Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	people_n	power_n	4,914	5	5.4287	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

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 his Subjects much lesse can it hold that unlesse it be thus mutual the Subjects oath is not in righteousnesse according to Jer. 4. 2. but that for want of this mutuality it is null For 1 We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenant betwix●s man and man wherein one party only sweareth and not both mutually Gen 24. 2. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Josh 2. 12. 9. 15. 14. 9 Judg. 15. 12. 1 Sam. 19. 6. 1 King 1. 13. 29. 51. 2 Sam. 19. 23. Neh. 5. 12. Jer. 38. 16. 2 We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers without the reciprocal swearing of the Rulers to them ‡ 2 King 11. 4. Judg. 11. 10. Ch. 36. 13 Ez. 17. 3. such was that engagement 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 ‡ Doctor Sanders de Juram ob prael 7. §. 12. Thol synt jur l. 50. c. 3. but in solemn humane Covenants it comes to passe that sometimes the performance lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing Sometimes the danger of breach lies only or more on one part then on another Sometimes th●re 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 no● need and consequently is not to be exacted 4 But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King swear to the people as that they take an oath to him yet if through overmuch 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 swear to each other their respective parts but they both swear with a mutual respect that is The obligation of the one party hath a respct to and a dependance 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 convey to him his Land for so much Money in this kind the breach of the one is a releasment to the other And here that Adage holds good Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem And also that Rule of the Law Frustra qu● fidem postulat sibi servari ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat But this sense of mutual swearing cannot come in to be meant in our case For 1 Such an oath is plainly conditional The one party swears not to give the other absolutly and cleerly 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 abo●e proved an oath of Allegiance cannot be Conditional 2 The Kings cath is also absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects loyalty no man wil say I think that the King is discharged from ruling justly and may become an absolute Tyrant if his Subjects exceed the bounds or fail 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 Tenor of his Oath to be done and cannot otherwise escape violation of his Oath 3 Such mutual oathes are entred into by both parties at the same time and have their mutual respects expressed but neither doth the King and Subjects swear to each other at the same time neither is there any such mutual respect mentioned or so much as implyed in either of their Oathes 4 Such mutually respective oathes have only place in matters arbitrary or that are in mens choice to do or not to do until they bind themselves by Covenant but such are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects there being a divine Law obliging each to the Duties of their Offices before they swear We see no sense imaginable of Mutual not Single wil fit this mans turn but it wil make his Proposition false either if predicated of the oath of Allegiance at al So doth the First and Third acception afore mentioned or if predicated with that modus of a necesse est so doth the Second But let us hear his Reason for this clause of his Major whatever be the sense of it It is saith he against Equitie and Reason and the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince to submit to him then the Prince is bound to the Subject to Rule wel and administer justice rightlie Grant al this and it wil no way follow Therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous must be mutual in any sense for the Prince may be bound and that as long to his part as the Subject is to his and so he is and it is impossible to be otherwise for Prince and Subject his tye to Rule in Justice and his to Obey in just things are relatives and do infer necessarily each other to wit by the tye of Scripture Conscience and positive Laws and yet not be sworn at al. His Major being thus I hope fully Refuted I need not to take notice of his Consequences as he cals them but in a word I shal touch on them The First is nothing but a Hypothetical Repetition of some part of the Major Proposition which I have been so long in disproving If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteousnesse the King was as stronglie bound to the Subjects as any of them to him This therefore I passe by as the same that was said before and no Consequence from it The Second is Then if he break his Oath al the Subjects are absolved if they wil. This Consequence I deny I have I think fully made it cleer before That the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is absolute not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King whether sworn or not sworn and that it could not have been otherwise And though the King and People have each sworn their duties mutually yet not with See Doct. Sanders de Juram ob prael 4. §. 8. a mutual respect by vertue

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