are so essential to them that they cannot be seperated or divided from them they cannot be taken away by conquest they cannot part with them by consent but under what form of government soever they live by what means soever established and set up they have still reserved in them a supreme jurisdiction over all Magistrates by which they are authorised to give a legal judgment upon all their actions and to resume again their whole authority when they shall see occasion making a circle in government and granting a power in Magistrates to judge and govern the people and also in the people to judge and govern their Magistrates Others on the contrary side say that the people may lose the rights of soveraignty by conquest or part with them by consent so that they shall not reserve to themselves supreme jurisdiction over their Magistrates to judge juridically whether their actions be legal or illegal but the people of England they say have not de facto parted with their authority in such a full degree but are supreme by the laws of the land or at least coordinate with the King for at the first coalition of the government by paction and agreement made with the King they reserved to themselves a part in the rights of soveraignty which they still hold by law This is their other Principle as destructive to government as the former and the authors and maintainers of them both agree well enough in their end that is to stir up the people to rebellion only they of the first rank would perswade them they may lawfully do it by way of self preservation and they of the second by way of jurisdiction I intend now by Gods assistance to examine these mischievous Principles and to discover as well the falsity of them as the dangerous consequences that flow from them which I hope to perform with such clearness and evidence that the most harc-brain'd sectaries amongst them shall be convinced if they will but read that which shall be alledged against them Now that I may proceed in opening and clearing the truth with the better method I will divide the matter I am to handle into two parts In the first part I will speak of Supremacy and here I will shew that the King alone is the only supreme head and governour of the Kingdom of Englan and that all the people and their deputies in Parliament as well collectively taken as severally are his subjects and not coordinate with him In the second part I will speak of Resistance and there I will shew that the supreme Magistrates and governours of any Kingdom or Commonwealth may not by their subjects be resisted by force of armes upon pretence of tyranny or misdemeanour or upon any other cause or pretence whatsoever I will begin with Supremacy because they endevour now

Fol. 125. the Kings alwayes most gravely and considerately repelled that sort of attempt The Kings supremacy then is inherent in his Person not in his Courts as the pretended House affirm for his politique capacity can not be seperated from his naturall but what power soever he maketh over unto his Courts the same and greater remaineth in Himself His authority is not separated from him by such a concession privitivè but Cumulativè onely as Civilians distinguish in Concessions of like nature made by the Emperour that is He loseth no authority by Communicating it to others but others hould that which is communicated together with himself As God loseth no authority by communicating it to Kings so Kings loseth it not by communicating of it to their Courts The Civilians give these reasons for the ground of their law not much different from those alleadged by Lambart out of Bracton and others Credendum non est Imperatorem ita fontes suos derivasse foras ut nihil penes se remanserit sed in quavis concessione semper authoritas persona ejus excepta censetur quis enim tam stolidus ut alii benefaciendo seipsum consumere velit cum etiam Principis sit ad offitium ejus proprie pertineat jus dicere Knichen d. superiorit territ cap. 1. num 518. Wurms evercit 3. num 15. Rosental d. feud cap. 5. conclus 13. Pruckman d. Regal cap. 1. num 17. Leipold d. Concurrent jurisdict quaest 1. i. e. It is not to be imagined that the Emperour should so empty his fountaines as to leave nothing in himselfe but it is to be conceived that in every concession his own person and authority is excepted for who is such a fool to consume himself by doing good to others it is also the essentiall property and office of a prince to doe justice The pretended House proceed And to speak properly only his high court of Parliament wherein he is absolutely supreme head and governour from which there is no appeale Reply They speak not more properly as they say but much more improperly then they did before it is the same authority that is in all his courts in his person too though not all the same authority for it is limited restrained in his courts by commission writ or law and according as as those limitations and restrictions are more or lesse so may courts be said to have a greater or lesse jurisdiction but not the King to be more or lesse supreme nor is their expression improper onely but also full of falshood and deceit for whereas they say there can be no appeale from the high court of Parliament they desire the people should so construe their words as to think the two Houses could jointly by reason of the Kings virtual presence take cognizance of a plea and give judgement upon it from which there could be no appeale which had they spoke out their falshood had been transparent for onely the Lords House is a court of judicature and from thence appeales may be made to the King who may and have reformed the undue proceedings of that Court Lambarts Archeion sol 133. for anno 18. Edward 1. Bogo de Clare being discharged of an accusation put against him in Parliament for some imperfections of form that were discovered in the complaint the King commanded him neverthelesse to appeare before himselfe ad faciendum recipiendum quod per Regem ejus confilium fuerit faciendum and so proceeded to are-examination of the whole cause Neither is the former part of their words truer then the latter the Kings supreamacy they say to speak properly is onely in his high court of Parliament This in their sense is false the supreamacy of the King is no more in his high Court of Parliament by reason of his virtual presence or politique capacity then in his other Courts when he is personally there his supreamacy then together with his Person is in the Court not otherwise For I have shewed already in divers places that the rights of Soveraigntie are not onely individually inherent in his Person but so inseperably also annexed unto it that they can not be communicated to others by any grant or concession made by himself in private or by an act of Parliament I shall now adde Lib. 7. in Calvinet case that their conceit is called in Cooks reports a damnable and damned opinion and hath been at large confuted and condemned by all the judges as is there related it was first invented by the Spencers who to cover their treason said that homage and the oath of ligeance was more by reason of the Kings Crown that is by reason of his politique capacity then by reason of the Person of the King from which opinion they inferred these detestable consequences 1. If the King doe not demeane himself by reason his Leiges are bound by oath to remove him 2. Seeing the King could not be reformed by suit of law that ought to be done per aspertee 3. That his Lieges are bound to govern in ayd of him all which were condemned by two parliaments one in the Reign of Edward the second called exilium Hugon●s le Spencer And the other anno 1. E. 3. cap. 1. And indeed their conceit is so irrationall that it might easily be prognosticated they would never make good Statsmen For when the King is not personally present in his Courts he can be there by reason of his politique capacity no other wayes but by virtuall emanation there can be in them no more authority then is delegated and committed to his judges now it is a common conception as evident as the first principles that a delegate power can not be supreme The exercise of supreme authority in some Commonwealths may but the power it selfe can not be delegated Kings may also abdicate and resigne up supreme authority but they can not delegate it In how generall tearmes soever say Civilians authority be granted by the Concessour to the concessary supreame authority can not be comprised under those termes Quocuuque modo Regalium concessio fiat nihilominus superius illud Majestaticum imperium ea largitione nunquam censeatur comprehensum sed potius major semper quam est concessa reservata retenta putetur potestas cap. Dudum ¶ Hoc igitur de praebend in 6. l. inquisitio Et ibi De c. de solut Periginus de jure sisci lib. 1. tit ult num 33. Kniken de jure territorii cap. 1. num 315. i. e. Which way soever Regalities are granted it may not be supposed that supreame authority is comprehended under such a grant but rather that a greater power then is granted is reserved to the Prince Object 2 Their second objection is If the Parliament may take an accompt what is done by his Majesty in his inferiour courts much more what is done by him without authority in any court Reply This if is well put in they say not