of this Realm I. A. B. Do truely and sincerely acknowledge professe testifie and Declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraigne Lord King James is lawfull King of this Realme c. Secondly Kingdomes were never intended saith he that the hereditary right of any should be in them With what forehead can he say that was never intended which the lawes and statutes of Kingdomes have ordained and setled Particulerly this Kingdome hath for divers successions provided before hand both for acts and oathes for the hereditary descent of the Crowne Will he â—verre that the estates of the Realme never intended that which they enacted and caused to be sworne 3 He tells us that men that were qualified with Wisdome righteousnesse and vertue were to be heires and successors and set up by the people after them that last possessed them and neither the people themselves nor their Representatives could either give or sell away this priviledg from their posterity viz. of choosing and setting up Kings and rulers over them He â—…eth still higher in absurdnesse of asserting and in this passage he is not content to crosse the common sence of others but he will needs overthrow his own way 1 As to common reason how in consistent is this that he delivers for by this position the arising posterity must first give their consent and passe their elective vote to the power they find standing before they can either owe allegiance and subjection to it or enjoy the benefit of protection of it so that Children suppose ours of this age whilst they are under years of consent and after that too untill they please tâ— consent which is at their own choise and may be denyed for ever if they will are both accountable to the present Government for any trespasses or crimes they may commit be it murder or whatsoever is the worst and left out of the lawes protection and redresse in any thing they may unjustly suffer And suppose their judgment or choice concurre not with their parents they must during their parents lives either continue in that estate or chose another government and become another commonwealth apart by themselves Yea by this reason all those that have sitten downe under a present power which they find in the thron and have given no consent to it are in the same condition of outlawednesse and liberty to chose rulers for themselves yea by this means a Kingdome may come presently to be divided into a thousand peeces of states and petty coÌ„monwealths according as their different choices may sway them to the inflaming of the whole with endlesse seditions and the overthrow of all government 2 As to his own way I aske 1 upon what constitution of the people doth the present House of Commons so called claime to be a power not by any made in this age certainly the present people having not as yet chosen any new government but do either acquiesse in the old received from their forefathers or are subjected perforce without their consent to a new if any such be I appeale to the severall proposers of the agreements of the people that have been lately published whether the people of this age have yet setled or chosen any government in their time If it be here suggested that the present people have chosen these Representatives I say to that True the Countries or Corporations have chosen them to be Parliament men but in so doing they ordained not founded not any Parliamentary power they acting distributively within their severall precincts and only nominating two or a few persons upon a writ sent out in the Kings name to consult on the difficult affaires of the Kingdom according to a known and antient custome and constitution of the Realm cannot be conceived to constitute a new power it must then be said they are a branch of the ancient and hereditary government of this Nation and this is not opposed by me but this Gentleman here contradicts this clame and tells us this title is null and could not be made by any of our predecessors in relation to us Secondly Vpon what ground do the said Commons challenge to be the sole supreme power without a King or house of Lords in way of a Common-wealth or free-State if it could be said that in former times the people have placed such a power in the House of Commons that will be of none effect according to this principle which denyeth that the people may conclude their posterity in such an act If it be said the present people in electing these Commons invested them with such a power my simplicity cannot comprehend it at the last elections of Parliament Members the people for ought I have ever heard neither resolved on nor so much as deliberated or moved a word of making over any new power they only elected them according to former custome and trust which was as I understand to sit in the House of Commons and to act in consociation with the King and the House of Peers about the publick affairs of the Kingdome â—o that the upshot is this Gentleman by giving the people the priviledge is violably to chose their own government personally and not by their predecessors hath utterly overturned the present power 4thly But to defend this his position he instructs us in the last place thus This Priviledg the welfare of the people is so mainely concerned in as that without it a people are given up and sold to ruine 1. Are not the Lawes which must regulate both the rulers and the ruler of as great a concernment as the choice of the rulers to the people and yet the people by their Laws do conclude their posterity which are therefore called every mans birth-right Again is not a mans estate of Lands and goods of as great a concernment to his Issue being their earthly subsistence as is their share in the Election of the publique Magistracy yet a man may involve his posterity undenyably in any act concerning his estate Yea is not Religion and Covenanting with God a far greater concernment then this of government yet men may represent and act for their issue in setling religion and entring into Covenant with God as is clear in the example of Israel * Deut. 29 10.11.14.15 Joshua 24.15 2. This reason would make us beleive the welfare of the Nation of Israel was mainly prejudiced and that they were given up and sold to ruine when there was an hereditary kingdome setled over them as there was by the Lord himself in David and his seed Nay we are rather to beleive because he set such a government over his own people therefore it was the better way I have done answering this paper and for a conclusion have only one word to the author of it Seeing he hath undertaken to deal in the removall of mens doubts concerning their solemn engagements unto their Governors I would propound to him a Quaery and that of a necessary and seasonable importance and which is occasioned by what he hath in this paper delivered being conferred with what at this time is publiquely imposed It is only this what may conscientiously be resolved upon in relation to the lately enacted Engagement from the principles and premises layd down by him in prosecution of his first position He therein avers that an oath of allegiance must be 1. Conditiall not absolute or whether the governor rule well or not 2. It must be mutuall or taken both by rulers and ruled so as the ruler be bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly as well as the subject is bound to him and not single or taken only by the ruled 3. It must not be to those whom no man knoweth how they will prove whither they will be wise or fools just or tyrannicall 4. It must not be to any one kind of government to uphold and continue it in a constant way without changing of it and that if it transgresse in any of these qualifications it is unrighteous sinfull and unlawfull I will not Query whether or no but assume it as undoubted and clear if an oath to persons in authority must be thus regulated a Promise Covenant or whatever engagement of that nature must be so also and if his reasons or any other that can be brought conclude an oath failing in any of those rules to be unlawfull they will as strongly inferre the sinfulnes of an Engagement in that matter if it be dissonant in any particular from them Next I will not doubt to say the above-named Engagement is as far discrepant from these Limitations in every point as is the oath of Allegiance if not further 1. It is absolute or 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 well and justly 3. It is to those of whom we may be as unsatisfyed how they will prove hereafter as we can be of an heire 4. It is to one kind of Government called the Common-wealth as it is now established and that described with contradistinctions from and exclusion of King and Lords It is also to uphold and continue it in a constant way for it is a Covenant de futuro binding to be true and faithfull to the government for future time in those words I will be true and faithfull and binding to it as established and therefore is for some continuance and constancy which being left indefinite and illimited is more extensible in duration then is the Oath of allegiance which determines with the Kings race and it is without changing the continuance how long soever it is to which it engageth which must needs be some it being as I said a tye for future must of necessity exclude changing for so long as it lasteth It will easily I hope be yeilded he that binds himself to be true and faithfull to this Government as it is now establisht is bound out from attempting a change of it while the Terme of the same obligation endureth I demand therefore how he will both stand to these principles and justifie the engagement and whether he hath not as to himselfe and all those who hold with his said premises damned it and so far as his reasons in that position can prevaile perswaded all others that they ought not to take it but are in conscience bound to reject it FJNJS
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
past and present have given proof that they are wise and morally just which yet in some cases is not evident yet who knows what they may hereafter be The Scripture supposeth that not only a just Father may have a wicked son but a righteous man in profession and externall carriage may turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Ezek. 18.14 Neroes Quinquennium of reigning well is generally known the good beginnings of Ioash and Ozziah 2 Chron. 23 24. 26. and thereafter degeneracies are sufficient instances of the lubricity of men in authority Yea it is well known how fearfully Solomon himself with Asa 1 Kings 11. 2 Chron. 16. and others fell in divers particulars of a grosse nature if we must first know and swear afterwards we must naver swear promissarily 3. This consequence were it of force would equally condemn in generall all promissary oaths and other Covenants and Engagements betwixt man and man for it cannot be foreseen in any what the persons contracted with will prove or whether the Covenant will be beneficiall or hurtfull and in particular the Laws and Sanctions of those Nations in all ages which have setled successive regality or any other Government for longer then the present possessors of the power endure which yet is a way not only more generally approved and practised then any other of vicissicudinary Election but a warranted by the word of God Israel offered a successive power to Gideon Iudg. 8.22 and God himself instituted and bound the people to a lineall Government in David and his seed * 2 Sam. 12.15 2 Chron. 13.5 The patriarchal power which was political was successive and could not have been cast off at pleasure so was the Government of the Jewish Nation for about a hundred years in the lineage of the Maccabees 4. We have Scripture examples of an uncontroverted integrity of oaths and Engagements to Princes and their Heirs and to Princes in their young unripe and untryed years Take for instance that of Abrahams swearing to Abimelech King of Gerar his son and sons son 1 Chron. 23.29.22.29.1.22.5 and that of Davids making Solomon King in his own life time and engaging the people to him when he was yet young and tender 2 King 11.4.22 and that of Iehoiadahs and the peoples making Joash King and swearing to him when he was but seven years old 2. For the two parts of the consequence in severall 1. The Oath is not in Judgement because no man knows what the Heire will prove I say it may be in Judgment so far as a future contingency can be deliberated on and this may be concluded on advisedly as morally certain that it 's better to have the Crown setled in a line whereby sometimes a vicious person may be advanced then to have it under Election at every personall change this hath been the experimented maxime of the wisest states Judg. 21.7.15 Sam. 14.24.37 Josh 9.14.16 If it were not in Judgement this defect makes not an oath unlawfull as to the nullifying of it a rash Oath if of a lawfull thing binds as before was proved 2. Nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may bind himselfe to his owne hurt yea ruine 1. Though the Subject may not bind himself to what is necessarily or at the time of his swearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt or ruine yet he may swear in ending the publike good to that which is of a mutuall nature and may in the event turne to his owne hurt and ruine and might he not so sweare yet having so sworne he is bound to stand to his Oath Psal 15 4. Josh 9.15 Ezek. 17.13 1 Sam. 14.26.28 Judg. 21.5.15.18 which is contradictory to what this man here saith 2. If the Heir should misprove his power is bounded by the Law and commixed with the Parliaments If he vary the power of Parliament the Laws Liberties of the Subject are the same The late King confessed and declared a remedy against Tyranny to reside in the Parliament there may be a prevention then of the Subjects ruine whatever the Heir prove if the Kingdome be faithfull to it self 3. His third exception against the Oath as unlawlawfull and void is That it is to uphold one kinde of government for continuance and in a constant way without changing His argument to make good this exception proceeds thus If of the severall kinds of government all are not equally good nor suitable to all people And man may change the government he is under for his owne greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of government inconvenient and hurtfull and must not uphold any one kind of government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable then to sweare to uphold any one government continually and constantly and not to change it is sinfull and in righteousnesse and judgment may not be done But of the severall kinds of government all are not equally good nor sutable to all people and man may change the government he is under for his own greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kinde of government inconvenient and hurtfull and must not uphold any one kinde of government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable Ergo For answer hereunto First I observe there is fault to bee found with the whole argument as somwhat transgressing the rules of arguing 1. In the consequence there is somthing of the errour called ignoratio Elenchi for we sweare not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitely or indeterminately as his words import to uphold one government continually and not to change First wee sweare onely to His Maiesty his Heires and Successors so that when ever they are all extinct which may be sooner or later as divine providence disposeth the Oath of it self ceaseth and determines Secondly Notwithstanding the allegiance sworn to the said persons their Crown and Dignity there is power of change in the government left to the mutuall consent of both parties to wit the sworn to and them swearing as it is in all humane contracts and oaths of this nature * Alsted Theol. cas c. 15. Reg. 2. D. Sanders de Iuram oblig prael 7. S. 8. Secondly In the Minor there is somwhat of the fallacy called petitio principii namely that any kind of government granted to be lawfull can prove inconvenient and hurtfull to the subjects The Governours indeed may prove bad and noxious and so the government comes to be abused but a perniciousnesse cannot therefore be charged upon the government it self nor can that be a necessary ground for the change of government if so you will bring in a ground for endlesse mutations a change in the persons or a regulating of them is the apt remedy for that hurt but the government the abstract or essence of the thing never can prove hurtfull because it is an Ordinance of God for mans good and that in
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
for though some were secluded and secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily departed from the House First he means they that sit are all that are left de facto to sit I shall not gainsay him But he might say thus if they were but two and all the rest were excluded by force of arms and those two were prisoners in the place those two in this case would be a Representative according to this his reason If he would be understood that they are all that are de jure left to sit I would heare that proved all that he brings for it here iâ— The most of the rest have diserted their trust 1 Say they had would that prove they that are left are all that de jure are to sit what say you to the lesse part of the rest whom you accuse not for deserters what say you to the secluded and â—ecured whom you cannot accuse of deserting their trust I doe not know that the house or those you call the present Representatives have tryed or Judged any or all of either sort of them unto deprivation of the right of sitting nay what say you to those most of the rest taxed by you as deserters of their trust as voluntarily and without interruption departing are they actually divested of their right to sit because they doe not performe their trust therefore ought they not to do it 2 But I can loke upon this charge of those most of the rest no otherwise then as a railing occusation brought against men in dignity and a presumptious slander intollerably cast upon those who have otherwise suffered so much in their trust first It hath been currently and without contradiction to my knowledg published that were secured or secluded in two or three dayes and how can he or any man be able to know or say that there is so much as one man of that house left at liberty that hath not come to discharge his trust and been actually debarred much lesse can any one say that the most of them have not 2 I would aske whether all that disclaimed not the vote about the Kings concessions were not declaredly excluded and actually put back if they offered to enter and if there be not still forces there ready to do the same 3 Not long before the last breaking of the house they that for feare of the Apprentices departed the house were counted the best performers of their trust and they that taried behind in the house were accused as faylers of it Must now the charge be inverted because the persons are varied 2. If they that sit are all that are left to sit de jure yet unlesse they be a number competent in Law to make a house and free from force I would be satisfyed how they can be qualifyed to sit and act especially in so high matters as the taking away the King and House of Lords and establishing a new power and way of goverment which if don by that house at the fullest and freest would be at least questionable the suspension and annulling the acts of the house upon the proceedings against the five Members and the coming of the Apprentices to the Parliament doores are fresh in memory and lively presidents And if the power of an Army not only captivating some Members but keeping the house that only a few scarce the eighth part of the number of them that constitute the house may enter and sit whom they distinguish by no known Character much lesse by any open or legall sentence against the excluded but only by a private roll of paper reserved in their own hands be not a taking away of the houses freedom I know not what can be so called R. Thirdly the Representatives that remain were alwaies when fewest and still are above the number allowed of by Law What number is allowed of by Law what Law that is where written and when made that alloweth of that number and what that number suppose it were 40. is allowed to do this Gentleman tells us not and yet these things should be set downe and scanned before this reason can passe There is a great difference betwixt forty and foure or five hundred betwixt some acts of the house and others in point of concernment If the Members of the house do not each of them represent the whole but all of them aggregatively in that some represent this part some another of the nation how can an eight part of them be said to make a representative of the whole Nation wherein possibly there is not one representative from seven parts of eight of the Land But the above alledged exception of a force upon the house must be wiped off or else the cleering of this point of the number could it be wil not serve The last thing in the Paper which he would it may be not have to be overslipped is a new doctrine concerning the interest of the people in the appointing of their Governors Wherein he saith 1. Such right as Kings have had they never justly came by it but by force and flattery have obtained it What a blasphemer of dignities is this that presumes to revile the whole order of Kings as Usurpers and unjust possessors of the highest civill property Dominion not one of them will he except from injurious attainment of their Crownes no not Melchisedech himselfe the interpretation of whose name bespeaks him King of Righteousnesse Surely he that is the King of Kings would never have stiled hâ—mself so if the universality of them had been so bad and the Apostle Pauls retractation Act. 23.5 The Angels modesty 2. Pet. 2.10.11 Nay the Prince of Angels his moderation Jude 8.9 are high redargations of this insolent evill speaking of dominions If his intention be to reflect more specially on the Kings of this Realm he is yet therein reproved by the current of History by which it is apparent the most of the Kings of this Land received their Crown by succession which is neither force nor flattery It were easie besides that to derive to many of them that title which he himself accounts the only just one viz. The consent of the Kingdome as for instance thus were Cassibelan of the British Edward sirnamed the Confessor of the Saxon and William Rufus of the Norman Kings invested * Speeds Hist B. 5. chap. 6 P. 8. c 6. S. 1. B. 9. c. 3â—… Yea all of them in a manner have had the Nations vote for their Crowns either antecedent in their predecessors concurrent in their personall entrance or subsequent in their establishment by after acts of Parliament and not a few have had this threefold consent Lastly the Parliament that Enacted the Oath of Allegiance and all the Members of the house of Commons with all other subjects that have taken that oath solemnly give this man the lye excuse it if it be incivility in the first words of it declaring the King sworn to be lawfull King