Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	law_n	people_n	4,588	5	5.1230	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A75590	The Army no usurpers, or The late Parliament not almighty and everlasting: shewing, that the present army in their former opposing, and late dissolving of the Parliament, have done nothing contrary to law, but according to equity. And that the late Parliaments claim of power to do what they please, until they should be dissolved by their own consent, is long since made void by their own act.		1653 (1653)	Wing A3712; Thomason E697_13; ESTC R23359	7,197	15

obtaining the greatest good or to resist the higher powers in that sense as the Scripture requires obedience to them is not in any sort to be justified by honest men much less by Christians And therefore Although it is of no less then Divine Institution Exod. 18.21 Dan. 7.14.18 Isa 49.23 Exod. 7.4 that men fearing God should have the government which many of those were not Though such Magistrates have been of old promised as a great blessing to mankind and advantage to the truth Though through the late unwonted providences it seems to be now in design especially here in England though the whole Creation shortly to be delivered groans under those Pharaoh's that will not let the People receive the Gospel Mat. 24.14 or serve God otherwise then they please Though the late Parliament have been so frequently attempting to infringe the liberty of the Godly and that very people by the price of whose blood they were setled in their power yet I shall not take sanctuary from any of these Considerations 2 Sam. 23.17 to prove either the equity of the aforesaid proceeding or the Injustice of the Parliaments aforesaid claim but in order thereunto shall insist only upon these four Particulars 1. That the late Parliament were long since divested of their National power 2. That their ruling power was from a new choice of their own party 3. That their own party had power to lay them aside upon mislike 4. That this power of their own party was in their Armies And first for the first The Parliament having declared against the King step up into his Throne by taking upon them the ruling power So that whereas before they were as the People ruled Assembled onely pro tempore to controul their Rulers and make Laws for them to rule by they are now the standing Rulers that are subject to the like controul from the People For Both these powers they could not have at once because there was no Law for it and it was against equity When was there ever any Law made that in case any King be declared to break his trust by any Parliament that same Parliament shall succeed him in his dominion and yet not be subject to the Controul of the People as the King was I highly presume such a ridiculous Law as this was never made and for equity 1. It makes the Parliament both judge and party in their own cause whereby they may do what they will and say it is well 2. It is otherwise injurious in three respects First it lays a temptation upon Parliaments to declare against good Kings that they might obtain their dominion 2. It makes good Parliaments liable to suspicion for doing their duty against Kings and lastly it might make other Parliaments neglect their duty for avoyding that suspicion And thus you see how much this double power is against equity Now since that claim which hath no ground either in Law or equity is void it follows that the Parliament by accepting of the ruling power since I say there was no Law and it was against equity for them to hold both dissolved themselves by their own Act as to their Parliamentary or National Power 2. That their ruling Power was from a new choice of their own Party If the People had suspected a meer design in the Parliament to gain the Kings dominion to themselves and having shared a good part of the Publike Treasure amongst them in the end to make their peace with the King by betraying those that assisted them unto his lust which was a thing possible yet if the People had been bound up by their first choice they must either have submitted to the Kings will in not opposing him or to the Parliaments in being betrayed by them For a medium betwixt Acting and not Acting cannot be found but they were free from this exigency for There was no Law to constrain them to chuse the Parliament for a ruling power who as yet I say are no more then the people ruled that have power to controul their rulers And as there was no Law so there was no equity that they should be constrained to it against their wills since they were not slaves but a free People so that their submitting themselves to the Parliament as a Ruling power was a new choice of them to a new Office and that of their own party onely for Royalists opposed it and Neuters paid not Contribution but by constraint 3. Their own party had power to lay them aside upon mislike Their ruling power being only of free gift upon liking from their own party they were but as Tenants at Will to be laid aside upon mislike since their own party never gave them power to rule which way and how long they pleased and without their gift they could not have it and if it had been otherwise they were in a better condition when they had Kings that were controulable Again the Parliaments party could not give the Parliament an uncontroulable power though they would for men are not sole Lords and Masters of their own lives much less of their posterities and therefore cannot give that to others which is not their own to give And therefore to conclude if I trust another with the custody of my goods I may remove them upon suspicion much more my person especially when I never indented how long he should keep either and it is no prejudice to him since he hath no right to any dominion over me especially if he professes to aim at nothing but my good and undergoes much trouble therein which being the very case in hand it is cleer that the Parliaments own party had power to lay them aside upon mislike Object Since the Royalists and Neuters were reduced to their obedience their own party could not cast them off without their consent Answ By the same reason they must have had the consent of Ireland and Scotland in it also but especially in dealing with the late King in whom those Nations had interest as well as we But I say there is no equity at all that those who did not make choice of the Parliament themselves as a ruling power should impose them upon others Lastly I deny that the enemy were reduced to the obedience of the Parliament as the Objection says for by that reckoning the Parliament must have sat for ever but they were reduced to the obedience of that government which the Parliaments party should think fit to set up over themselves Object The removing of the Parliament was against the late Ingagement Answ Was it at all intended by the late Ingagement that the Parliament should sit for ever Or did it not rather refer to a being satisfied without King or house of Lords and in the absence thereof to be true and faithfull to the present government that was and should be established Again The Parliament men were once all bound as subjects to obey the King and yet as a Parliament they