Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	heir_n	say_a	successor_n	2,638	5	9.6943	5	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

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

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