Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	supremacy_n	2,485	5	10.5338	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44125	D.E. defeated, or, A reply to a late scurrilous pamphlet vented against the Lord Bishop of Worcester's letter, whereby he vindicated himself from Mr. Baxter's misreports. / By S.H.	Holden, Samuel, fl. 1662-1676.	1662 (1662)	Wing H2381; ESTC R19194	22,454	35

and Bishops Whether our Pamphleter be a Laick or no I list not here to enquire although his Ignorance bespeaks him to be somewhat worse When he wrote this he did it in so great simplicity that his left hand knew not what his right hand did For the question is not Whether his Majesty may invest a Laick with Ecclesiastick dignities and promotions but Whether he may do it without detriment to his Kingdom and the unavoydable ruines of a Glorious Church without which his Kingship would be at an ebb We do not so farr detract from his Majesty's Power as to avow that he cannot substitute Mechanicks ' in Church-discipline But we say that if He should do it it would not a little tend to the disadvantage prejudice yea subversion of his Kingly Power And whence then doth D. E. conclude the nullity of that coherence between Kings and Bishops There is a difference between the Kings doing a thing and his doing it with safety The King may infringe the connexion betwixt him and Bishops by his discarding them But he cannot maintain his Regal Authority in such a dis-union Hence then 't is absolutely false and nothing deductive from his premisses which D. E. infers viz. That 't is very injurious to the King's authority to averr that he could not otherwise uphold himself than by preserving the undue and as some think Antichristian praelation of his inferiour officers Speak out man Some think quoth a The Man is loath to accuse himself but presents it to us under the frantick conceit of his Brethren Antichristian Methinks his own thoughts might have convinc'd him of the falsity of that passion and he might have concluded a Bishop to have been no kin to Antichrist since then A Prelate and D. E. would have been better friends 3. He will have us believe that Bishops are so little useful to support the Regal dignity that none have been greater enemies to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty than some Bishops Where we may observe the weakness of his Reason Some Bishops have abused the Kings trust therefore there is no reason why Episcopacy should be entail'd to Kingship The same reason may be alleadged against Nobility since some Nobles have employ'd their honours and capacities to the distraction of the Kingdom and the endammagement of his Majesty hence might we conclude did the method of D. E. hold good that the King may subsist without his Nobles Or what if we should recriminate on those Presbyterians who have surmis'd a Parliament essential to the Kingly Government and tell them that some of the Parliament have made Treason the design of many consultations therefore the King might and ought to subsist without any such Butteresses and Appendixes of Domination Sure they would much grumble at such an Argument And D. E. would think little reason in it But let us see what ground he had to blemish any of the Bishops with styling them Enemies to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty They are so saith he either by their scarce warrantable intermedling in Civill affairs Had he but instanced in some of those affairs as his malice would easily have done had not his ignorance countermanded it I should have known better how to Reply For I know no Secular business wherein any of them have or do Authoritatively concern themselves or wherewith they do intermingle unless the things be such as carrying a double nature have a greater allyance with Ecclesiastical than Temporal Considerations their by as directing towards the Church-interest And as for their medling with such matters I see not how D. E. could term them Unwarrantable or Prejudicial to the Kings undoubted Soveraignty But this is not all the reason of his abusing Bishops but the second way whereby he deems them the Kings Enemies is By their absurd and insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes whereby they mangle the Kings Authority leaving him no Supremacy as to Church-matters but the Name Whether our Author be a fit discerner of insignificant distinctions let any judge Why should the differencing and discriminating of Causes into Civil and Ecclesiastick be more absurd than the distinguishing of persons into such Besides who sees not what a Scandalous lie he hath here vented Whith what face could he say that the King is allowed no Soveraignty in Church-affairs but only nominal when his Majesty may and doth like disapprove regulate determine and dispose of them how and when he himself pleaseth So that although D. E. would falsely perswade us the contrary the Popes pretensions are of a nature contradistinct to those of our Bishops since his Supremacy admits of no acknowledgment of subordination So that the Pope is no more of kin to our Bishops than D. E. to Truth and Honesty If our Pamphleter be so good at lying I should scarce trust him this dear year lest he should exercise his skill in another faculty But he proceeds If the Bishop of Worcester's Rule hold good Crimine ab uno Disce omnes i. e. that all men of a party may be judged by the miscarriage of one then you may judge by the Bishop of Worcester what the rest drive at What pains doth D. E. take in an exposition He would fain perswade us that he understands Latin when it may be he was obliged to the Civility of a Rider's Dictionary As for his retorting that sentence Crimine ab uno Disce omnes urg'd by my Lord of Worcester upon The Presbyterians let me tell him 't was done without the least dram of understanding For although we should grant to D. E. that this one Bishop though it can never be proved is guilty of Usurpation yet the Phrase cannot with the same reason be rebandied on Episcopacy through his default who is farre from engrossing the name of Prelacy as it was objected first against the Presbyterians because of the misdemeanour of Mr. Baxter who pretends to the Monopoly of Presbytery arrogating to himself the antesignation and representment of all the rest The Vanity of D. E. his first exception is sufficiently discovered I shall also make bare the insufficiency of the rest II. EXCEPT OUR Pamphleter takes it very ill that the Bishop of Worcester should call himselfe the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocese Deeming that such a position must needs be defended by the Arguments produced in behalfe of the Pope's Supremacy I wonder what could introduce into his thoughts such a conclusion or what could suggest that the same must be the Reason for a Bishops superintendency over one particular Diocese and in subordination to his Majesty's command and for the Pope to assume the universall command of all churches without the acknowledgement of any higher Power to which he should submitt I wonder whence D. E. derives such dreams as that there should be a parity of reason and Convenience for his Holynesse's governing the Church by such a populous plurality of Substitutes as that it is utterly impossible for him to