Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	estate_n	parliament_n	2,433	5	7.1853	4	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

neither the peoples not the Supreme by way of peculiarity and that the Kings power derives as strongly and as nerely from the people as as doth the Parliaments though both have their principall originall from God and are but instrumentally from the people 2. The Consequent is then the Representatives of the people are the Parliament and none else were the Antecedent granted and most true yet he that knows what an argument is or hath but naturall Logick may see that this hath no kind of inference or consequentiall force from it We say that the Lords and Commons of England assembled with the politicall power and presence of the King are the Parliament and for this we appeal to all the use of the word since there was such a thing as a Parliament in England till within these very few dayes and the generall understanding of the word still to the Law common and municipal to the Titles of Parliamentary Acts and Statutes and to the Declarations and constant language of Parliaments themselves from first to last He saith the Representatives of the people meaning the said Commons are the Parliament for this he brings no proofe in the world from the application or use of the word by any though he cannot but know that words signifie according to the pleasure of some Imposer all his medium is in those term The Peoples power and the supreme power Whereas it is a question betwixt us whether there be such a thing as power or supremacy belonging to the people and if that were granted yet it is still a question betwixt us whether the peoples and the supreme power be any more appertaining to the Commons then to the King and Lords I cannot assent to either the affirmative of both are his positions and but barely affirmed by him so that in making this inference he doth but prove one of his principles by another improved and in so doing doth but petere principium 3. His reason of this consequence is for the Representatives are the people in them and there is the race of power This is still but to infer the conclusion upon an unproved principle of his own which I have denyed and refuted above but I shall here touch upon the wide mistakes about this term and thing Representatives with which hee and others are I see overtaken 1. he taketh for granted that the Commons in Parliament are the peoples Representatives which me thinks cannot properly be said if we understand by the people all estates members or parties in the Kingdome and if he doth not so understand it I aske how can he after his own sense place the power supremacy representablenes only in one part of the Kingdom for the said Commons are chosen but by and in the name of the Commoners in distinction from the Peers and cannot are not intended to represent any more then those by and in whose name they are elected and therefore are called the Commons in Parliament besides the Peers are present and therefore cannot be represented If then all the people are not Commoners nor represented how are those Commons truly and compleatly the Representatives of the people 2. He seems to found the Commons power and that in a degree above others that are undoubted powers upon their being Representatives of the people Whereas I think it will upon scanning appear that their representativenesse is not the rise or ground of any Magistraticall power in them 1. That which makes them or any men a power as I apprehend the matter is that they are Gods Representatives and that which ordinarily makes them so is that they are chosen or consented to by the people either personally or in the originall constitution of government unto the administration of an authority ordained by God and thus are in this kingdom the Prince the Peers and the Commons in Parliament though not all the same way but some personally others hereditarily The said Commons have indeed this addition but it is not of Magistraticall power but of popular action and employment that they are the Commons representatives because the colective Commons cannot convene or treat which representation empowers them not to any publique Magistracy or Acts of distributive Iustice but only intrusts and inables them to deeds of Commutative right or contract on the Commoners behalf as the agreeing on Taxes Forces or other requisites to be borne in an equall proportion and which are due as far as proportionable from the people to the publique Magistrates and service 2. If the power of the Commons be grounded on their representativenes of the people then it is necessary all the Members should be present to make them a representative of the whole Body of the people and to inable them to act so as to bind the whole because the Members compose a Representative not so as that every one tepresents the whole but each one represents a part and all of them collectively represents the whole 3 He placeth the dimension and prerogative of the Office of the said Commons in their Representativenes of the people where it seemeth to me they are not meere but more then Representatives of the people They that are meerly Representatives are 1. To act what they whom they represent might act if they were present 2 To act nothing but what they have in charge from the represented But this is not the latitude of the Commons in Parliament they are not thus tyed up For first If they be an estate endued with civill authority they may act authoritatively and so could not the people whome they represent if they were present no such power being seated in them as was a little before alleged 2 If they be a power they are impowred by God and so have in charge from him to act the thing within their Commission whether they are charged from the people to doe them or not yea though the people should command the contrary If they be no more then representees and so be bounden by the latter rule here given perhaps some would aske what charge or Commission did the people ever give either to any Former or to the present Representatives for some actings Thirdly His third Question and Answer is Whether the present Representatives that now sit be the Representative of the people R. First they are all of them chosen by the people therefore of right they sit in Parliament First Whether they be all so chosen I shall not enquire but I have read in Master Prin as I remember it is in his Speech upon the Treaty who it is probable knew the house better then this Gentleman the contrary of some whom he there names 2 But if they all be legally chosen that proves not that they of right sit in Parliament unles there be a right Parliament to sit in R. Secondly the present Representatives are all that are left to sit in Parliamet for the most of the rest have deserted their trust without any force upon them

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