Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	king_n	parliament_n	14,544	5	6.6609	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85888	A vindication of the Oath of allegiance in ansvver to a paper disperst by Mr Sam: Eaton, pretending to prove the Oath of allegiance voyd, and non-obliging. Wherein his positions against it are examined and confuted. / By the author of the Exercitation concerning usurped powers.	Gee, Edward, 1613-1660.; Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656, attributed name.	1650 (1650)	Wing G452; Thomason E593_6; ESTC R202111	38,293	50

neither the peoples not the Supreme by way of peculiarity and that the Kings power derives as strongly and as nerely from the people as as doth the Parliaments though both have their principall originall from God and are but instrumentally from the people 2. The Consequent is then the Representatives of the people are the Parliament and none else were the Antecedent granted and most true yet he that knows what an argument is or hath but naturall Logick may see that this hath no kind of inference or consequentiall force from it We say that the Lords and Commons of England assembled with the politicall power and presence of the King are the Parliament and for this we appeal to all the use of the word since there was such a thing as a Parliament in England till within these very few dayes and the generall understanding of the word still to the Law common and municipal to the Titles of Parliamentary Acts and Statutes and to the Declarations and constant language of Parliaments themselves from first to last He saith the Representatives of the people meaning the said Commons are the Parliament for this he brings no proofe in the world from the application or use of the word by any though he cannot but know that words signifie according to the pleasure of some Imposer all his medium is in those term The Peoples power and the supreme power Whereas it is a question betwixt us whether there be such a thing as power or supremacy belonging to the people and if that were granted yet it is still a question betwixt us whether the peoples and the supreme power be any more appertaining to the Commons then to the King and Lords I cannot assent to either the affirmative of both are his positions and but barely affirmed by him so that in making this inference he doth but prove one of his principles by another improved and in so doing doth but petere principium 3. His reason of this consequence is for the Representatives are the people in them and there is the race of power This is still but to infer the conclusion upon an unproved principle of his own which I have denyed and refuted above but I shall here touch upon the wide mistakes about this term and thing Representatives with which hee and others are I see overtaken 1. he taketh for granted that the Commons in Parliament are the peoples Representatives which me thinks cannot properly be said if we understand by the people all estates members or parties in the Kingdome and if he doth not so understand it I aske how can he after his own sense place the power supremacy representablenes only in one part of the Kingdom for the said Commons are chosen but by and in the name of the Commoners in distinction from the Peers and cannot are not intended to represent any more then those by and in whose name they are elected and therefore are called the Commons in Parliament besides the Peers are present and therefore cannot be represented If then all the people are not Commoners nor represented how are those Commons truly and compleatly the Representatives of the people 2. He seems to found the Commons power and that in a degree above others that are undoubted powers upon their being Representatives of the people Whereas I think it will upon scanning appear that their representativenesse is not the rise or ground of any Magistraticall power in them 1. That which makes them or any men a power as I apprehend the matter is that they are Gods Representatives and that which ordinarily makes them so is that they are chosen or consented to by the people either personally or in the originall constitution of government unto the administration of an authority ordained by God and thus are in this kingdom the Prince the Peers and the Commons in Parliament though not all the same way but some personally others hereditarily The said Commons have indeed this addition but it is not of Magistraticall power but of popular action and employment that they are the Commons representatives because the colective Commons cannot convene or treat which representation empowers them not to any publique Magistracy or Acts of distributive Iustice but only intrusts and inables them to deeds of Commutative right or contract on the Commoners behalf as the agreeing on Taxes Forces or other requisites to be borne in an equall proportion and which are due as far as proportionable from the people to the publique Magistrates and service 2. If the power of the Commons be grounded on their representativenes of the people then it is necessary all the Members should be present to make them a representative of the whole Body of the people and to inable them to act so as to bind the whole because the Members compose a Representative not so as that every one tepresents the whole but each one represents a part and all of them collectively represents the whole 3 He placeth the dimension and prerogative of the Office of the said Commons in their Representativenes of the people where it seemeth to me they are not meere but more then Representatives of the people They that are meerly Representatives are 1. To act what they whom they represent might act if they were present 2 To act nothing but what they have in charge from the represented But this is not the latitude of the Commons in Parliament they are not thus tyed up For first If they be an estate endued with civill authority they may act authoritatively and so could not the people whome they represent if they were present no such power being seated in them as was a little before alleged 2 If they be a power they are impowred by God and so have in charge from him to act the thing within their Commission whether they are charged from the people to doe them or not yea though the people should command the contrary If they be no more then representees and so be bounden by the latter rule here given perhaps some would aske what charge or Commission did the people ever give either to any Former or to the present Representatives for some actings Thirdly His third Question and Answer is Whether the present Representatives that now sit be the Representative of the people R. First they are all of them chosen by the people therefore of right they sit in Parliament First Whether they be all so chosen I shall not enquire but I have read in Master Prin as I remember it is in his Speech upon the Treaty who it is probable knew the house better then this Gentleman the contrary of some whom he there names 2 But if they all be legally chosen that proves not that they of right sit in Parliament unles there be a right Parliament to sit in R. Secondly the present Representatives are all that are left to sit in Parliamet for the most of the rest have deserted their trust without any force upon them

are absolute not conditionall c. and which are to uphold Monarchy the wofull fruits whereof seeing they are dangerous and may prove as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not only unlawfull to be taken but to be kept Not granting any unlawfullnes in the taking of this Oath having I hope made good its innocency against all that hath bin said yet suppose I had made this objection I would not take this answer My reason is he cannot paralel Herods oath and ours in the matter wherein HERODS was unlawfulll both in the taking and keeping what was that it comprised as he interpreted it the shedding Innocent bloud the massacring of a guiltlesse and holy person Now what is the matter of ours To yeeld obedience in lawfull things to a lawfull power Is it any more and are not the matters of these two oaths as farre unlike as light and darknesse That which he heaps up to agravate our oath to the height of the unrighteousnesse of Herod is nothing but the three exception which all this while I have been answering and therefore shall content my selfe with what hath bin said to them Only in the close he tels us Monarchy is dangerous and may as often it hath prove distructive to the lives of many men and therefore its unlawfull to sweare or keep the upholding of it This is nothing but what may be as truly said of any kind of government how lawfull soever none that hath bin as much practised as it can be affirmed to have bin less distructive or to be lesse dangerous then it but the possibility of being or experience of having been abused is no valid reason why a government may not be upheld if it be downe must all government fal and if yet it may be upheld to sweare to uphold it may be an oath lawfull for the matter and if it cannot in that respect be made a crime it deserves not to be paraleld with Herods oath What paralel in point of unrighteousnes Herod keeping his oath others violating theirs his execution theirs may have it is not to my purpose in hand to shew I have done with his first position and proceed to his second which is this Suppose the Oath of Allegiance to be lawfull yet the subject is now absolved from it by them that have power to absolve from it This position of a power in any to absolve from a lawfull oath is new as far as I have read or heard among protestants and hath until now been accounted by Papists the Popes and Prelates prerogative by us their antichristian presumption But let us see where and upon what ground he builds such power Reason Because the Representatives of the people which in reason are the Supream power imposed this Oath by an Act in Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no law of God or nature obligeing them to accept of such a person as his heires and to swear allegiance to them If therefore the representatives take away and repeale this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the subjects at liberty from such allegiance and from their Oath bind●ng to it there remains no more conscience of it to such as have taken it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it c. 1 For the antecedent I shall only note 1 he sets up a supreame power over us by reason not by law or the peoples constitution and this reason is not the Nations but first either his own privat judgment and if that may treat a supream power to him then every other privat mans reason is to set up on to him even when there is one already over the people he is of 2 Or is it the common reason that is in all men naturally and if so how comes it to passe that there is such variety of kinds in supreame government and that Representatives have it not in all times and nations yea that scarse they ever had it 2. That in citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omits the King and House of Lords who in the then Parliament concurred in this Enacting and Imposition 3. That although the King then was rightfully and actually inthroned in the Regall power and Dignity and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the people to him and his heires yet he dares to say no Law of God or Nature obliged them to accept of such a person and his heirs is not the 5th 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 and doth not that Law command every people and person allegiance to their particular lawfull Governours and was not the King in being his heires in capacity and designation such 2. But for the consequence there is no truth in it nor colour of reason or inference from the Antecedent for it Besides that the act cannot for ought appeares to me be repealed but by the same power that made it and the allegiance sworn was not founded upon the Act or Oath but due and paid before them both The Oath in its own words terms it self a recognition and acknowledgment and the first words of it are I. A. B. truly and sincerely acknowledg professe testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that King James is lawfull King of this Realm c. Suppose the Representatives to be the supreme power that the Imposing of this Oath was their sole act and the Subjects in them and that they did it voluntarily or unobliged to it doth it thence follow the Representatives repealing that act the subjects that upon their Enacting swore it are now absolved from their allegiance and from the Oath 1. They that have power to impose an Oath were never said in any Divinity extant to have power eo ipso to absolve from it when the imposers are also the partie sworn to there it is granted both by Protestants and Papists Doctor Sanders de Juram oblig prael 7 S. 8. Thol●s Syr. tag Jur● lib. 50. cap. 12. they have so farre as concernes themselves power to release from the Oath not because they are not the Imposers but because they are the party sworn to for omnis qui promissit facit jus alteri cui est facta promissio the right of the thing sworn is theirs to whom the Oath is made therefore they may release from it and this is the true ground of that power he supposeth in Abraham to acquit his servant being the imposer of his oath if that was not rather the interpretation then relaxation of the oath but where the imposers are a third party from the persons swearing and sworn to there they have no claim of power of relaxation And thus the case is here the Representatives as he saith impose the oath which is sworn to the King and bind in allegiance to him

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 i● 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 ●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 h●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. 3●… 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