Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	good_a	king_n	1,792	5	3.4864	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28559	The doctrine of non-resistance or passive obedience, no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites by a lay gentleman of the communion of the Church of England, by law establish'd.	Bohun, Edmund, 1645-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing B3451; ESTC R18257	35,035	42

he will run away from his People rather than do them and his Neighbour Right But then when we say His retreat was voluntary we do not pretend there was no force made use of but that it was not made use of to that end All that was asked by the Prince or his own Subjects was a free and legal Parliament and all the force that was used was to that End And this he might and ought to have granted but if he would not the Prince is not to be supposed to have brought 14000 Men only to make a vain Shew with all but either to force him to do him Right or force him out of his Kingdom This Prince was no Subject to King James nor to any other Prince and consequently was no Rebel He had as well good Right as a good Cause to invade this injurious Prince who had injured both him and his good Subjects and without a War would do no right either to the Prince or us For the Prince had tried all fair waies before he tried Force as is notoriously known to all the World. But our Jacobites prate of the Force that was used against him by another Sovereign Prince as injurious only because it was Force Why the Prince was no Subject and if James II. would do him no right without Force tho' we that were then his Subjects had no Right to compel him HE might lawfully compel him by Force to do what he ought to have done without it but would not What Stupidity is it to deny a Sovereign Prince may make use of Force against a neighbouring Prince that has done him Wrong Well but say they His Subjects ought to have fought for King James To which I say Why did they not who hindred them from fighting No they would not fight or which is all one they durst not and now he is gone they think to make him amends by a fullen disclaiming of the present King's Sovereignty But tho' they will not swear they will promise to live peaceably under this King That is they will not own him for the lawful King of England but they will submit to him as they did to Oliver Cromwel till they have an Opportunity to dethrone him and deliver him into the Hand of King James and for this they would be allowed the same Condition with those Subjects that have sworn Allegiance to him Is this reasonable will they admit a Servant or a Rival on the same Terms into their own Families Well but some of his Subjects forsook and others of them fought against him and almost all the rest stood still and would not fight for him 1. What is this to them if they have done as much for him as they could or ought they shall answer for no body but themselves 2. What was the Reason and who gave the Cause of this general Desertion 3. It is denied that King James his Subjects were bound to stand by him and fight for him He had notoriously invaded and destroyed all our Civil and Religious Rights and Liberties and designed the Ruine and Destruction both of them and us and would give us no Assurance we could rely on to do otherwise for the future and therefore if it were unlawful to resist him it was also as unlawful to assist and enable him to destroy the true Religion the English Liberties and Immunities nay the very Nation Now Jovian tells us pag. 272. Whosoever acts contrary to Law in this Realm to the Prejudice of any other Person must be subject to make Reparation by Law against which the King himself can protect no Man as long as the Courts of Law are kept open this has been sufficiently confuted so that there can be no Tyranny nor any Persecution but a most exorbitant and illegal Persecution which must presuppose That Justice is obstructed the Laws and Lawyers silenced the Courts of Judicature that up and that the King governs altogether by Arbitrary Power and the Sword. The Courts were indeed open but we know for all that no Man could have any redress but the Consequences were the same as if they had been shut up But to suppose this saith the Doctor is plainly to suppose the utmost possibility which is next to an impossibility a possibility indeed in Theory but scarce to the reduced into Practice For in such a violent Vndertaking all good Men would withdraw from the Service and Assistance of the King mark that and the Bad durst not serve him because if he died or repented of his Vndertaking they must be answerable for all the Wrongs and Illegalities they were guilty of in his Service And a little lower he tells us To shut up the Laws or obstruct and pervert Justice would prove an exceeding difficult and almost impracticable Undertaking because all his good Subjects and all the bad too that tendered their own Safety would desert him nay Foreigners upon this account would make a Difficulty to serve him because he could not protect them against his own Laws Now all this was done and averred in the Face of the Sun this Possibility was brought into act and things driven on to the utmost Extremity and the only Question then was Whether we should intail this arbitrary tyrannical exorbitant Persecution on our Posterity without any Hopes or Possibility of Redress or whether we should withdraw from his Service and secure our Rights and Religion by it And this was done by all but the Irish and Papists both Good and Bad in a manner as the Doctor foretold it would and to me it seems altogether justifiable I know the Doctor means only a Civil Recess but if it was highly punishable and Infamous to have persisted in a co-operation and Assistance of these things it was worse and more punishable to have fought for them And from hence I conclude All that did withdraw from the Service of the late King when they saw he was resolved on these illegal exorbitant Courses are not to be blamed and that the best of the Primitive Christians would have done the same thing if it had been their lot to have fallen under such a Prince Tertullian de corona c. 12. expounds that Place of Scripture Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's Give the Man to God and the Penny to Caesar The Man bore God's Image as the Penny did Caesar's and when God and Caesar were in opposition the whole Man was God's Right So far were they from thinking their Loyalty to their Prince obliged them to be disloyal to their Religion even then when they never thought of Resisting their hands were tyed up neither to assist nor resist a against persecuting Prince they would do neither of these tho' they perished And are not we still under the same Obligations as to the latter as well as to the former For Shame let no Man boast of that Loyalty to his Prince which makes him Disloyal to God and his Church