Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	call_v	govern_v	king_n	2,454	5	3.7709	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85888	A vindication of the Oath of allegiance in ansvver to a paper disperst by Mr Sam: Eaton, pretending to prove the Oath of allegiance voyd, and non-obliging. Wherein his positions against it are examined and confuted. / By the author of the Exercitation concerning usurped powers.	Gee, Edward, 1613-1660.; Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G452; Thomason E593_6; ESTC R202111	38,293	50

in the said conveyers greater then that which is so conveyed by them because they that by Election or consent invest the Magistrate with power Those axiomes quicquid efficit tale illud est magis tale Nihil dat quod non habet are not ment of Instrumentall but of principall efficients are not the proper or principall efficient causes of that power but only the applyers of it to the person and the instrumentall means of giving him a right therein God by his institution and ordination is the efficient cause of the Magistrates power and therefore he indeed is superior to him and he alone In the advancement of men to that office God only acteth authoritatively men by the choice of the person and consenting to him do it ministerially This proposition that which is the cause of power is it selfe of greater power may be true of the principall efficient but cannot hold of the subordinate or instrumentall cause a wife as the meanes giveth the power of a husband over her to him whom she marryeth by her consent in marriage of him a servant in like manner giveth power to his master over him by his voluntary agreeing to be his servant yet can it not thence be concluded that the wife or servant are greater in power respectively then the husband or master an over topping or super-regall power then in the Parliament or a super-parliamentary and super-regal power in the people cannot be bottomed on that reason 5 As for that which is said as the ad reason the power of the Parliament is the power of the people now in reason c. I answer 1. There is a petition of a principle not to be granted not offered to be proved which is that Magistraticall power or authority even supreme is seated in the people I have brought reasons for the refutation of this before and I shall only here say first Rulers are called the powers the bearers of the sword the revengers to execute wrath upon him that doth evill we read of their commission and instructions for Magistracy in Scripture but where find we any such thing spoken of or granted to the people 2 Rulers are stiled powers of God his ordained his ordinance his Ministers Judges for him but where read wee that they are the peoples power or subordinate ministers 3 The people are the object about which the subject over which the power is set and therefore cannot be the agent or subject in which it is stated 4 If Supreme authority be in the people then they may manage it themselves for in vain is that power that cannot be reduced into act and hold it in their own hands and need not choose or constitute any higher powers or Magistrates over them which cannot be if Magistracy be an Ordinance of God and necessary by divine precepts as it is Deut. 16.18 and to reject it would be sinfull as this man tells us in his first position 5 If the people be a power and that supreme they must have some to be their subjects and who are their subjects either themselves or their Magistrates not themselves for every relation and therefore Magistracy and subjection must have two terms never was such a politicall state heard of wherein the same men are both under and over themselves in the same power Not the Magistrates for we read of no such ordinance of God as a humane power over the Magistracy but contrarywise they are said in relation to the people to be set over to be the rulers and heads of the people and to be the higher powers and the supreme * Deutr. 1 13.5.17.14.15 2. Sam. 23 3. Ro. 13.1 1. Pet. 2.13 6 If it be so then there is no specificall distinction or distribution of Government in generall into divers Species as into Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy as hath been generally held and accordingly practised but all government is Democraticall Monarchy and Aristocracy are specifically the same with and but subordinate offices under it 2 Suppose the power were indeed supremely in the people how can he say or doth he prove that the power of the Parliament is the power of the people more then is the power of the King he cannot mean that the power of the Parliament is subjectively or formally the peoples for the Parliament and people being two distinct subjects the same individuall power cannot totally be subjected or formally inherent to both but he understands doubtlesse that the Parliaments power is effectively causally the peoples that is it is derived and received from them and so granting the supposition is the Kings also and that as immediately in the constitution of the Kingly office as is that of the Parliament it was never yet I think said neither is there the least warrant for it that in the first constituting of the government the people chose the Parliament and the parliament founded the Kingly office but rather the people ordained both joyntly and immediately appointing kings to reigne over them successively who should governe with the advice and authority of Parliament which should be called by him and consist of the Peers hereditarily and the Commons by personall election Which three estates are collaterally incorporated together in the fundamentall constitution and Government of this Kingdome as even the Commons have declared * D●clarat of Apr. 17. 1646. and therefore are not superstructory one to another 3 And whereas he saith to prove the power to be in the people that from the power of the people as from the root all power first sprung and proceeded The people are not the root from whence power first sprung they are rather the soyle in which it growes by which it is fed and supported God is the Root Head or Fountaine from whence all power springs There is no power but of God c. The people are only a channell or instrument of its conveyance to the Magistrate by their election and consent which acts of theirs do no more prove the supreme power to be in the people then the Electorship of the seven Princes proves the imperiall power and dignity to be in them or the choise of a Major of a City by the aldermen or freemen proves the office or authotity of the Major to be in them 2 His second Question and Answer followes Whether the Representative of the people be the Parliament R. If the Parliaments power be the peoples and the supreme power then the Representatives of the people are the Parliament and none else for the Representatives are the people in them and there is the root of power therefore they are the Parliament Here is an antecedent a consequence a reason of the consequence but very feeble all First the Antecedent If the Parliaments power be the Peoples and the Peoples the supreme power This hath been disproved above in the discussion of the 1 question I have therein manifested that the power of Parliaments as distinct from the King is

If they that impose an oath may release from it then may any Court or Magistrate release a juror or examinate from the oath they have given him then if a man impose an oath upon himselfe as in some cases he may he may absolve himselfe when he will from it though he therein obliged himselfe to God or another man And this is truly the case here as he himselfe states it the subjects by their own Act in their Representatives impose this oath and by their own personall act swear it and after by their own act in their Representatives absolve themselves from it 2 The repeale of the Act is no repeale or dissolution of the oath the Parliament that framed by their Act imposed the oath did not thereby make it an oath but it was the subjects swearing which made it an oath and an obligation to him as the Ministers rehearsing and dictating the words of marriage to the couple Marying each other makes not the mariage but the parties themselves declaring in those words And as the clerk in a court reciteing the words of the Iurors oath to them makes not the oath but the Iurors assent to it The Parliament can injoyne or punish the refusall or manifest breach of an oath but a promissory oath being the act and covenant of him that swears and a part of Divine worship the bond of conscience upon the swearer and the validity of Gods ordinance and the obligation that is therein entered into unto God as the invocated witnesse and judge cannot be within the Parliaments authority to nullifie in all subjects oaths which may be made with or without their imposition There are cases indeed wherein a superiour as a Husband Master Father Magistrate may make void the oath of their respective inferior by analogy or equity of that rule Numb 30. but those are 1 in matters that are belonging to the right or power of the superior to dispose of as the Representatives may acquit from an oath in point of their own right * Animadvertendum tamen est penes hos non esse facultatem rescindendi quodlibet jusjurandum subditorum sed illud duntaxat cujus materia est eorum potesta●i subjecta Alsted Theol cas cap. 15. Reg 2. but the allegiance in this oath sworn is none of theirs but the Kings and therefore sworn to him by the subjects and in particular by them 2. By that Law Numb 30. the superior may interpose to nullifie his inferiors oath made without his knowledge and consent and that must be done in the day that he hears of it but there is no further power given by that law in the matter of oathes Now in this our case the Representatives have bin so far from being ignorant of the making of this oath and disalowing it as soon as it was known to them that they were the composers and commanders of it yea and have taken it themselves Let any the least warrant yea or president be brought for releasing an oath in this case and I shall sit down Lastly for a close of my answer unto this position I shall observe what the tennor of this oath hath in it I doe beleeve and in conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof And doe renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary This is not only the swearers declaration but the Parliaments in compiling and imposing this oath and all Representatives have personally thus declared in taking it shall we beleeve them concerning their power in this matter or this man In the end he brings in three questions and answers to them unto which though they have no immediate reference either to this latter position or the proof of it to which they are subjoyned nor to the question of the oaths obligatorinesse which is the subject of the precedent discourse yet lest the over-passing them should imply that they are unto me either currant or difficult to be answered I shall say somewhat 1. His first question and answer is after this manner But then it will to this Whether the Parliament be the supreme gower R. It is evident that the Norman Kings coming in by Conquest had never any true right to the Crown of England but what the Parliament gave them then the power of Parliament was greater then theirs because that power that is the cause of power is greater then that power that is the effect of power 2 The power of the Parliament is the power of the people now in reason the power of the people is the supreme because thence as from the root all power first sprung and proceeded The Norman Kings did not come in by Conquest the first of them surnamed the Conquerour did indeed so come in although even he layd other claim to the Crown besides Conquest as the ground of the attempt thereof namely a right both by vertue of the Covenant and Oath of Harold and the Donation of King Edward Speeds H●st Book 1. Chap. 7 Sect. 6. 13 14. 16. 30 * Speed B. 9. Ch. 2. S. 54 Chap. 3. S. 12. The next to him William Rufus neither came in by Conquest nor by lineall succession his father on his death-bed being in remorse of Conscience for his cruell government of the Kingdome durst not as he said dispose of the Land to any other then to God only he wisht if it might be the will of God that William his son might flourish in the Throne * Speed B. 9. Ch. 2. S. 54 Chap. 3. S. 12. who accordingly notwithstanding Duke Robert was his elder brother by a generall consent and vote was made King The rest that have followed successivly came in by discent and title of inheritance although in some happily it was wrested and were the most of them peaceably and without contest of any seated in the throne and that which the Parliament usually did was not a creating of a title to them but a recognition of that which they had and a securing of it to their posterity which was for the Kingdoms safety as wel as the Kings interest 2. It is well known this Land was governed by Kings in supreme power long before the Norman race begun so that this exception from the manner of the Normans coming in lies rather against their title who came in by Conquest to be Kings then against the Kings Title to be supreme 3. If the Judgment of Parliaments themselves to whom he would appropriate the supremacy may decide to whom it belongs it will be yeilded to be in the King though not exclusively in reference to Parliament witnesse the Act of Parliament setting forth and enjoyning the Oath of the Kings Supremacy 4 The causing or conveying of civill power by way of consent or election whether it be by the Parliament to the King or by the people to them both or to either of them is no argument of a power

theirs because that Power that is the cause of Power is greater then that Power that is the effect of Power Secondly The Power of the Parliament is the Power of the People Now in Reason the Power of the People is the Supreme Power because thence as from the root all Power first sprung and proceeded To the second I say if the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power and the Supreme Power Then the Representatives or the People are the Parliament and none else for the Representatives are the People in them and there is the root of Power therefore they are the Parliament To the third I say That the present Representatives that now sit in Parliament are first all of them chosen by the People therefore of right they sit in Parliament Secondly The present Representatives are all that are left to sit in Parliament for the most of the rest have deserted their Trust without any force upon them For though some were secluded and secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily departed from the House Thirdly The Representatives that remained and continued to sit in Parliament were always when fewest and still are above the number allowed of by Law and therefore are a Parliament There is one Objection that may be urged against the Parliament absolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings heirs and against their abolishing Kingly Government Object It may be said That Kings have the same Rights to their Kingdoms Crowns and Revenues as others have to their Mannors and Demains Answ Such Right as Kings have had they never justly came by it but by force and flattery have obtained it and have usurped upon the birth-right of the People to whom it belongs to choose them that must rule over them and Kingdoms with their appurtenances thereto were never intended for particular mens advancement to lift up such Families in glory and greatness or that the Hereditary Right of any should be in them but Wisdom Righteousness and Virtue was to lift up men unto them and crowns revenu's were to incourage them in acting in such places and men that were so qualified were to be Heirs Successors set up by the People after them and the People themselves nor their Representatives could neither give nor sell away this priviledg from their posterity in which the welfare of the People is so mainly concerned and without which a People are given up and sold to ruine This cannot be said of Mannors and Demains which are things fall under Commutative Justice and are things vendible and wherein particular men are concerned and not the Common-wealth FINIS An Answer to a Paper pretending to prove the Oath of Allegigiance voyd and non-obliging Containing two Positions the substance whereof is repeated in the process of this Answer THe drift of the first Position and the prosecution thereof with which I begin is to shew the said oath to have bin unlawful unwarrantable in the taking of it and so voyd in the fact or making First I shall premise for the clearing partly of what follows That an Oath may be unlawful * Dr Sandos de Juram oblig proel 2. sect 14. 1. Either in regard of the matter or thing sworn as if a man swear to do any impossible or sinful act 2. Or in the manner or circumstances of swearing as if a man swear unadvisedly or with a false intention or otherwise unduly for manner The former way of unlawfulness makes an Oath voyd in the taking but not the latter So that though a man swear an Oath in some sort not in truth that is not intending to be tyed to or to keep it or not in judgment that is not con●iderately enough yet if the Oath be in Righteousness that is of a just and lawful matter or thing it is of force otherwise no Oath could binde in foro externo or be of any use for confirmation for who can discern with what minde another man swears Again this evidently appears by the validity of that unadvised Oath of the Princes to the Gibeonites Josh 9.15 18 19. 2 Sam. 21.2 and of that Oath of Zedekiah and his people to Nebuchadnezzar 2 Chro. 36.13 Ezek. 17.13 21 23. which they entred into treacherously * Anotat of Divines Dioda on Hos 10.4 Hos 10.4 Secondly I observe what a gross imputation the first Position layeth upon the King and Parliament that framed and ordained the Oath of Allegiance and all other Parliaments since that have Conscience and the Successive Houses of Commons that have sworn it with those multitudes of Magistrates Ministers and of other professions in the Kingdom that have taken and still hold themselves bound by it having had all the while so much Divine and Gospel Light shining forth to and in them as if they had published pressed taken and justified as against the Papists by writing an Oath in the matter of it unjust and sinful This man had need bring clear Reasons for what he here thus chargeth upon so many WORTHIES for Place Piety and Judgement and declare them more publiquely then by a PRIVATE PAPER that he may call to repentance the whole Nation that is as he supposeth involved in this impiety of an unlawfull Oath But let us first by the triall of his Reasons see whether he hath not more need to repent of this his charge His generall exception against the lawfulnesse of the Oath is That it is not according to the rule Jer. 4.2 in judgement and in righteousnesse Were it defective in judgement that is in deliberatenesse of taking that would not be as I have said a ground to invalidate its obligation ipso facto seeing it were but a failing in the manner not a corruptnesse in the matter a fault in the person swearing not in the Oath sworne and in the person a defect internall or of the mind not externally visible in the Act and to be presumed to be found only in some persons swearing not in all That part therefore of the Allegation were it true might have been left out and as often as it is brought in to prove the Oath unlawfull so as not to bind it addes no strength to the conclusion But to descend to his particulars 1. To manifest the Oaths disagreement with the said rule of Jeremiah his first particular exception is That it ought to have been conditionall not absolute mutuall not single his argument in effect runs thus That it may be in judgement and righteousnesse it must be conditionall not absolute mutuall or taken both by Ruler and ruled not single or taken only by one party but this Oath is not so Ergo That the Reader may understand us both and I may more clearly passe on in my Answer I must interpose a distinction or two upon the termes First saith he the Oath must be conditionall not absolute First I conceive the words conditionall and absolute may be taken 1. Either in reference to

for though some were secluded and secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily departed from the House First he means they that sit are all that are left de facto to sit I shall not gainsay him But he might say thus if they were but two and all the rest were excluded by force of arms and those two were prisoners in the place those two in this case would be a Representative according to this his reason If he would be understood that they are all that are de jure left to sit I would heare that proved all that he brings for it here i● The most of the rest have diserted their trust 1 Say they had would that prove they that are left are all that de jure are to sit what say you to the lesse part of the rest whom you accuse not for deserters what say you to the secluded and ●ecured whom you cannot accuse of deserting their trust I doe not know that the house or those you call the present Representatives have tryed or Judged any or all of either sort of them unto deprivation of the right of sitting nay what say you to those most of the rest taxed by you as deserters of their trust as voluntarily and without interruption departing are they actually divested of their right to sit because they doe not performe their trust therefore ought they not to do it 2 But I can loke upon this charge of those most of the rest no otherwise then as a railing occusation brought against men in dignity and a presumptious slander intollerably cast upon those who have otherwise suffered so much in their trust first It hath been currently and without contradiction to my knowledg published that were secured or secluded in two or three dayes and how can he or any man be able to know or say that there is so much as one man of that house left at liberty that hath not come to discharge his trust and been actually debarred much lesse can any one say that the most of them have not 2 I would aske whether all that disclaimed not the vote about the Kings concessions were not declaredly excluded and actually put back if they offered to enter and if there be not still forces there ready to do the same 3 Not long before the last breaking of the house they that for feare of the Apprentices departed the house were counted the best performers of their trust and they that taried behind in the house were accused as faylers of it Must now the charge be inverted because the persons are varied 2. If they that sit are all that are left to sit de jure yet unlesse they be a number competent in Law to make a house and free from force I would be satisfyed how they can be qualifyed to sit and act especially in so high matters as the taking away the King and House of Lords and establishing a new power and way of goverment which if don by that house at the fullest and freest would be at least questionable the suspension and annulling the acts of the house upon the proceedings against the five Members and the coming of the Apprentices to the Parliament doores are fresh in memory and lively presidents And if the power of an Army not only captivating some Members but keeping the house that only a few scarce the eighth part of the number of them that constitute the house may enter and sit whom they distinguish by no known Character much lesse by any open or legall sentence against the excluded but only by a private roll of paper reserved in their own hands be not a taking away of the houses freedom I know not what can be so called R. Thirdly the Representatives that remain were alwaies when fewest and still are above the number allowed of by Law What number is allowed of by Law what Law that is where written and when made that alloweth of that number and what that number suppose it were 40. is allowed to do this Gentleman tells us not and yet these things should be set downe and scanned before this reason can passe There is a great difference betwixt forty and foure or five hundred betwixt some acts of the house and others in point of concernment If the Members of the house do not each of them represent the whole but all of them aggregatively in that some represent this part some another of the nation how can an eight part of them be said to make a representative of the whole Nation wherein possibly there is not one representative from seven parts of eight of the Land But the above alledged exception of a force upon the house must be wiped off or else the cleering of this point of the number could it be wil not serve The last thing in the Paper which he would it may be not have to be overslipped is a new doctrine concerning the interest of the people in the appointing of their Governors Wherein he saith 1. Such right as Kings have had they never justly came by it but by force and flattery have obtained it What a blasphemer of dignities is this that presumes to revile the whole order of Kings as Usurpers and unjust possessors of the highest civill property Dominion not one of them will he except from injurious attainment of their Crownes no not Melchisedech himselfe the interpretation of whose name bespeaks him King of Righteousnesse Surely he that is the King of Kings would never have stiled h●mself so if the universality of them had been so bad and the Apostle Pauls retractation Act. 23.5 The Angels modesty 2. Pet. 2.10.11 Nay the Prince of Angels his moderation Jude 8.9 are high redargations of this insolent evill speaking of dominions If his intention be to reflect more specially on the Kings of this Realm he is yet therein reproved by the current of History by which it is apparent the most of the Kings of this Land received their Crown by succession which is neither force nor flattery It were easie besides that to derive to many of them that title which he himself accounts the only just one viz. The consent of the Kingdome as for instance thus were Cassibelan of the British Edward sirnamed the Confessor of the Saxon and William Rufus of the Norman Kings invested * Speeds Hist B. 5. chap. 6 P. 8. c 6. S. 1. B. 9. c. 3●… Yea all of them in a manner have had the Nations vote for their Crowns either antecedent in their predecessors concurrent in their personall entrance or subsequent in their establishment by after acts of Parliament and not a few have had this threefold consent Lastly the Parliament that Enacted the Oath of Allegiance and all the Members of the house of Commons with all other subjects that have taken that oath solemnly give this man the lye excuse it if it be incivility in the first words of it declaring the King sworn to be lawfull King