Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	great_a	king_n	power_n	3,921	5	4.7466	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82549	The oath of allegiance and the national covenant proved to be non-obliging: or, three several papers on that subject; viz. 1. Two positions, with several reasons of them, and consequences flowing from thence. 2. An answer to the said positions. 3. A reply to the said answer, wherein the truth of the positions is vindicated, and the oath of allegiance, and the national covenant are made non-obliging. / By Samuel Eaton, teacher of the Church of Christ at Darkenfield in Chesshire.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing E124; Thomason E606_2; Thomason E613_18; ESTC R205852	78,765	83

Whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Propriety of the Subject or subverted it We know what their Education was Who then could take an oath in righteousness and judgment in reference to them It is good to know first and to swear afterward 3 Not to any one kind of Government Monarchical or any other to uphold it and continue it in a constant way without changing of it Reason 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 kind 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 greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful Then to swear not to change it is sinful and in righteousness and judgment may not be done for all kinds of Government is not equallie good uor are they equallie suitable to all people and experience makes persons wise to discern what is better and what is worse for themselves Therefore an Oath to uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable is unlawful Consequence Then the oath of allegiance serving to uphold Kingly Government against all other was an unlawful oath for who knows not what a plague this kind of Government hath been to this Nation and who knows not that the most of our Kings have been Tyran●s and who knows not what a Blessing the change of Government hath brought to the United Provinces Objection But suppose there was some unlawfulness in the taking of such Oathes yet is there not a necessity of keeping them being taken Answer If that Oath taken against the life of one man by Herod because unrighteous and cruel was not only 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 just men or Tyrants which are to uphold Monarchy the woful fruits whereof having been long tasted and felt by this Nation seeing they are dangerous and may pro●e as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not only unlawful to be taken but unlawful to be kept POSITION II. SUppose the Oath of Allegiance be a lawful Oath yet the Subject is now absolved from it by them that have Power to absolve from it Reason The Representatives of the People which in reason are the Supream Power of the Nation imposed this Oath upon the Subject by an Act for it 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 voluntarie Act to which they were not obliged by anie 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 own free Act in their Representatives Therefore if the Repres●ntatives take away this Act and repeal it they thereby set the Subjects at Libertie from such Allegiance and from that Oath by which they are bound to it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it because not bound by anie rule from God but obliged by Abraham onlie Consequence This present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which was Enacted to be imposed there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it But then it will come unto this Whether the Parliament be the Supream Power Whether the Representatives 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 1 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 2 The Power of Parliament is the Power of the People now in Reason the Power of the People is the Supream Power because thence as from the Root all Power first sprang and proceeded To the Second I say I● the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power and the Supream Power then the Representatives of the People are the Parliament and none else for the Representatives of the People are the People in them and there is the Root of Power therefore they are a Parliament To the Third I say The present Representatives that now Sit in Parliament are 1 All of them Chosen by the People therefore of Right they Sit in Parliament 2 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 3 The Representatives that Remained and Continued to Sit in Parliament were alwayes when fewest and still are above the Number allowed of by Law and therefore they are a Parliament There is one Objection which may be urged against the Parliaments Absolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and against their Abolishing Kingly Government It may be said That Kings have the same Right to their Kingdoms Crowns and Revenues as others Quest have to their Mannors and Demesnes Such Right which Kings have had they never justly came by it but Answ by Force and Flattery have obtained it and have Usurped upon the Birth-right of the People to whom it belongs to Chuse them that must Rule over them and Kingdoms with the Appurtenances thereto were never intended for particular mens Advancements to lift up such Families in Glory and Greatness or that the Heraeditary Right of any should be in them but that Wisdom Righteousness and Vertue was to lift up men unto them and Crowns and Revenues were to encourage them in acting in such Places and men that were so Qualified were to be Heirs and Successors set up by the People after them And the People themselves nor their Representatives could neither Give nor Sell away this Priviledge 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 Demesnes which are things which fall under Commutative Justice and are things vendible and wherein particular men are concerned and not the Common-Wealth AN ANSVVER TO A PAPER Pretending to prove the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Void and non-Obliging Containing TWO POSITIONS The Substance whereof is Repeated in the Process of this ANSWER THE drift of

is sinful Reply It is not my Position but his own Fiction that dissolves al Government For I have not asserted but he hath imagined so much That any man may be free to Change when he judgeth it best but I place the power of erecting and plucking up and changing for the Common-wealths Good where it ought to be of right in the Representatives of the People As for that Title which in scorn he puts upon me I passe it over knowing That it is more his shame to do it then mine to suffer it But saith he I would fain have him declare what thing Magistracie and Subjection is Reply The Apostle hath declared Rom. 13. 1 c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. to which I adhere Magistracy is a Principallity or higher Power ordained of God and yet in reference to the special form of Government and the persons holding it chosen and immediatly constituted by men for their good And Subjection is the Peoples acknowledging and obeying for their own good this Principallity to ordained of God 2 Sam. 15 20. 1 Kim 11. 26. 1. 12. c. Act. 5. 36. and so constituted by men 4 He saith This Doctrine wil acquit and justifie all the Conspiracies and Treasons that ever were enterprised against the power of the Magistrate since the World was for all will be pretended to be for the great good of the Common-wealth Reply This is a great slander that is cast upon this Doctrine so far as it is mine for seeing that it only reserves a liberty in Common-wealths to change upon weighty Causes which their Representatives are Judges of and Agents in it justifies no particular persons no● particular parties Risings but it may be truly said That this Doctrine cuts the comb of al Tyranny and wil force and constrain Go●ernors to a good behaviour But after he had so greatly aspersed and vilified this Doctrine as he cals it which indeed was formed in his own heart he approacheth somewhat neerer to the truth of my Assertion by way of Objection but reacheth not fully the sense in which I intended it His words are these But it may be said Not particular men or a lesser partie are to judge of the expedi●ncie or take in hand the change but the whole People And he argues against it thus 1 He saith Seldo●e or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Government of themselves affect or move to a Change it is the flatterers and d●ceivers of the people that lead the people to it Reply If they do not affect and move to a Change yet if their Representatives do it who are not I hope in this mans accompt the flatterers and deceivers of the People but the Trus●●es or t●e people for their good the people do it in them unlesse they do in their Petitions generally appear against it 2 How the judgement and will of the whole Bodie of the people saith he should be known and declared unto execution before particular men Act to a Change of their own private judgement is to me a thing unimaginable Reply When the whole Body of a people have entrusted certain Selected ones with their Power their Trustees meeting together and holding Corespondence with the several Counties and Places that Chose them and sent them out in their Name mav act for a Change for the peoples good And is this unimaginable Besides If this were not yet the Common-wealth consists of rational sociable Creatures which meet at Church and Market as the saying is that is have occasions of the Communication of Councels and so it comes to passe That the apprehensions of some men comes to be the Spirit of the most of the People nor is there any indirectnesse or unlawfulnesse in this 5 He saith This necessitie of retaining a power in Subjects to Change and of using it for a greater good or removing of a temporal hurt in opposition to an Oath sworn against that Change is directlie against these Scriptures tying men that swear to their own ●urt not to Change Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 18 19. and condemning those that for such ends have receded from their Oathes Ezek. 17. 13. c. Iosh 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam. 21. 2. Reply 1 These Scriptures have been oft made use of and often Answered That in Psal 15. 4. speaks of particular mens swearing for the ad●an●age and good of another and their own disadvantage but speaks not of things that have been and may be pernicious not to single persons alone but to Common-wealths and not profitable to any unlesse to saitsfie the lusts of some parricular persons And I would ask Whether if a Common-wealth should swear Succession of Judges in al the Courts within it self should such an Oath stand or not Or whether would not such an Oath rather fal under his own Exception That the thing sworn to must be just and honest else it is not obliging And I would know a Reason wherefore it should not much rather be asserted of the supream Judge 2 If there hath been such a perpetuating Oath to any Family yet it is Conditional while that Family carrieth it justly and according to the Laws of the Kingdom and so it is That as a Family advanceth it self sometimes by vertue over the people meriting their favour as Gideon did and gaining their Promise yea oath that they shal Rule and their Son and their Sons Son So a Family may by vice dishonour it self and lose that favour and be adjudged worthy to be sleighted and Cashiered yea Censured and Punished as Sauls house came to reproach and ignominie And an Oath or many Oathes would not have supported it or confirmed it 3 That Oath of Josh 9. 18 19. to the Gibeonites was ratified after they knew that they were their neighbors and after they knew that they had transgressed the Commandement of the Lord though unwillingly by making peace with them and therefore if they had not had some special warrant from the Lord for it it would have been in them double iniquity to have confirmed it But it s more then probable That being it was in Ioshua's dayes to whom God did much reveal himself and seeing they had mist it by rashnesse before in not enquiring at Gods mouth they went to God about it and had his direction in it therefore the offence of Saul became so heinous as 2 Sam. 21. 2. shews 4 That in Ezek. 17. 13. c. is not for his turn but rather against him For 1 Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah King who was not King til he made him and so he was of Nebuchadnezzar's setting up 2 Nebuohadnezzar took of him an Oath to be faithful and he brake this Oath 3 Therefore Nebuchadnezzar justly came against him and deposed him and put out his eyes and carried him to Babylon and so indeed originally it was the Common-wealth in their Representatives make the King for their best Title was from Parliament and they take him sworn to Rule according

Sword have yet Complyed with the Parliament to obtain a sure Title then the power of putting in and establishing such Chief Commanders appertaineth to the Parliament But how comes it then saith he that there is such variety of kinds of Supream Government Reply This hath come to passe sometimes because the peoples Right hath been invaded by force and power and so the people hath not acted freely and sometimes by the interest of some persons in the people they have been wrought up to give consent to this or that kind of Supream Government or it may come from the variety of apprehensions in several Common-wealths affecting and chusing rather this then that kind of Government Notwithstanding in those Common-wealths where the people chuse their Representatives to act their power for them Common Reason saith that such Representatives are the Supream power 2 He saith In citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omitts the King and House of Lords who in the then Parliament Concurred in this Enacting and Imposition Reply Neither King nor House of Lords had power to make a Law that was the Prerogative of the peoples Representatives and the King must confirm what they did Herein was the Representative Supremacy above the other 3 He saith That although the King was then rightfully and actually Enthroned in the Regal Power and Dignitie and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the People to his Heirs yet he dares to say That no Law of God or Nature obliged them to except of such a Person and his Heirs Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God and Nature And those Precepts Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof Reply 1 I speak of things Originally as they were at first himself spake a little before That Government in the special forme of it and the persons holding it was Chosen and immediatly Constituted by men Where then is either Law of God or Nature determinatively binding to it Therefore what Right any such Family hath it was Originally by the Peoples receiving such a Family and therefore it was free and voluntary 2 The 5 Commandement Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. exalts not any Family to the Throne nor doth require the people to accept of such and such a Family to be over them but being accepted and while continued requires subjection but no further 3 The Kings Ancestors came by Conquest and if rightfully Enthroned in Regal Power then the Title by Conquest it seems is good by his Assertion which yet in the present change I beleeve he wil not acknowledge nor dare I grant it without the consent of the Representatives in Parliament Ther●ore it is that Kings themselves when they have got the Crown by the Sword have desire to hold it by Consent of Parliament and their Acts for it 4 What Right came Originally by Parliament and the Acts thereof and not by any expresse Law of God or Nature cannot be an everlasting Right but may be with-drawn together with al the Confirmations of it if the Causes be just by the same power that set it up But for the Consequence he saith It hath no Truth in it or colour of Reason nor Inference from the Antecedent But what Reason shews he for blasting the Consequence and reproaching it in such sort 1 He saith The Act cannot for ought appears to me be Repealed but by the same power that made it Reply If he mean by the same power the Representatives in Parliament then the same power that made the Act hath Repealed it but if he mean by the same power the King and House of Lords together with the Representatives in Parliament I have shewed That the King and House of Lords have no Legislative power at al and that it is the Representative sole priviledge to make Laws and the King must Confirme therefore they could do it without him 2 He saith The Allegiance sworn was not founded upon that Act or Oath but due before Reply I have not Asserted That the Allegiance is founded upon that Act or Oath but I hold the contrary viz That the Oath is founded upon Allegiance that was due before But this I Assert That Allegiance was never absolutly but conditionally due 1 While the Prince keeps his Oath in the Coronation taken to administer Justice 2 While the Parliament have not declared him to have broken his Oath and so that relation cease betwixt him the people consequently the Allegiance to be at an end and consequently the Oath of it to be extinct This is cleerly my Tenant That while Allegiance is due to any Governor whatever the Oath that hath been taken of it is binding and that al persons and powers in the World are never able to absolve or acquit the persons that have taken it from it But yet withal this I hold That 1 Allegiance may expire 2 That it then expires when the Condition of it is not kept 3 That the Parliament is the Supream power and so the Judge o● this when the Condition is broken 4 When they declare that the Condition is broken unlesse there be a palpable unrighteousness in their Declaration and when they by their Acts do discharge the people of their Allegiance and do Repeal the Act for the Oath of Allegiance then the people are free first of their Allegiance and then of the Oath which they took of it And this is that which I further hold That the People or Common-wealth are firstly and principally subject to the Parliament their Representatives for they have put their whole power into their hand so far as concerns the exercise of it and have put themselves into subjection under them and therefore their Allegiance is firstly due to them and through them to any Governor or Governors Prince or other Magistrate or Magistrates whom they shal either set up and entrust with the exercise of Supream power when they Sit not or whom they shal confirm finding in that power when they came to Sit. Why else have persons who have come to the Throne by Conquest immediatly called Parliaments to ratifie and confirme their Title which they foresaw might be justly questioned without such ratification And in this sense it is That the Parliament it self hath taken the Oath of Allegiance to Princes not Collectively as an House sitting in power and authority of Parliament for in that sense themselves were Supream but as single persons and members of the Common-wealth they themselves are subject to the power that as a Parliament themselves erect and confirm And I also conceive That hereupon there is no Allegiance to any Magistrate against the Parliament but that the Parliament may make it void while they remain the Peoples Representatives and continue in that place and power As now in this Change of things the Councel of State is the Supream power of the Nation at al times when there shal be no Parliament sitting

but in the time of Parliament the Parliament it self is Supream and not they And though the persons of al Parliament men and al the Nation with them should swear Allegiance to that Councel yet it is in and not against the authority of Parliament that they so swear and if the Councel of State should miscarry in point of Government and the Parliament should declare them to be no Councel of State both themselves who in their persons were sworn and al the people who have taken that Oath with them are acquitted from it For the Allegiance it self and the Oath to confirme it are first due to the higher power who hath power over both the Councel of State and for maleadjuration may cal them to accompt and the people also and so may discharge the one of Government and the other of duty to them And so I look upon the Parliament as the principal party in the Oath of Allegiance to any Prince and the Oath to the Prince is through them and in them and not against them and so the Parliament the Causes being just and weighty have power to acquit from it And in that sense it was that I produced the instance of Abraham So if a Magistrate should 〈…〉 a Constable to obey 〈◊〉 is lawful Commands according to his place a superior power to the Magistrate who hath power over them both by removing the Magistrate from his Trust absolves the Constable from the Allegiance and from his Oath also And this is so cleer that none can rationally deny it Yea he himself grants it in his first Argument against my Consequence only he denies that this is the Case in Controversie but it is but a bare denial for he saith Where the imposers are also the partie sworn to there it is granted that there may be absolving from the Oath or a dispencing with it And this is the Case because an Oath to an inferior power is made in and not against the superior power in and through whom Duty and Allegiance is due to the inferior power I hope then there is both Truth and colour of Reason and good inference in the Consequence He grants further and saith There are Cases wherein a superiour as a Husband Master Father Magistrate may make void the Oath of their respective inferior by an Analogie or equitie of that Rule but these are saith he in matters belonging to the right and power of the Superiour to dispose of as the Representatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their own right Reply This is the very Case it is the right of the Representatives to be Supream therefore any Oath of the Subject to any Magistrate suppose a Prince is not against them bnt in them and they are the principal party it is to the other in them they may therefore absolve from it by taking Rule from the one and Duty from the other because both are subordinate unto them and they are principally concerned in the Oath that passeth betwixt them Thus I have endeavoured to maintain the Truth of the Positions Let the Reader judge betwixtus There is one thing more which I think good to annex to what I have held forth in this Reply viz. My Answer to a Querie or Conclusion rather which is drawn from my Positions and is lately come to my hands viz. Querie WHAT may Conscientiously be resolved upon in relation to the late Enacted Engagement from the Principles and Premises laid down by me in the prosecution of my first Position And whether I have not damned it as to my self and to all those who are of my mind and perswaded fo far as my Position may prevail all others not to take it For thus he Argues from my Positions If an Oath or Promise or Engagement failing in any of those Rules which in the Position are laid down be unlawful then the Enacted Engagement must needs be unlawful because first it is absolute without any Proviso of their Ruling wel that are or may be in power 2 It is single or without the Rulers Engaging to the Subject to Rule wel and justly 3 It is to those of whom we may be as much unsatisfied how they wil prove hereafter as we can be of an Heir 4 It is to one kind of Government called The Common-wealth as it is now Established and that described with contradistinction from and Exclusion of King and Lords It is also to continue in a constant way for the words run I will be true and faithful Answer If I should look upon the Engagement under such apprehensions as he hath looked upon the Oath of Allegiance and pleaded for it I should not think it tolerable to be taken by any Consciencious man But I have other Conceptions of it 1 I deny That the Engagement is Absolute or that any such Engagement can be absolute but that at least there wil be a tacite Condition therein for the Equity and Justice of the thing wil require it perpetually and that however it would be more satisfactory if the Condition were expressed yet it is palpable enough that the Condition is implyed though not one word should be spoken I have given Instance in Pastor and People If the people should not indent with their Pastor to Preach the Gospel but should accept of him to be their Pastor and promise so much Maintenance unto him yet it is implyed that it is upon the Condition of his Preaching to them for no rational man wil conceive that they promised such Maintenance in reference to such an Office without performing the work of the Office So it is betwixt Magistrate and Subject 2 I deny That the Engagement is single for long since there came forth a Declaration from the Parliament wherein they Engaged to Govern the Nation according to known Laws of the Land And this Narrative was purposely set forth to satisfie the Nation in reference to Jealousies that the people lay under And it makes the Engagement mutual betwixt the Magistrate and the People And if it be mutual then it cannot be absolute as he asserted For I have shewed That in a mutual Engagement the Obligation of the one hath respect unto and dependence upon the performance of the other so that if the one violate the Engagement in his part the other is discharged upon it 3 I deny That it is to those of whom we may be as much unsatisfied how they wil prove hereafter as we can be of an Heir for the Engagement is to the Representatives of the Nation of whom we were satisfied when we Chose them and we exercised our judgement when we Chose them and if otherwise it was the Common-wealths fault And we know what they have been they have sought the Nations welfare and time wil declare what they wil be and let them not be prejudged However they are but temporarie Rulers and not so much as for term of life much lesse are their Heirs to be chief Rulers after them 4 I deny That the Engagement is to one kind of Government absolutly whether hurtful or profitable for the Representatives of the people have power to change it when they see cause for the good of the Nation and they neither have nor intend to tye their own hands absolutly but that if they should prove it to be pernicious they might change it So that it is apparent by what I have presented That he hath totally mistaken the business of the Engagement FINIS