Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	justice_n	law_n	1,616	5	4.3920	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

service so whether his Master prove good or evill or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in marriage whether the mate be observant of duty or no. 4. A Conditionall Oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to magistrates is not lesse arbitrary but commanded and that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullifie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the Rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant that which is due the later way if the Covenant be conditionall the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditionall but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an oath a condition being put into your Oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwaies bound to the things sworn then upon that condition which being broken by the party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in it's obligation by the conditionall Oath such an Oath therefore is in it's end inconsistent with it 2. I come to the lrtter part of his Major which exacteth That the Oath be mutuall or taken both by Ruler and Ruled not single or taken only by the ruled Some explanation of his terms more then is here he might have used for lack whereof I shall as I go observe some difference of sense appliable to his words and so expresse how I deny this branch of his position and why 1. His words sound as if he would have the same Oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subjects which if he remember that the Oath spoken of is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance obedience or subjection to be yeelded to his Soveraign and that the King is the person sworn to he will not cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2. But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is that the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince that he will command and govern lawfully the Subject that he will perform all lawfull homage and obedience and to this I say although it be true it in fact in our case that the King hath sworn his duty on his part as well as the Subject doth in this oath swear his yet the Proposition is false in this and it cannot be said that thus it universally ought of necessity to be betwixt every Prince and his Subjects much lesse can it hold that unlesse it be thus mutuall the Subjects oath is not in righteousnesse according to Ier. 4.2 but that for want of this mutuality it it is null for 1. We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenants betwixt man and man wherein one party only sweareth and not both mutually * Gen. 24.2.47 31. Exod. 13.19 Iosh 2.12.9.15.14.9 Iudg. 15.12 1 Sam. 19.6 1 Kings 1.13.29.51 2 Sam. 19.23 Noh 5.12 Ier. 38 10. 2. We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers without the reciprocall swearing of the Rulers to them * 2 Reg. 11.4 Iudg. 11 10. Chron. 36.13 Ezek. 17.3 such was that ingagement Josh 1.16 17 18. 3. Oaths are never to be taken but necessarily that is when not only the matter is of great weight but it cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed or assured then by Oath * D. Sanders de Iuram ob pral 7. S. 12. Tholos syntag dur 1.50 c. 3. but in solemne humane Covenants it comes to passe that somtimes the performance lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing somtimes the danger of breach lies only or more on one part then on another somtimes there is other satisfactory assurance given besides swearing and sometimes there is other remedy if there should be a breach then the forfeiture of an Oath in such and other cases an Oath on the one party may not need and consequently is not be exacted 4 But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King sweare to the people as that they take an Oath to him yet if through over much credulity or otherwise it be that the people do swear and not the Prince this cannot be the least colour for the nullifying of the Peoples Oath for whether the King swear or no that which makes the Oath obliging is that in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the promise 3. There is another sense of mutual swearing more strict then the former and that is when not only two parties sweare to each other their respective parts but they both sweare with a mutuall respect that is the obligation of the one party hath a respect to a dependence on the performance of the other party as when one man swears to another to give him so much money for his land that other swears to conveigh to him his land for so much money in this kind a breach of the one is a releasement to the other And here that Adage holds good Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem As also that Rule of the Law Frustra quis fidem postulat sibi serv●…i ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat But this sense 〈…〉 ll swearing cannot come in to be meant in our case For 〈…〉 an oath is plainly conditionall the one party sweares not 〈…〉 the other absolutely and clearly so much money but to give him so much for his land the having of the land then is an expresse condition of his Oath but the Oath of the Subjects Allegiance is granted to be absolute and is as such disputed against by him here and I have above proved an Oath of Allegiance cannot be conditionall 2. The Kings Oath is also absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects Loyalty no man will say I thinke that the King is discharged from ruling justly and may become an absolute Tyrant if his Subjects exceed the bounds or faile of the bonds of their oath or duty nay if the Subject transgresse his duty the King is bound by his oath to cause justice according to the law and tenour of his oath to be done and cannot otherwise escape violation of his oath 3. Such mutuall oaths are entred into by both parties at the same time and have their mutuall respects expressed but neither doth the King and Subjects sweare to each other at the same time neither is there any such mutuall respect mentioned