Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	child_n	husband_n	wife_n	1,655	5	6.9646	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47255	A dialogue between two friends occasioned by the late revolution of affairs, and the oath of allegiance by W.K. ...	Kennett, White, 1660-1728.	1689 (1689)	Wing K300; ESTC R16675	26,148	42

is neither my design nor pertinent to the business in hand to begin a Discourse of the difference between Vows and Oaths Suppose the Oath were made to God which in propriety of Speech is a Vow how does that weaken or invalidate the force of the Argument It matters not whether it be a Vow to God or an Oath to Man so long as the matter of it is so express and declarative of the King's Duty and the Peoples Rights and Priviledges Jac. The taking the Coronation Oath was the Conquerors Condescention a compliance with the Customs usual at the Inauguration of former Kings and has no tendency to a Compact or Bargain with the People Will. You may stile it what you please but 't was such a Condescention or Compliance without which unless he had first won it by an absolute Conquest he had never possessed the Crown of England And the Ancient Rites of the Coronation it self had some footsteps of this Contract viz. The Presenting the King on the day of his Coronation to the People upon every corner of the Scaffold and asking them if they would have him for their King I do not suppose the People had power to refuse or reject the Person thus exhibited that would have render'd the Kingdom Elective but the Custom being an ancient Ceremony and commonly used till Edward the Sixth's Coronation is in my Judgment a more than plausible Argument of a Contract between the Supreme Power and the Subjects Jac. How can that be the King of England is Invested with all the Rights and Prerogatives of Royalty before he is Crown'd Will. Right The King is before his Coronation as absolute a Monarch as after This the Case of Watson and Clark who Conspir'd against King James before his Coronation and were condemn'd of High Treason puts beyond all Controversie and the Reason of this is clear the Paction and Agreement between King and People is an inseperable Concomitant to the Crown devolves with it to the next Successor and is the tacite Condition and Terms upon which he accepts the Government So that 't is no more necessary or expedient for every Heir as to the Esse of his being King to Declare the Conditions immediately upon his coming to the Crown than 't was requisite for every successive Generation when the Court of Wards was in force to declare he held his Lands by Knights Service the ancient Tenure of the Estate sufficiently evinc'd the former and the very Descent of the Crown to the next of Blood brings with it a tacite implication of all the Immunities and Liberties of the Subjects in as full and ample a manner as if they had been repeated a thousand times over Jac. The Court of Wards is as signal a Badge of a Conquest as undoubted a Character of Vassalage and Slavery as any we can possibly instance in Will. The Court of Wards has so little relation to Slavery that the Law terms it only a Service and all Servants are not Slaves though all Slaves may be called Servants in the most strict sense 't is only a Token of Subjection and comparatively an Ensign of Freedom a lasting Monument of Stipulation and Agreement between the Royal Authority and the People When at such an easie rate as attending the Wars in extraordinary and emergent Occasions a Man has an intire Propriety in so large an Estate so ample an Inheritance And the very Antiquity of these Courts doth sufficiently evidence the nulity of a Conquest These being in force in the Reign of King Alfred and surviv'd your Conquest many Generations Jac. A Paction between the King and the People is a strange Assertion and to say that the People can make a King is very little less than a contradiction Will. Pray explain your self and shew for what Reasons Jac. Because the Royal Authority has a power lodged in it which the Subjects have neither Right or Pretence to confer For Example The power of Life and Death are in the hand of the Supreme Magistrate which 't is impossible he could receive from the People because no Man has power of his own Life much less has he Right or Authority to put it into another Mans disposal Will. Here we must distinguish between Absolute and Conditional No Man has an absolute Power over his own Life so as to lay violent hands upon himself or oblige another to shed his Blood yet every Man hath hath a conditional Power upon this account that is he is capable as he is a Member of the Body Politick to Covenant and agree with the Head and the other Members that conditionally he violate those Laws the Transgression of which the whole Society have by Statute Law Ordain'd to be punished with Death he will submit to the Punishment So that the King has not an Absolute Power of Life and Death the latter is only a Penalty conditionally we break such Established Laws And this Power is rather in the Laws than the Supreme Magistrate for the King himself without manifest Violence and Injustice has no power to put any Man to death contrary to Law or upon a particular Humor Jac. Suppose we grant somewhat of Agreement or Paction between the Conqueror and the English Nobility what Advantage is that to us Did the People indeed and in reality Elect the King as their Governour when once the Act was done and Allegiance sworn the People have no more Reason or Pretence to revoke or annul that Election than a Wife who has chosen a Husband promised him her Obedience join'd her self to him in Marriage has to put away her Husband and to say that the People may Depose their King if there be a Bargain or Contract between them is to affirm the Wife may Divorce the Husband because she chose him Will. If all this be granted you here contend for I cannot imagine how it would weaken or prejudice our present Cause The Wife after Marriage may not put away her Husband that lives with her as an Husband Nay though a very ill Husband turn Nonthirft spend his Estate abuse her Person prove unnatural to her Children notwithstanding all this she is obliged to an entire Obedience But if her Husband prove Tyrannically cruel so far prosecute the wicked Counsels and Designs of her Enemies as to give signal and evident Demonstrations that he intends her Ruine Destruction and Death If he be in himself insufficient as in the Case of the Countess of Essex by her Husband Devereux the Laws allow relief to such a Distressed Wife And can we suppose there is greater care taken for a particular Member than for the whole Body In short though the Wife cannot put away the Husband because she chose him yet the Cruelties Injustice Violence and Irregularities of the Husband may be such as may give just cause of Divorcement Jac. But were it not Grand Impiety by violence to seize upon the Estate or Goods of a private Man and dispose of it to others