Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	duke_n	great_a	king_n	3,144	5	4.0015	3	true

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

What Sacriledge then must it be to Invade the Dignities Royal and dispose of the Crown and Scepter Will. Causelesly to make forcible entry upon any Mans Goods or Estate and by violence to keep Possession is plain and open Robbery yet a Man may be Guilty of such Illegal Actions such indiscret and undue Behaviour as may cause a seizure of both his Moveables and Possessions without any manifest Wrong or Injury to the once Right owner And the Laws allow a particular Man for Just and Reasonable Causes to Disinherit his eldest Son and Entail the Estate upon others of his Posterity only for the preservation of a private Family and I would fain hear a solid Argument why such an Advantageous Priviledge in extream Necessity should be denyed the Publick Jac. The Reason is clear and obvious the Rights and Properties of Subjects or private Men are confirm'd by the Laws of the Land made theirs by Agreement But the Prerogatives of the Crown are a Divine Right the Imperial Diadem setled upon the Royal Head by the Almighties own appointment Will. If this were but proved the business were done But alas this Doctrine is both groundless and absurd for whatever Monarch holds his Scepter jure Divino must either be invested by an immediate Divine Designation viz. a special and extraordinary Commission from Divine Providence as that of Saul David Solomon Jehu or else Successively by a Legitimate Descent from Persons thus Designed as that of Rehoboam Asa Jehosophat to the former of these the Monarchs of England have no Pretence and if the latter invest them with it 't is derived either from the Ancient Saxons or from the Norman Line That the first had no such Divine designation is clear from the Story of Hengist and Horsa And that no such pretence can be made from King William stiled the Conqueror will be more than evident from his Ambitious Designs his illegal Attempts his hostile and unnatural Proceedings and his Barbarous in Actions wading through Torrents of Blood riding in Triumph over heaps of slaughtered Innocents to ascend a Throne and grasp at a Scepter to which he had no more right than the Great Mogul And if the Norman Duke first entred by force of Arms and after a Battel compounded for the Crown 't is vain and ridiculous to urge Prescription to make a Divine Right be cause what in the beginning was not Divine Process of time can never impress with a Divine Character Jac. But Solomon affirms Eccles. 8. 14. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou Will. Right the words of Kings are Powerful and no Man ought to dispute their Commands But the Reason of it is grounded upon that Confidence we put in the Supreme Authority that his Mandates will be always Lawful But this Place of Scripture has a peculiar relation to the Kings of Israel a People whom God chose to enter into Covenant with and over whom he Exercised such a special Providence that 't was usual with him to set up one and pull down another and cause to Govern whom he pleased Thus when he had granted an extraordinary Commission to his Prophets and they had Anointed the designed Person King over that People his Word was powerful and to be obeyed because so immediately constituted God's Vicegerent But this Command is not adapted to our Circumstances neither does it add to our Duty of Allegiance and we may as rationally evince the Levitical Laws obligatory in England as evidence the British Monarchy Iure Divino from this place of Scripture Besides if this Doctrine were applicable to the Monarchs we live under 't would be destructive to our Established Government and repugnant to the Apostolick Doctrine If a King decease whilst his Heir is an Infant by this Argument the whole Realm must be subject to his fond and childish Commands and when he is arrived to those years in which Passions are more vigorous and youthful Lusts strongly importune to ascend the Stage and act their Scene even in the violent prosecutions of those leud Debauches a Grave and Reverend Bishop dares not advise him to a Reformation of Manners to live soberly and become religious for fear he transgress his Precept of saying unto him what doest thou But what 's infinitely worse may happen the Heir to the Crown may be born a Fool or Ideot or by accident be a Lunatick or labour under a grievous Disease of Madness and yet no man must gain say or contradict him if this Argument be valid Jac. A Child incapacitated to govern by tender years ought to be put under Protectors and Tutors during his Childhood but in his Adult State his mature Age may challenge this Authority A Fool or Ideot can never be brought sensible what Government is and a Lunatick or Mad-man is more incapable of Government than either So that not only Reason but Nature's Instinct of Self preservation commands us to fence these from the Crown and Scepter Will. An Infant is as much a Monarch in his Minority as in his mature and riper Years and if he ought to be under Tutors and Governours they must have power to say unto him what doest thou Or we may reasonably infer he will be very ill Tutor'd A Fool or an Ideot though in all his Actions innocent must be obliterated from the Line of Succession and a Lunatick or Mad-man who never acted against or endeavour'd the destruction of Church or State must lose his Right because incapacitated by his Disease Why then by parity of Reason may not a Papist be excluded who hath already so vehemently shook the Foundations of Government both Ecclesiastical and Civil and for the future stands bound by all the Sacred Obligations of Oaths and Vows obliged under the penalty of forfeiting his Diadem and Scepter in this World and his precious and immortal Soul in that to come to extirpate our Religion subvert our Laws and reduce us to the Subjection and Vassallage of the Roman Yoak Jac. This Argument I confess does a little stagger my Judgment but when I remember those other express and positive places of Scripture so pertinent to this present Controversie I am radicated as firm as before Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and Princes decree judgment 1 Sam. 26. 9. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed and be guiltless What can be more clear or obvious what more positively evinced than Monarchy Iure Divino from these Texts Will. 'T is true the places of Scripture do sufficiently evidence the Divine Right of the Kings of Israel but they prove nothing for the Kings of England And indeed not only these but all other places of Sacred Writ in the Old Testament that evidence Regal Authority to be founded by Divine Providence have such a proper Aspect such a peculiar Relation to the Jewish Government that they can be expounded of no other Constitution unless there be