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 potestaâ—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 Hâ—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
A VINDICATION OF THE Oath of Allegiance IN ANSWER TO A Paper disperst by Mr Sam Eaton pretending to prove the Oath of Allegiance voyd and non-obliging Wherein his POSITJONS Against it are Examined and Confuted By the Author of the Exercitation concerning Usurped Powers PROV 20.25 It is a snare to a man after Vows to make enquiry Printed in the Year 1650. Mr Eaton's Positions against the Oath of Allegiance POSITION I. EVery Oath to make it lawful and warrantable ought to be taken in Iudgment and Righteousness Jerem. 4.2 The Oath then of Allegiance that it may be in Righteousness and Iudgment must be First Conditional not Absolute mutual not single taken by both parties not by one onely by the Ruler or Governor not alone by the Ruled by the Prince as well as by the Subject Reas It is against the Ground and Reason of the Primitive Institution of Government which is the good of the Subject that there should be any Oath to binde the Subject absolutely whether the Prince or Governor rule for the Subjects good or not Therefore such an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in Judgement or Righteousness Therefore such an Oath is not lawful So again it is against Equity and Reason and against the good of the Subject That he should be further or longer bound to the Prince or Ruler to submit to him then the Prince or Ruler is bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly If therefore the Obligation be not mutual but single it is not lawful Consequence Then if the Oath of Allegiance taken to the late King were in Iudgment and Righteousness and so lawful the King was or ought to have been as strongly bound to all the Subjects by Oath as any of them to him Then if he break his Oath all the Subjects are absolved if they will Then at what time the King levyed War against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance else the whole Parliament and Parliamentary party were both perjured persons so many of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebels that have taken up Arms against the King Secondly Nor to His Heirs Reas Because who knoweth as Solomon saith Eccles 2.19 whether the Heir will be a wise man or a fool a just or righteous man or a wicked man and Tyrant Now if no man know this then it is not an Oath in Iudgment if any man swear Allegiance to an Heir nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may binde himself to his own hurt yea ruine and destruction Conseq Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it that respected Heirs an unlawful Oath for who knows what any of the late Kings posterity might have proved whether they would have upheld Religion or changed it whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Property of the Subject or subverted it We know what their education was who then could take an Oath in Righteousness and Iudgment in reference to them It is good to know first and swear afterwards Thirdly Nor to any one kinde of Government Monarchical or any other to uphold and continue it in a constant way without changing of it Reas Because though civil Government in general be an Ordinance of God tending to mans good therefore to reject it would be sinful yet this or that kinde of Government is not an Ordinance of God but an Ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2.13 and if an Ordinance of man then man may change it for his own greater good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kinde of government inconvenient and hurtful Then to swear not to change it is sinful and in Righteousness and in Iudgment may not be done for all kindes of Government are not equally good nor are they equally suitable to all people and experience makes persons wise to discern what is better and what is worse for themselves and therefore an Oath to uphold any one kinde of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable is unlawful Consequ Then the Oath of Allegiance serving to uphold Kingly Government against all others was an unlawful Oath for who knows not what a plague this kinde of Government hath been to this Nation and who knoweth not that the most of our Kings have been Tyrants and who knows not what a Blessing the Change of Government hath brought to the united Provinces Object But suppose there was some Vnlawfulness in the taking of such Oaths yet is there not a necessity of keeping them being taken Answ If that Oath taken against the life of one man by Herod because unrighteous and cruel was not onely sinfully taken but more sinfully kept then such Oaths of Allegiance which are absolute and not conditional which are single and not mutual which are to Heirs whether wise men or fools whether of just men or Tyrants which are to uphold Monarchy the woful fruits whereof though they have been long tasted and felt by this Nation seeing they are dangerous and may prove as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not onely unlawful to be taken but unlawful to be kept POSIT II. Suppose the Oath of Allegiance to be a Lawful Oath yet the Subject is now absolved from it by those that have Power to absolve from it Reas Because the Representative of the People which in Reason are the Supreme Power of the Nation imposed this Oath upon the Subject by an Act made in Parliament by which they obliged the Subject to Allegiance to the King then in being and to his Heirs And this Act done by their Representatives was their own Voluntary Act to which they were not obliged by any Law of God or Nature for there is no Rule requiring them to accept of such a person to be their Prince and his Heirs after him and to swear Allegiance to him and them but this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives Therefore if the Representatives take away this Act and repeal it they thereby set the Subjects at liberty from such Allegiance and from their Oath by which they are bound unto it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his servant might acquit him of it because not bound by any Rule from God but obliged by Abraham onely Consequence This Present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which which was enacted to be imposed there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it But then it will come to this Whether the Parliament be the Supreme Power Whether the Representative of the People be the Parliament Whether the present Representatives that now sit in Parliament be the Representatives of the People To the first I say 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 the 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 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 conâ—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
therefore that the uncertaine danger of that is rather to be chosen then the inevitable miseries of this Such things as may by reason of their changeable nature prove in the issue somewhat disadvantagious may yet if for the present good and probably hopefull so to continue be sworne to absolutely as in voluntary Promises Leagues and Contracts both publike and private among all Nations hath been the practise and by good Scripture-presidents it is justified * Genes 47.31 Exod. 13.19 Iosh 9.15.14.9 Iudg. 21.5.18.15.12.13 1 Sam. 14.24.19.6.20.12.17 1 King 1.13.29 2 Sam. 29.23 and the reason is because if any future prejudice do redound it can be the obligation of the Oath remaining at the worst but in outward incommodity the which is compensated by the avoiding of a greater evill which the leaving of the matter free and unsecured would more certainly breed and bring To apply all this to the case in hand If any Impeachment of the Subjects good can be supposed to result out of his swearing to his Prince absolutely whether he rule well or no it is but accidentall and such as it is it is overballanced with a greater mischief which would accrue by leaving the Subjects uningaged for the shunning of which the lesser evill to wit the being bound to a King though he should prove a bad Governour is to be chosen for that in comparison of a greater evill hath the consideration of good and is so eligible It is a lesse evill for a people to be bound to a Prince that possibly may prove bad then to be so loose as to be at the liberty to cast him off when they shall judge him to rule ill that is when they please the former doth not so neerly and probably tend to the Subjects hurt as doth the latter For first the Prince may prove just and vertuous Secondly the Subject is only bound by his Allegiance to legall obedience which obedience be the Prince never so bad can do the people no harme Thirdly in his lawlesse Acts there may be a remedy as the punishment or resistance of his bad instruments by the Parliament without whom though he may will unjust things yet he cannot execute them and yet his Government be continued Fourthly and suppose the case that there be no remedy as when he hath got a party stronger then can be resisted or subjected to punishment then to cast off his power and depose him suppose it lawfull to do will be no relief his strength will command subjection Fiftly the miscarriages of a Prince ordinarily unlesse it come to publike contestation wherein the Subjects sworne and unsworne if their cause be just and the Parliament authorize their standing up are in the same capacity of resistence extend but to the detriment of some particular persons rarely doth any Nero-like seek the destruction of the whole But on the other hand set the people free to shake off the reines of their present Government when they shall think it unequall and first you destroy the nature of Government as will afterwards be shewed 2. You expose the people to an immediate losse of the very use and injoyment of any Government the power of mobility and change being sure to invite all ill disposed persons immediately to put that power in ure and hurrie all if they may prevaile into confusion In short a bad Government is better then none it is more tolerable for a people that one or a few then that every man do that which is right in his owne eyes To be bound to Allegiance may lay the people open to the former to be loose will precipitate them into the later The former inconvenience cannot be so universally extensive speedily destructive and remedilesse or unresistible as the later 2. The later thing I premised is to give my Reasons for the contradictory to his major Proposition in that first part It must be conditionall not absolute Against which I say the Oath of Allegiance may be absolute or unconditionall in the sense before given and for this Assertion I render these Reasons 1. Were there no Oath the limited obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutely that is whether they rule well or no and that which is absolutely due may be absolutely sworne the former Proposition I ground thus 1. The Precept of obedience to Civill Governors is without any condition or reserve of a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governours miscarriage read the fifth Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13.1.2 c. Tit. 3.1 1. Pet. 2.13 c. 2. God commands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive tyrants that likely ever have been Ier. 27.12 Mat. 22.21 1 Pet. 2.13 I speak not here of Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose title is just but their Government unjust and oppressive 3. Servants are to be subjects to their Masters not only that are good and gentle but those that are froward that do them wrong and from whom they suffer for doing well 1 Pet. 2.18 19 20. and by analogy Subjects are tyed in the same terms to their Governours 4. David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground for that he was his Master the King of Israel and the Lords Anointed though he was then in actuall violent and unjust pursuit his life 1 Sam. 24.5 c. 26.9 c. 5. Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to pray for patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing your innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty * Ames medulla Theol. l. 1. c. 17. p. 57. Vrsin Catech. pa. 3. qu. 104. 6. Els you dissolve all Magistracy it will be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of magistraticall affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23.3 5. 7. The Doctrine of Orthodox Protestant Divines generally is that obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannicall Princes * Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 20. S. 24 25. c. P. Martyr loc C. clas 4. C. 2. S. 12. 18. 19. Alsted Theol. case 17. Reg. 8. Mr. Perkins cases of Gonsc l. 3. c. 6. s 1. Bucan Instit Theol. loc 49. quaest 21. Synops puc Theol. disp 50. Thes 18.27 Scharp symphon Epoch 5. Quaest. 44. 45. 2. VVe find Oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any conditions inserted Judg. 11.9 10. 2 Kings 11.4 2 Chron. 36.13 Ezek. 17.13 Nehem. 10.29 their Oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one 3. It is a thing within our power to settle our allegiance absolutely as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to
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 * Dâ—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