Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	effect_n	nature_n	1,689	5	5.4122	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84287	The Exercitation answered, in the assertions following made good against it. 1 That the usurpation pretended by the exercitator is really no usurpation, by any thing that he hath said to prove it such. 2 That former oaths in controversie oblige not against obedience to present powers. 3 That obedience is due to powers in possession, though unlawfully enter'd.		1650 (1650)	Wing E3865; Thomason E597_12; ESTC R201963	43,067	59

by publike and supreame Magistrates and those too all persons of an extraordinary Call excepting the Maccabees whereas if he would have spoken to the purpose he must have given an instance from Scripture of some private Saint resisting a publike Magistrate obtaining upon pretence that in his judgement the Title of the Magistrate was not good but that indeed is a taske too hard for the whole Tribe of Exercitators In the meane time he hath sufficiently confuted himselfe in the instance concerning Athaliah for seeing the Text fares expresly Athaliah reigned six yeares and all men know there can be no raigning without Subjection it followes private persons must be subject to Usurpers in possession Againe whereas Jehoiada and those Rulers over hundreds stirr'd not for Joash his Right till the end of six yeares nor then neither but with such caution as prevented the embroyling of the Common-Wealth it 's cleare that publike persons and chiefe Magistrates may not remove an Usurper in the most cleare and uncontroverted case with danger and disturbance to the Common-Wealth And lastly whereas t is said Athaliah reigned t is evident that the Seripture speakes of Usurpers in possession as of Magistrates and not private persons But he urges a lawfull calling from the People is essentiall to a Magistrate It is answered First few Kingdomes in Europe have beene so begun or indeed otherwise then by conquest and if a consent of the people come after what is that but an effect of force And herein is briefly but clearely answered all that hee hath said for the lawfull calling of his Romane Emperours for what Tully cited by himselfe saies of one may with the same truth be said concerning all the rest He had * Attulerat jam liberae civitati partim meru partim patientia consuetudinem serviendi Cicero in M. A Philip. 2. Orar. now reduced the Citie of Rome from a state of libertie to a custome of servitude partly by feare and partly by suffering To which adde that notable testimony of Tacitus concerning Tiberius out of his owne mouth It is recorded saies Tacitus That Tiberius as often as he went out of the Senate was wont to use expressions aloud in Greeke Memorae proditur Tiberum quoties curia egrederetur grecis verbis in bunc modum elequi selitum OHO MINES AD SERVITVIEM PARATOS scilicet etiam illum qui libertatem publicam nollet tamprojectae servient ium patientiae taedehat Tacit. An. l. 3. and to this effect O men prepared for servitude the trnth is though himselfe were against publike Libertie yet hee loath'd at their base patience in submitting themselves to servitude Behold his owne Conscience condemning him of Vsurpation upon the publike libertie and yet the Exercitator is not asham'd to inforce a Title upon him though therein he oppose himselfe to the generally received judgement of the most approved writers of all sorts as were easie to shew if time would give leave But Secondly what if it were granted that the essence of a particular persons call to the office of Magistracy is such as the Exercitator would have it yet the essence of Magistracy it selfe consists not in this call and may therefore subsist without it neither can the disorder of man in the manner or circumstance about the person administring make the matter or substance of the Ordinance of God of none effect no more then the entring into the office of a high Priest among the Jewes by waies corrupt and unwarantable did null and make void the Office selfe Or to give an instance of our owne clear and unquestionable t is well knowne that persons unduly chosen Members of Parliament have properly no Right to fit and Vote in the House yet their Votes are never the lesse valid in any Act of the supream Legislative power though afterwards the undunesse of the election be prov'd and the persons discharged from further fitting in the House The like may be said concerning Vsurping Princes of this Nation whose Acts in Law stand good at this day and have a great influence into the present Policie among us But here the Exercitator replies thereis a mistake in this argument for though those Vsurping Princes entred by force or otherwise unlawfully yet they had the concurrent or subsequent consent of Parliaments Was ever man more grosly mistaken that would pretend himselfe an Aristarchus over the mistakes of others For first what power by his owne grounds hath one that enters by force or otherwise unlawfully that is an Vsurper to call a Parliament an Usurper if himselfe say true is no more but a private person and if a private person by force or otherwise unlawfully call a Parliament what is that Parliament but an effect of that force and unlawfull Act and therefore it selfe unlawfull for the effect followes the nature of the cause Nay secondly what power by his owne grounds hath a Parliament however call'd to give away the right from him hat hath it to him that hath none The people or the Exercitator is mist ken have no power to give their Consent being preing aged to a●o●he●s right nay their consent unlesse the Exercitator be fill in a mistake is void and null and a Parliament he tells us hath no power but what the people give them But thirdly granting Parliaments so call'd as hath been said lawfull and the usurping Prince legally invested as the grand corrector of mistakes speaks by those Parliaments and granting which is also his owne that the Prince must have no hand in conferring any thing to his owne Title for that were as he saies a selfe-created Titles when all is past the worst is to come for the Exercitater for from the premises it will inevitably follow First that the supreame power is originally properly and onely in the House of Commons for they onely are the representatives and by consequence the trustees of the people and therefore they onely can give a Prince a legall Title because if our Exercitator be not mistaken in his very foundation a lawfull calling from the people is essentiall to a Magistrate rightly constituted Secondly it follows clearely that the supreame power is so absolutly in the House of Commons that they may without wrong take the Kingly authority from him that had the right and give both right and it to him that had none 3ly It cannot be deny'd but if they have as by the premises the most have an obsolute power to take the Kingly authority from whom and give it to whom they thinke meete they have also a power when they shall thinke meete to reserve the exercise thereof to themselves if they shall judge it meete for the good of the Representees otherwise they should be unfaithfull to their trust Lastly it followes that the Commons sit not by ve●tue of the Princes call but their owne right for an Usurper as t is confest such were the Princes in question at the time of the calling is but a private

to publike Justice and Peace in a word as much in its owne nature and as necessarily privative of and opposite to the publike good and wel-being of the Nation as the privation of and opposition to the proper immediate and necessary meanes is in its owne nature and necessarily privative of and opposite to the end it selfe Whereupon it follows evidently and undeniably that to such a sinfull resistance of the Powers administring there can be no Obligation and consequently the Oathes objected in that respect are void by our Exercitators own concession And to evince this yet more fully if at least there can be a fuller eviction from his owne principles and expresions We say on all hands sayes our Exercitator page 33. The King it for the Kingdome as the meanes is for the end and the same in effect we have from the mouth of a King confessing and therewithall confirming this truth as a Royall Law that the King is for the Common-wealth and not the Common-wealth for the King which granted King James if Oathes and Duties doe as indeed they must oblige to respect things concern'd according to their owne ranke and dignity and the rule hold alwaies true as indeed it can never faile that finis quo ultimatior co influxu potentior the highest end hath the strongest influence and to that end as our Fuller Answer very fully still all other subordinate ends stand but in the Office of meanes 't is cleare that as both the Oathes were for the King and both King and Oathes for the Common-wealth as subordinate meanes for the ultimate End so both the one and the other oblige onely as condueing but neither the one nor the other can oblige as destructive to the Common-wealth or bonum publicum for so the nature of the meanes should be to destroy the End which is a contradiction in nature seeing the very essence and intrinsecall forme of the meanes consists in this that they are apra nata ad finent naturally conducing to the End else they are but equivocally tearm'd meanes In summe then we already have the meanes sufficient by experience to the End we have the end as the actuall fruit and effect of these meanes and therefore if the Oathes objected doe oblige to destroy those mean●s and with them the end by them already obtain'd that is if they oblige on the one side to subvert and all disobedience tends to subversion that Order and Government publike Justice and Peace which is at present in the Nation and on the other side in its stead to introduce disorder Anarchy War and consusion which all disobedience naturally tends to introduce and all this upon pretonce to reobtain other meanes if at least truly meanes though such as according to the present posture of the parties concern'd probably are never or if ever to be obtain'd threatning to prove destructive to the end itself in such case and it cannot be deny'd but such is the present case if impartially stated the Oathes objected apparently binde if said to binde to that which in its owne nature and necessarily is privative of and opposite to the publike good and wel-being of the Nation and consequently the Exercitator himselfe being Judge they are to be pronounced void for to a sinfull thing there can be no Obligation So it remaines that the true intent of the Oathes in controversie is finally lodg'd in the good of the Common-wealth neither have they any force to the destruction thereof but must needs be void if ever so intended By this times t is hop'd wee have sufficiency expedited our selves of the impeditive which our Exercitator saies will not be granted and demonstrated the privative part of his distinction Wee are now at leasure to heare what he sayes further That of the Gibeonites is no way pertinent to the present case the inconvenience of that Oath being quite of another nature bendes they were made servants though there lives were span'd which they acknowledged to be at themercy of the Israelites who considering their servitude were at no great losse by them But that their Oath was unlawfull Vrsums flatly denies nay he positively affirmes Non ideo servatur Gibeonitis iuramen ●tum quod ad illum obstingantur c Vrsin Cas. Tere. Pracept they were not bound to keepe it But to passe over his impertinences and come to his weaknesse here he tells us and we had a glance at it before hat all authority bangs no upon he back of Vsorpation NO How comes he then to define it an intrusion into the Seat of authority and a possessing and managing of the place and power thereof So it seemes though they intrude into the Seat yet they are out of the Seat and though they possess and manage the place and power yet they neither possess nor manage the place and power of Authority which is a meer contradiction and so must needs be false because no contradiction can be true He is so ingenuous afterwards as to grant the Doctrine of obedience so much better then his own of disobedience as that it will afford a little justice but his own non Well but he sales wee were not taught this Doctrine of obedience when the Parliamen began to stand up and waken the people to shake off expilation and oppression Certainly when the Parliament began wee were not taught by any but such as pleaded for the cause of that expiration and oppression whereof he speakes that the Commons in Parliament were no House were usurpers And therefore t is plaine that either this Exercitator from the beginning was one of the Common Enemies against whom wee Covenanted or else contrary to the expresse Text of the Covenant in the fixt Article hath made a defection to them for the takes up their weapons and fights their Battels however he would be thought a champion for he Covenant Againe I cannot but wonder at the ignorance of this silly Objection for had the Expilation which he takes of beene ten-fold more then was no man that either had Knowledge or Conscience of what he taught would have taught to have lifted up so much as a finger against the Expilator had we not had the impreame power of the Nation in peaceable and plenary possession to call us forth by Authority and Commission us into Order and a cause unquestionably just to justifie those Commissions nay the War on the Parliaments side being defensive not offensive the end could never be the subversion of that Order and Government publike justice and peace which the Nation then actually enjoy'd as our Exercitators end though a pretender to be studious of Peace really is but indeed by a defence lesse necessary then just to prevent the subversion of all these apparently indeavour'd by the actuall invasion of Delinquents of all sorts and Sizes The Doctrine of disobedience then is peculiar to the Exercitator and the rest of the Parke not as themselves say of old Puritans but what might