Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	parliament_n	writ_n	3,273	5	9.6734	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55528	Truths right-side tvrned upwards, or, Armies vindication against an aspersion of rebellion and tyrannie cast upon them in several books, whereof one subscribed by divers ministers in the province of London, another by Mr. Geree, &c : not onely cleering the case of the armie to be just, but retorting the force of the arguments of their opposers upon themselves / by William Potter.	Potter, William.; Geree, John, 1601?-1649.	1649 (1649)	Wing P3037; ESTC R23240	7,142	16

the Peoples Freedoms and therefore could not be said to tyranize over the People But since the King deserted the Parliament they became Governours themselves and all Governours of a Free people ought to have their Wills regulated by the Peoples Trustees over whom they rule which as the case now stands the Army having authority to do did not in restraining these members act out of their Places and Callings And to cleer these particulars we shall handle them in this Order Namely to prove 1. What it is to be in a capacity to act tyrannically and what not 2. That before the Kings deserting the Parliament they were not in a capacity so to act 3. That since the Kings deserting the Parliament they are in a capacity so to act 4. That the Army have a lawful Authority to judge of and restrain them from so acting Which 4. being soundly proved I doubt not but our Adversaries such as are ingenuous will yeild and confess that God hath overcome them not onely by swords but words by strength but truth by might but right And first To be in a capacity to act tyrannically is for rulers to be the sole Judges of what they do or order in reference to the government of the people because in this case whatsoever they ordain the people are in no capacity to shew their dislike and consequently if for their own privat advantage or some other by-respect they take away the just due or Interest of some other man or men there is no power on earth to check or restrain them On the other side when Rulers can make no Orders or Proceedings that are binding but those which the People by their lawful Deputies are in a capacity to dis-avow and restrain then Rulers are not in a capacity to act tyrannically 2. Before the Kings deserting the Parliament they were not in a capacity to act tyrannically For the Parliament were the people met together to demand of their Rulers what they thought meet for their owne safety and therefore were not in a capacity to tyrannise over the people because themselves were the people and not the Rulers but were to return to their dwellings and themselves to be ruled by those Laws they demanded 3. Since the Kings deserting the Parliament they are in a capacity to act tyrannically For in his absence they were by approbation of the people to take upon them to be Rulers that is to make Orders and Ordinances to govern the People by Now it is already proved that for Rulers to be the sole Judges of what they do or order in reference to the government of the People is to be in a capacity to act Tyrannically Therefore since the Kings deserting the Parliament they are in a capacity so to act Or secondly By giving Commission to Armies they become the Governours of those Armies and by governing them they govern the Kingdom Now to govern a Kingdom especially by force of Arms and to be the sole Judges of what they do or order in reference to the Government thereof is to be in a high capacity to act tyrannically 4. That the Armies which they raise have a lawful Authority to judge of and restrain them from so acting For first the People in Parliament are not Governours but as some of us are willing to acknowledge them so For it is the unquestionable right of a free people not to be subject to any whether they will or no Indeed the Jews had somtime Governours appointed them by Divine Authority but we as far as we enjoy our freedom not without our own choise and therefore as we were free in chusing them to represent us as the people of England so we were as free in chusing whether we would allow them to be our Governours except we grant that the Kings deserting the Parliament and their undertaking to free us from tyrannie could entitle them to be our Governours though none of the people of the land had at all believed that they intended it Therefore the people in Parliament were not our Governours but as some of us were willing to own them so And that this is a truth appeareth secondly By the Parliaments declaring the case and therein appealing to the people to be their own Judges whether they wou'd receive Commissions and take up Arms under their Authority or no 2. We never owned their authority in giving Commissions to us or any of us but as it gave them who received the Commissions for us a lawful authority to judge of and by the sword or otherwise to restrain them in acting tyrannically For if they gave us or our deputies whom we and they entrusted to receive the sword to defend us a Commission to oppose the Arbytrarie and Tyrannical power of Governours then they gave us in our said Deputies a Commission to oppose it in themselves because in receiving their Commission we allow of them as Governours Which although it might not be expresly mentioned in their said Commissions yet it is to be understood because we had no other reason to take up Arms against our former Governours but to oppose tyrannie And secondly as I have already shewed if those who in the capacity of Rulers do make Ordinances should also in the capacity of people have sole power to judge of the justness of them then they are invested with power both to make Ordinances whereby to dispose of the publike monies for their own privat use or otherwise dispose of our lives and estates and also be the sole Judges of the justness of so doing and it is not tolerable that our taking up Arms against tyrannie was to maintain such a tyrannical power Wherefore it must necessarily be allowed that we never had owned their authority in giving Commissions to us or any of us but as it gave them authority who received the Commissions for us again to judge of and restrain them in acting tyrannically 3. That thus to oppose is the proper work of the Armies raised by them they being those who are entrusted with the sword First because none but they are lawfully entrusted to use their endeavours for this end and therefore if those who have no commission to assert our Liberties should being of another judgement endeavour to oppose the Army in what they do according to their Commission they should oppose them acting according to their places and callings to preserve the people without any commission or authority for to oppose those that act by a lawful commission is to rebel against Authority 2. If both we as the people in Parliament were willing to give them a Commission to defend us the people of the land against the tyrannie of Governours and also they as willing to venture their lives in such our defence were willing to accept of this our deputation as sufficient Authority to bear them out in so doing then though now we see their acting we do not approve of their acting therein yet if we resist them

we act as private men against the Authority given them by all the people in Parliament and after we have engaged ourselves to allow them liberty in so acting howsoever they should act therein we also break our trust and engagement if we deny it unto them Therefore to use the sword to oppose tyrannie is their proper work and not ours So that you see here are three reasons why we may not oppose them herein First None can show a Commission to oppose tyrannie but the Army Secondly We all entrusted them to use their best skill herein VVhich one is divided into two arguments 1. That they who oppose them oppose their private opinions against their own authority in Parliament And 2. Break their publike engagement to the Parliament and Kingdom which David saith we may not do though the keeping thereof should be to our prejudice Now then you see it proved that it is not onely the work to which they are called lawfully but so theirs as none else may oppose without opposing the Authority of the whole Kingdom Therefore the Armies raised by the Authority of Parliament have a lawful Authority to judge of and restrain the same Parliament as they are not our selves or people but our Governours from acting tyrannically And now I come to answer the six things before mentioned alledged against their proceedings herein Object 1. That they have resisted Authority To which I answer That I have proved they were so far from acting against Authority that they have acted herein according to their places and callings and it is impossible that mens very doing their duty should be the committing of sin or acting rebelliously 2. I answer That if the Members in Parliament as they are our Governours have no Authority to act and persever in acting things contrary to our liking declared by our lawful Deputies then in so acting they act that which they have no Authority to do in which to oppose them is to oppose their wills onely not their Authority 3. It might by the same reason be proved that the Parliaments War is unlawful because therein they opposed the will of him that was their Governour Therefore the A●my have not resisted Authority Object 2. That they having vowed and being entrusted to maintain the Priviledges of Parliament have broken their vow and trust herein Answ. The Priviledge of Parliament is the priviledge of the people whereby through their lawful Deputies they are authorised to oppose that which they judge to be Tyrannie in their Governours But the Army seing they and none else have Commission to oppose Tyranny are therefore the lawful Deputies entrusted to oppose that which they judge Tyrannie in their Governours Therefore they have performed not broken their trust and vows to God and men in thus doing Object 3. They have dissolved the Parliament Answ. If the Parliament be now not in the capacity of a formal Parliament or People met to demand our liberties of our Governours but as it were a Councel of State authorised by means of them our lawful Deputies taking up Arms under their command to be our Governours then to remove such evil Governours as by our lawful Deputies we judge tyrannical is not to dissolve a Parliament nor yet to destroy but regulate such a councel of Governours who must needs in this case without such a removal be in a capacity to destroy but not to save us and by such a removal are restored unto a capacity to rule us safely Now I say if this be true all which is either cleer of it self or already proved then the Army have not by this act dissolved the Parliament nor yet the Government but have done that which if they had not done this Councel would have bin not onely useless but destructive to us and being done is restored unto a capacity to preserve us whose preservation is the onely end of our fighting and of their government Object 4. That they justified the King in that former somthing Parallel attempt of his Answ. They are parallel in nothing but this that the Kings Act was in as high a degree of breaking of trust as the Armies was a keeping of trust That the Army without so acting could not have performed their trust I have already proved because they being in place of us the people cannot be faithful to us but in removing such Governours they judge tyrannical And that the King without resisting the free Parliament or people of England could not lightly have broken his trust is as cleer but sure I am that by his attempt to remove some of them out of the House he did endeavour to over-aw the rest and so to make us all his creatures and slaves by our own consent in Parliament is so evident as it need not be proved which is manifestly against his Oath and Trust Object 5. That they have opened a gap to all Rebellion Answ. For the lawful Deputies of the people not to be satisfied without a timely removal of such as they judge tyrannical Governours is so far from opening a gap unto that it shuts the dore against Rebellion which otherwise they judge would ensue For that is properly rebellion which is acted against the authority of the people in their lawful Deputies upon any pretense whatsoever Object 6. That they have acted without any warrant from holy writ Answ. He that turns the truth with the wrong side upwards and in that posture laies it to the rule of God word must needs give a judgment quite contrary to truth For we have proved that insteed of resisting our authority they have maintained our authority insteed of breaking their trust they have performed their trust insteed of justifying the Kings act they have condemned it insteed of opening a gap to rebellion they have shut the dore against it and consequently it follows that insteed of acting without warrant from holy Writ they have acted by authority from such Warrant And now not doubting all honest Christians will see their error and as David take their own sentence to themselves unto whom it belongs which they have urged with as much zeal as we can press upon them We are assured they will yeild obedience unto lawful Authority which if others amongst them refuse to do shall not God to use his own expression laugh to see them taking such pains thus to sentence themselves whilst they rejoyce in conceit that they have beaten his cause and servants down to the ground And shall not all the Saints say Amen Even so be it Lord Jesus FINIS