Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	king_n	power_n	3,921	5	4.7466	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46955	Julian's arts to undermine and extirpate Christianity together with answers to Constantius the Apostate, and Jovian / by Samuel Johnson.	Johnson, Samuel, 1649-1703.; Constantius II, Emperor of Rome, 317-361.; Jovian, Emperor of Rome, ca. 331-364.	1689 (1689)	Wing J832; ESTC R16198	97,430	242

you and your People no small Security and Comfort With such Laws as saith St. Thomas should all Mankind have been governed if in Paradise they had not transgressed God's Commandment With such Laws also was the Synagogue ruled while it was under God only as King who adopted the same to him for a peculiar Kingdom but at the last when at their request they had a Man-King set over them they were then under Royal Laws only brought very low Chap. 10. Then the Prince thus said How cometh it to pass good Chancellor that one King may govern his People by Power Royal only and that another King can have no such Power Seeing both these Kings are in Dignity equal I cannot chuse but much muse and marvel why in Power they should thus differ Of which Difference in Authority over their Subjects the Chancellor in the next Chapter promises to shew the Reason which is grounded upon the different Originals of those Kingdoms And accordingly chap. 12. he shews that an Absolute Monarchy is founded in the forced Consent of a subdued and inslaved People and chap. 13. That a Kingdom of Politick Governance is founded in the voluntary Consent of the Community And after he has illustrated the first Institution of a Politick Kingdom by shewing how it resembles the Formation of a natural Body he thus proceeds in the 13 th Chapter Now you understand most noble Prince the Form of Institution of a Kingdom Politick whereby you may measure the Power which the King thereof may exercise over the Law and Subjects of the same For such a King is made and ordained for the Defence of the Law of his Subjects and of their Bodies and Goods whereunto he receiveth Power of his People so that he cannot govern his People by any other Power Wherefore to satisfy your Request in that you desire to be certified how it cometh to pass that in the Power of Kings there is so great diversity Surely in mine Opinion the diversity of the Institutions or first Ordinances of those Dignities which I have now declared is the only Cause of this foresaid Difference as of the Premises by the Discourse of Reason you may easily gather For thus the Kingdom of England out of Brute's Retinue of the Trojans which he brought out of the Coasts of Italy and Greece first grew to a Politick and Regal Dominion Thus also Scotland which sometime was subject to England as a Dukedom thereof was advanced to a Politick and Royal Kingdom Many other Kingdoms also had thus their first beginning not only of Regal but also of Politick Government Wherefore Diodorus Siculus in his second Book of ancient History thus writeth of the Egyptians The Egyptian Kings lived at first not after the licentious manner of other Rulers whose Will and Pleasure is instead of Law but as it had been private Persons they were bound by the Law neither did they think much at it being persuaded that by obeying the Laws they should be happy For by such Rulers as followed their own Lusts they thought many Things were done whereby they should incur divers Harms and Perils And in his fourth Book thus he writeth The Ethiopian King as soon as he is created he ordereth his Life according to the Laws and doth all things after the Manner and Custom of his Country assigning neither Reward nor Punishment to any Man other than the Law made by his Predecessors appointeth He reporteth much the same of the King of Saba in Arabia Faelix and of certain other Kings which in old Time reigned happily Chap. 14. To whom the Prince thus answered You have good Chancellor with the clear Light of your Declaration dispelled the Clouds wherewith my Mind was darkned so that I do most evidently see that no Nation did ever of their own voluntary Mind incorporate themselves into a Kingdom for any other Intent but only to the end that they might enjoy their Lives and Fortunes which they were afraid of losing with greater Security than before And of this Intent should such a Nation be utterly defrauded if then their King might spoil them of their Goods which before was lawful for no Man to do And yet should such a People be much more injured if they should afterwards be governed by foreign and strange Laws yea and such as they peradventure deadly hated and abhorred And most of all if by those Laws their Substance should be diminished for the Safeguard whereof as also for the Security of their Persons they of their own accord submitted themselves to the Governance of a King. No such Power for certain could proceed from the People themselves and yet unless it had been from the People themselves such a King could have had no Power at all over them Now on the other side I perceive it to stand much otherwise with a Kingdom which is incorporate by the King 's sole Power and Authority because such a Nation is subject to him upon no other Terms but that this Nation which was made his Kingdom by his Will and Pleasure should obey and be governed by his Laws which are nothing else but the same Will and Pleasure Neither have I yet good Chancellor forgotten that which in your Treatise of the Nature of the Law of Nature you have learnedly proved that the Power of these two Kings is equal while the Power of the one whereby he is at liberty to deal wrongfully is not by such Liberty augmented as to have Power to decay and die is not Power but because of the Privations which are added to it is rather to be called Impotency and Want of Power because as Boetius saith Power is not but to Good. So that to be able to do Evil which the King who rules Regally is more at liberty to do than the King that has a Politick Dominion over his People is rather a Diminution than an Increase of his Power For the Holy Spirits which are now established in Glory and cannot sin do in Power far excell and pass us who have a delight and pleasure to run headlong into all kind of Wickedness It is plain to any attentive Reader that throughout this long Discourse Fortescue speaks but of two sorts of Kingdoms an absolute Monarchy and a limited Monarchy the latter of which he sometimes calls a Politick Government and sometimes he calls the very same Regal and Politick to distinguish it more expresly from an Aristocracy or Democracy But I will prove this beyond contradiction by some other Passages in Fortescue where he tells us that some of the former Kings of England would fain have changed the Laws of England for the Civil Law and did all they could to shake off this Politick Yoke of the Law of England that they also might rule or rather rage over their Subjects in Regal wise only and for this end endeavoured with might and main to cast away their Politick Government This is what our Author would have and

against Bp Bilson who in his Book of the true difference betwixt Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion dedicated to Queen Elizabeth being a Dialogue between Theophilus a Christian and Philander a Jesuite so that a Jesuite in that Age was not thought worthy to be accounted a Christian has several large Discourses which do not at all accord with the Passive Doctrine tho my Answerers have used great force and violence towards him to get him on their side The Author of Jovian particularly p. 229 has strangely wrested him for what the Bishop Physician-like prescribes to the Papists who had the Laws mortally against them Deliverance if you would have obtain it by Prayer and expect it in Peace those be weapons for Christians that Author applies in his old way to those who blessed be God have the Laws on their side and Deliverance by them already And so in the next passage the Bishop speaking of the same Case says The Subject has no refuge against his Soveraign but only to God by Prayer and Patience But this is not the Case of Men who are under the Protection of the Laws which were made on purpose to be a Defence and Refuge against all lawless Oppression whatsoever or else as Chancellour Fortescue says the People would be cruely cheated Afterwards that Author skips over a large Defence of the French Protestants and of Luther's Doctrine concerning which I may say to him in the Bishop's words And this I ween you will hardly refute or convert to your purpose and sets down a Passage which I will supply by adding the words which immediately follow in Bilson Phil. What their Laws permit I know not I am sure in the mean time they resist Theo. And we because we do not exactly know what their Laws permit see no reason to condemn their Doings without hearing their Answer Phil. Think you their Laws permit them to rebel Theo. I busie not my self in other Men's Common-wealths as you do neither will I rashly pronounce all that resist to be Rebels Cases may fall out even in Christian Kingdoms where the People may plead their Right against the Prince and not be charged with Rebellion Phil. As when for Example Theo. If a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Forreign Realm or change the form of the Common-wealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws established by common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons joyn together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be counted Rebels Phil. You denied that even now when I did urge it Theo. I denied that Bishops had Authority to prescribe Conditions to Kings when they crowned them But I never denied that the People might preserve the Foundation Freedom and Form of their Common-wealth which they foreprised when they first consented to have a King. Lastly Why do they not urge these Homilies against all the Compilers of them and the whole Clergy of England who in several Convocations in Queen Elizabeth's Reign not only maintained in words the Justice of the French Scotch and Dutch Defences which the Protestants of those Countries made for the safeguard of their Lives Liberties and Religion but laid down their Purses to help them and charged themselves deeply with Taxes in consideration of the Queen 's great Charges and Expences in assisting them As you may see in the Preambles of the Clergies Subsidy-Acts in that Reign 5 Eliz. cap. 24. Amongst other Considerations for which they give their Subsidy of six shillings in the pound they have these words And finally pondering the inestimable Charges sustained by your Highness aswell of late days in reducing the Realm of Scotland to Unity and Concord as also in procuring as much as in your Highness lieth by all kind of godly and prudent means the abating of all Hostility and Persecution within the Realm of France practised and used against the Professors of God's holy Gospel and true Religion The first thing in this Passage is the Queen's Assistance of the Scotish Nobility in their Reformation in which the Queen of Scotland resisted them to her power by bringing French Forces into Scotland which is set down at large in our Chronicles The Temporality in their Subsidy-Act call this Assistance The Princely and upright Preservation of the Liberty of the next Realm and Nation of Scotland from imminent Captivity and Desolation The other thing is the godly and prudent means for abating Hostility and Persecution within the Realm of France Now History will inform us that those were the Forces sent under Dudley Earl of Warwick to Newhaven to assist the Hugonots who were then in Arms. We have some modern illuminated Divines who would not stick to call this the abetting of a Rebellion but the whole Bishops and Clergy and amongst them the Compilers of the Homilies call it the use of Godly and Prudent Means to abate Hostility and Persecution practised against the Professors of God's holy Gospel and true Religion for so that Charitable Clergy could find in their hearts to call a parcel of Calvinists who never had a Bishop amongst them whom some in this degenerate Age would sooner unchurch and destroy than aid or assist Again The Clergy grant another Subsidy 35 Eliz. c. 12. in consideration of her Majesty's Charges in the provident and needful Prevention of such intended Attempts as tended to the extirpation of the sincere Profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere The Temporalties Subsidy-Act at the same time will explain this to us in these Reasons for their Tax Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it hath pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making you the principal Support of all just and Religious Causes against Usurpers Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we do conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient Leagues the Justice and Equity of their Causes And to the same purpose again the Temporalty 39. Eliz. cap. 27. This Land is become since your Majesties happy Days both a Port and Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of mighty and usurping Potentates Neither are the Clergy in their Subsidy-Act 43 Eliz. cap. 17. at all behind them either with their Money or Acknowledgments For who hath or should have a livelier Sense or better Remembrance of your Majesties Princely Courage and Constancy in advancing and protecting the free Profession of the Gospel within and without your Majesties Dominions than your Clergy From hence I argue That if the French and Dutch Protestants were Rebels in defending themselves against illegal and destructive Violence then the Bishops and Clergy of England quite through Queen Elizabeth's Reign by their assisting of them involved themselves in the same Guilt For it

Reformers with one odious Name or other and above all are so very desirous to have it believed that the pretended Church of Rome but real Synagogue of Satan is a true Church of Christ which they are no more able to make out than to prove the Devil to be a true Angel of Light. For instead of being a Catholick Church it is a plain Catholick Apostacy as the Protestation of Archbishop Vsher and the rest of the Irish Bishops Novemb. 1626. does justly term it AN ANSWER TO THE BOOK HAving now done with the Preface before I return an Answer to any part of the Book I shall set down the Substance of it whereby the Reader will be enabled to judg what parts of it do require an Answer The Design of my Book was to shew that the Primitive Christians would have been for a Bill of Exclusion which I proved by shewing how much they were against a Pagan Successor both by their hearty Wishes he had been fore-closed and by their Uneasiness under him when he was Emperor Our Author answers the former of these Proofs by endeavouring to shew that the Empire was not Hereditary which I have already considered in the Preface And as for the other Proof which was the Behaviour of the Christians toward Julian when he was Emperor it is all Matter of Fact and therefore tho our Author wrangles and raises many Cavils about it some of which I shall examine anon yet he cannot disprove one Syllable of it Now this Argument concludes à fortiori thus Would not the Christians have petitioned at least for Julian's Exclusion when he was a Subject seeing they spent so many Prayers and Tears for his Destruction when he was Emperor Would that whole Church which leaped for Joy and triumphed at his untimely and violent Death have scrupled his Exclusion Would they have thought Julian wronged in being barred from succeeding to the Empire who thought themselves wronged and injured in that Constantius did not kill him instead of making him Caesar Which Julian himself represents as the Sence of the City of Antioch The Behaviour of the Christians was so very rough towards Julian that I could not ascribe it wholly to his being a Pagan but shewed that his Illegal Oppression and Tyranny was also the cause why they pursued him with so much Hatred The Substance of our Author's Answer to this is That Julian could not oppress them illegally if he would because it was his Royal Pleasure to have the Christians suffer after this manner and his Will according to Gregory was an unwritten Law and much stronger than the written ones which were not back'd with Power and Authority Yes that is Gregory's Complaint and the very illegal Oppression against which he exclaims That when the Christians were under the Protection of the Publick Laws and Edicts yet they were destroyed by dumb Signs and private Hints and oftentimes upon a meer presumption of the Emperor's Pleasure And whoever will please to read Jacob. Gothofredus his Vlpianus sive de Principe legibus soluto will see how much our Author has perverted and misapplied all the Shreds of Civil Law which he hath made use of upon this occasion In short our Author grants that the Christians were highly provoked against Julian but then he says p. 182. The main Ground of their Displeasure against him was this That he would not formally persecute them nor put them to Death enough As for the word Formally we find that explained p. 133. He put them not to Death formally as Christians but accused and condemned them for other Crimes Now this is one Instance which I gave of his illegal Oppression and Tyranny that being it did not stand with his Conveniences to enact Sanguinary Laws against Christianity he found out ways of putting the Christians to Death upon false and pretended Crimes of Sacrilege and Treason So that tho they died meerly for their Religion yet they had not the Honour of dying for it but suffered under the Character of the greatest Malefactors and both they and their Reputation were murdered at once This indeed was a just Cause of their Displeasure against Julian but I cannot say with our Author that they were displeased at him because he did not put them to Death enough for I thought he had given them their Belly-full of that Does Gregory call him Dragon Murtherer common Cut-Throat or as the Scholiast renders it bloody Devil for this because he did not put them to Death enough Were there no Halters nor Precipices in the Roman Empire but must Heaven and Earth be moved against Julian for this because he would not put them to Death enough I can only say 'T is very much This Discourse about Julian's illegal Oppression of the Christians and their Behaviour thereupon towards him led me to speak of the Duty of Passive Obedience or suffering for our Religion which I asserted to be our Duty only then when the Laws are against our Religion and shewed that Christianity does not oblige us to submit to illegal Violence but to defend our selves against it I found a Necessity for the true stating of this Duty because the Doctrine of Passive Obedience has been so handled of late as to tempt Oppression and Tyranny into the World by pressing it upon Mens Consciences as a necessary Duty that they ought to submit to the most Arbitrary Oppression and illegal destructive Violence I shewed that by this Doctrine in the Case of a Popish Successor which is no impossible Case witness the Expedient at Oxford we should be ready bound hand and foot to invite the Popish Knife it would expose a whole Protestant People and Nation at once and give them but one Neck which a Popish Successor by the Principles of his Religion is bound to cut off In defence of this Doctrine our Author spends the Remainder of his Book to which as being a matter of the greatest Consequence I shall immediately apply my self and consider the Arguments which he has brought for it That I may avoid all Obscurity in an Argument of this weight and importance wherein the Lives of all English Protestants and their Posterity are concerned I shall 1. Shew how far this Author and I are perfectly agreed 2. State the Difference betwixt us We are both agreed 1. That the King's Person is Sacred and inviolable by Law. 2. That inferior Magistrates acting by the King's Authority according to Law may not be resisted And therefore neither the King's Person nor his Authority are any ways included in this Controversy But in the second place it is somewhat more difficult to state the Difference betwixt us for never was there such a Proteus of Passive Doctrine as this is Nevertheless by tracing him carefully quite through this Argument I find his Sence to be this That by the Imperial Laws or Laws of the Prerogative in case the Forces of a Popish and Tyrannical Prince do outrage and murther the