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	temporal_a	3,017	5	8.3913	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62890	The rebels plea, or, Mr. Baxters judgment concerning the late wars in these particulars : viz. the originall of government, coordinate and legislative power in the two Houses, third estate, force upon the Houses in 1642, principles the Houses went by at the beginning, destructive to monarchy, covenant, reasons for submitting to the late government.	Tomkins, Thomas, 1637?-1675.	1660 (1660)	Wing T1838; ESTC R32811	35,816	50

the best way to understand the nature of a thing is to consult the Writ that belongs to it now if the Writ calls them onely to Counsel Con●●l●m vestrum impens●ri c and De quibusdam arduis negotiis quibusdam some which he was pleased to desire their advice in not what ever they had a mind to be medling in There be fresh examples of latter times even in Qu Elizabeth's days of members sent to prison for mentioning in the House to move the Queen in a thing which highly concerned the peace of the Nation but a thing above their cognisance and it was not muttered at as breach of Priviledge If they had been intended for such sharers in the Soveraignty in the very Constitution of the Government How are the Burgesses so many more than the Knights of the Shire are the meanest Tradesmen more capable of ruling then the Gentry whose thoughts and education are sure more suitable to it That alone were enough to make one think representing to the King the several Obstructions of Trade in all parts of the Nation the greatest part of their errant it being the onely thing they are fit for Adde to this Sr. Edward Cook in Pref. to 9. Rep. reckons it ●p as one of the Priviledges of Tenants in Antient Dem●sne that they were not to be returned Burgesses to serve in Parliament His next work is to Answer two Objections 1. The Oath of Supremacy saith he secureth the Kings Title against all Foraign Claim either Pope or any other The words of that Oath are plainly these I. A. B. Doe utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience that the Kings Highnesse is the Onely Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall Thus far it is as clear and positive as words can make it The Negative part of the Oath which because it hinders not mens designes they are content to take notice of followes and that no Forraigners c. If the King is the onely Supream Governour of this Realm and the two Houses are equal with him in the Government and we may swear this and yet believe that it is time to change not onely our law but our language and the Houses should make us new Dictionaries that we may know what English words signifie The second Argument is one would think convincing The two Houses acknowledge themselves His Majesties humble and loyall Subjects assembled in Parliaments They petition the King the King never them they cannot come unlesse he cals them nor choose to come when he doth call them nor stay one minuit longer than he pleases and yet these are his equals not to say his Superiours but he that hath an equall during his own pleasure hath none at all He warns us to take heed of Titles being it is likely not ignorant that King Monarch Emperor Supream Lord Majesty were every where in the law attributed to the Kings person but of him in his politicall capacity i e. the Majesty Regality of the two Houses There is as little to be found of the Name as the thing What hath been now said may evince that proposition the Soveraign power is onely in the King to be no groundlesse one but of that more hereafter The next Objection is Legislation is the most principall part of the Soveraignes Right But that belongs to the Houses as well as the King Be it enacted by the Kings Majesty Lords and Commons c. Ergo Here Mr Baxter evidently betrays his cause before while it was for his turn the Parliament fought for and represented us as free in o● Rights exempted in the very Constitution he referred all to the Originall ●ontract but here part of the Soverainty is proved to be in the Houses by these words ●e it enacted by the King Lords and Commons termes that came up but yesterday and he is so conscious to himself of waving his first plea that he saies he will not go to records and writings i. e. he knows the example of all laws the authority of all lawyers give judgment against him if a bargain was made at first we are obliged to keep it as well as the King nor can we encroach with more honesty upon his original priviledges then he on ours But the King it seems shall be one of the three Estates and the onely one whose rights may lawfully be invaded Neither is it true that the Legislative power is partly in them they are I grant to consent to the making new and abolishing old laws but that is no cogent proof of the partition of the Supream and Legislative power It is the interest of Kings as well as their duty to make and repeale laws as they suite with or are repugnant to the good of their Country which they can no way be so well informed of as by an Assembly con●isting of men chosen out of all parts of the Realm And where there are considerable and distinct ranks of men as the Spirituall and Lay Nobility and the Commons it was fit they should all be heard and consulted with their Interests being divers and sometimes thwarting it was very like their desires would be so too It was this way provided no one part should get a grant by surprise to the disadvantage of the others and thus it was in England and this the reason of demanding the opinion of the two Houses is evident I appeal to the Body of the Acts themselves here I will not insist upon the elder presidents though I might rationally enough from them overthrow the fancy of our Rights secured in the constitution of our Government but that being so universally granted I shall cite Acts of weak Kings and later times Onely desiring this thing of the Reader that he would not think those I quote to be the onely examples to be produced and so possibly think either fraud or force hath caused the people to suppresse their Rights let him but look upon the Statutes he will quickly be rid of any such fond imagination I have therefore purposely pitched upon a weak Prince and insulting Subjects to begin with Anno decimo Edw 2. For as much as our Soveraign Lord the King by the INFORMATION of his Prelates Earls Barons c. Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent c. hath Ordained and Established So Anno 12. Edw. so in all other Our Soveraign Lord the King by the Assent of c. hath made these Acts following In the 10. of Edward the 3. where there is expresse mention of Magna Charta Charta de foresta which shews that Assembly not unmindfull of their Liberties or Priviledges yet the same stile continues It is established by the King by the Assent of c. and at the request of the said Knights and Commons In the 25. Edw. 3. The King at the request of the Lords and Commons c. 2. H. 5.

Parliament The Covenant is lyable to more exceptions then at present I am willing to take the very designe was extreamly scandalous and as great a blow to Religion I am perswaded as it ever recei●ed in the world as representing it to be the parent of the worst of vices rebellions sacriledge and perjury some men have adventured to teach that God is the author of all sin these men come very neer them that can do the worst of Villanies upon his score fear God and break his commandements and all upon the newly revealed Doctrine of Piety and Plunder Surely Humility Patience self-deniall taking up the Cross loving enemies praying for persecutors are things commended only to pusillanimous and morrall men Hath the spirit that came down upon Christ in the forme of a Dove appeared since in the shape of a Vulture or a Roman Eagle was it weaknesse not religion that kept the primitive Ch●●stians obedient must whatever they said about Rebelion be construed with this tacite reserve untill we have an opportunity We read in Scripture of a blessing laid up for those who in defence of Christ and his truth part with their Lands Houses or Life but not of any for those who upon that score invade other mens That there were no rewards appointed for those who killed Tyrants Buchanan esteemed it as a defect in policy and it is one in religion too He might as easily observed it to be an omission in the Law of God as man The quarrel was not then about Doctrine so much as discipline our articles were esteemed Orthodox our discipline not appostolick enough Their discipline in terminis in Scripture and as a command to introduce it with fire and sword in defiance of Prince and Laws are surely to be found in the same chapter These tender Consciences are very prety things that dare not conform to an indifferent Ceremony in obedience to all the authority the law of England takes notice Civill or Ecclesiasticall without an expresse command or example of Christ or his Apostles and yet without either can take up arms against their Soveraign plunder and slay all whose Consciences are not of the same size The Covenant not to mention upon what grounds they who at first Idolized it do now look upon it as an abominable Idoll lyes open to very just and very many material Ob●ections It being my businesse onely by the by I shall onely intimate those that are so obvious that they cannot escape a very ordinary observer First It is directly contrary to the Oath of Supremacy formerly taken wherein they swear the King to be the o●ely supream Governour in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Temporall which power they there swear to defend and by resolving to reform the Church without nay against his direct Command they now as absolutely with an Oath too deny it Secondly It is contrary to the Oaths of Canonical obedience to their Ordinary Bishops Chancellors c. which those of them which had entered into Orders took and conscienciously observed by swearing their utter exterpation a Government they by subsciption testified to be lawfull which judgement many of them were known never to change till it was their interest the late usuall season of conversion so to do And some think a good Bishoprick would seduce many of them to their old errour again Thirdly Ecclesiasticall affaires never were nor can be by the law of England which they broke even in this very act of Covenanting for the laws as they said consulted on in Parliament but onely to have the civill Sanction and that after the law is expresse they have been determined by the Clergy in Convocation See The Reformation of the Church of England Justified a whole book to that purpose Now whether the Assembly of Divines being not called by the King who alone hath power by the Law to do it nor elected by the Clergy who alone have power to send the true Convocation not dissolved may be called The Clergy in Convocation I will leave to any one to determine and onely observe that as in other illegall Acts the late Powers proceeded according to their example so in this particularly Their naming what members they pleased without Election of the Clergy to sit in the Assembly was a fit President for Oliver Cromwel to call whom he pleased without choice of the Country to sit in the little Parliament The State and Church was pulled down the same way Fourthly The Covenant could not be imposed according to the Doctrine of the long Parliament who Ex Col. p. 859. tels us Men are not to be compelled to be sworn without an Act of Parliament which certainly the Votes of the two Houses are not I shall not prosecute these things any further but observe some few particulars in the Covenant it self and onely wonder with what face not to say with what Conscience men the professed Champions of our Liberty and of no part so much as our Consciences in regard of Oaths imposed even by an unquestionable Authority could on the sudden use such barbarous rigour toward the freeborn people of England for not taking that Oath which themselves had according to the fore-cited Doctrine no power to impose and the others had the ●ommand of the Prince Law and unanswered Reason to refuse at least they could say what themselves once thought enough it was against their Consciences We shall now examine whether there is any amends made in the Materiall Cause for the faultinesse of the Efficient and there is a presumption that it is so sure such good men would not involve their Country in the miseries of a War resist their Prince but in an order to a thing that was very excellent if not necessary That assertion in the Preface which gives chief countenance to the undertaking is a most horrible falsity that it was according to the Commendable practise of these kingdomes in former times and the example of Gods people in other Nations England hath behaved her self so commendably that it is impossible to make it out to have been her practise whosoever swears it to have been untill he can produce his instances if he doth not meet with very charitable persons will be looked upon as one horribly Perjured The Churches of God if there were any before Presbytery Rebelled into a being whose examples may be Rules to us must be either the holy men before the law under the law or the Primitive Christians beofore Religion was made a Bawde to Interest He that thinks there can be a thing fetcht from their doings in favour of this league let him serve that cause so far as to attempt The History of Covenants and see how many examples he can produce of Fighters with their Prince for not introducing a form of Worship they better liked of than what was by law established The Covenants we read of in Scripture were not against the King but with the King nor when the Kings refused doe we