Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
power_n king_n parliament_n resist_v 3,897 5 10.0920 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A52664 The nations address to the committee of grievances in Parliament for the taking off the corporation oath in behalf of all cities, towns-corporate, aldermen, bayliffs, burgesses, as also sheriffs, lord lieutenants, and deputy lieutenants of counties, ministers, and all others concerned for the repealing those acts, which impose the oath folowing. England and Wales. Parliament. Committee of Grievances. 1689 (1689) Wing N235A; ESTC R636 5,730 2

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

will ask here Whether the Sheriff act not herein by the King's Authority I think it cannot be denyed By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Laws and if he can Act so Justificially against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out How is this Position in this Case Traiterous and to be Abhorred It were hardly now to be imagined that it could be the intent of any Parliament in England to advance the Personal Will or Commission of the King above Law which is to make his power Despotical and not Royal Non est Rex says Bracton ubi Dominatur voluntas non Lex He is no King that Governs by his Will and not by Law. And how it should come to pass therefore that he should enjoin this Po●ition indefinitely without exception of this Case at least to be Sworn to as altogether Traiterous I can never methinks wonder enough What if any Souldiers should come with a Commission under the Seal to raise Money without an Act of Parliament and by vertue of such Commissions Seize our Goods Rifle our Houses and Ravish our Wives May not the People or our inferior Magistrates or the Sheriff for the County withstand such Violence May not the Constable alone from the Justice to keep the Peace raise the Neigbourhood and do it If he may or the Sheriff may it must be in the Name of the King or by Authority of the Law and then there is some Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Authority of the King against such as are Comssionated by him though not against his Sacred Person Nay what if a Prince should go to ravish a Virgin and she catches up the next Weapon or Instrument that is at hand to defend her Chastity would such a Sacredness as that make this Act of hers to be sinful that is so Vertuous in it self Suppose again that Papists or Fanaticks should either by Power or Surprize at any time get a King in their Hand as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King and prevail with him for fear of his Life to grant Commissions under his Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State must the Nation be Remediless in this Case and the King and Kingdom ruin'd by these Commissions Nay What security hath the Nation that a Lord Keeper may not prove Traitor to his King and Country and under the Broad-Seal grant Commissions to Disband his Majesties Life-Guard deliver up the Navy or Sea-Port Towns seize on the Tower and all places of Strength In what a Condition were the King and Kingdom brought if the Subjects Hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms against the Executiers of such Commissions suppose but so long as till they understand his design seeing by that time the Nation be past recovery And who is there now that will not be offended at the Sense and turn'd at the Horror of these sad Consequences into which such Tests and Injunctions if not now seasonably Retrench'd may lead our Posterity As for the Form thereof the Words I abhor this Traiterous Position they are Harsh The word Abhor especially was a Word of interest and passion a cooler word as I disown or disallow might have served Some of the most Gravell of the Nonconformists were much scandaized at that Word A Man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience when he cannot say according to Truth I abhor it Well Sirs When these words Abhor and Traiterous are so harsh in the Composure and when such Cases as above-mentioned and others may be put as to the Position in the Matter of it I offer it in the next place to Consideration whether the Middle part of the Oath be according to Truth For the First Part we have a large Assertion roundly Sworn The Oath runs not only that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King and that it is not lawful on any pretence but on any Pretence or Cause whatsoever The Grammatical literal Construction of that Word seems to insinuate no less than that this Proposition must be held without Restraint or Limitation Among the most eminent Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes and Establish'd it against Resistance in their Writings on this Subject I suppose they are few or none to be leveled above these Three Barclay Grotius Arnisaeus and we shall find that they have all their restrictions or Cases of Exception in the maintenance of this Tenet And how could any learned Justice formerly be very earnest in punishing a Refusor when if the matter was but scann'd th●●eason why he refused would be found only because he ha● Read more than some others that yielded their Submiss●on 〈◊〉 begin with Barclay that is William Barclay a Scot and Coun●elolr to the French King who writes against Buehanan Boucher and other Monarchomachists as he calls them This learne● Man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the who●● People that consequently no Arms can be taken against him Nevertheless when he comes to put some pressing Cases he thus limits him Quid ergo nulline casus insidere possunt quibus populo in Regem arma capere jure suo liceat Nulli certe quam diu Rex manet What then Can there no Cases happen wherein It is lawful for the People to take Arms against the King by right None certainly so long as he remains a King. There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth exuere personum Regis or Dominatu se exuere put off the Person of a King and particularly l. 3. ch 16. he mentions two Si regnum alienet si Rem-publicam evertere conetur If he go to Alienate his Kingdom If he go to overthrow the Common-Wealth Let us come to a Grotius and first quote him in his Judgment of Barclay lest you may think else I mistake him Barclaius saies he Regis imperii licet Assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit ut populo insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem sevitiam Barclay though the most strong Assertor of Kingly Government does come to this that he Grants a right to the People or an Eminent part of them of defending themfelves against intolerable Oppression For himself therefore after he hath asserted this Tenet Summum imperium tenentibus jure resisti non posse That the Higher Powers may not lawfully be resisted from Scripture Antiquity Authority and Example to as much purpose perhaps as any he descends to put Seven Cases wherein he does Leorem monere warn his Reader Ne punet in hanc legem delinquere eos qui reverà non delinquunt Lest he mistake some for Delinquents in this matter that are none It will be too long and needless to mention those Cases For Arnisaeus he hath wrote three Learned Books of Politicks De jure Majestatus De Doctrina Politica De Authoritate Principum in Populum semper inviolabili seu Quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum Principem arma sumere That the Authority of Princes over the People ought to be inviolable or That it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince Here then we have our Tenet but as to the stating it he is forc'd to distinguish There is Rex and there is Tyrannus a King and a Tyrant And there is Tyrannus in Titulo and Tyrannus in Exerictio A Tyrant in Title and a Tyrant in Practice And this he comes to in the issue that Tyraunus in Exercitio as Tyrant in Practice does Exeidere de jure si Hereditario fall from his Right though Heredita●y Truditur Resublica Principi in cum finem saies he ut illi profit in salutem omnium a quo si prorses disciverit etiam de potestate cadit quam non alio sine sibi commissam habebat The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince that he should rule over it for the common Safety from which if he depart altogether he falls even from the Power it self which was committed to him only for this End. By such Testimonies as these I would convince the Compilers of such Declarations if they be alive and any others that are yet of the same Spirit with some Resentment and Shame that when a temperare Sense and Meaning of them is such as some good men have not stuck at yet are they so Composed in termiis as renders them not to be endured For the Form then yet of the Words I A. B. do Swear That it is not lawful c. Here is an Oath to the Matter of a Proposition questioned to the Determination of a point of Conscience and that diversly decided An Oath should he to a Matter of Fact and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain To require of Men therefore to Swear to the Verity of a Doctrine is not according to Judgment being a thing im●ossible because no man is infallible Now then Sirs When here is such an Erratum in the Composure as the want of the Words I believe or the like I Swear that I hold or believe that it is not lawful c. and so material an Exception as the Judgment of the most Learned comes to against the Substance in Terminis of the first part of the Oath which yet hath gone down ordinarily without Chewing I humbly offer it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken in Truth o● in Judgment An Oath must be taken in Judgment Truth and in Righteousness The First part is not according to Judgment The Second not according to Truth The Third not according to Righteousness London Printed for R. Hayhurst in Little-Britain 1689.
THE NATIONS ADDRESS TO THE Committee of Grievances in Parliament For the Taking Off the CORPORATION OATH IN Behalf of all Cities Towns-Corporate Aldermen Bayliffs Burgesses as also of Sheriffs Lord Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants of Counties Ministers and all others concerned for the Repealing those Acts which impose the Oath following The OATH I A. B. do swear That it is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King. And that I do abhor that Traiterous position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by Him in pursuance of such Commissions And that I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government either in Church or State. IN this Oath we have the Matter and the Form of Words that is the Substance and Composure And there are Three Parts of it The first Part is not consistent with Judgment The Second with Truth The Third with Righteousness I will take up the Last part First And I will not endeavour any Alteration of Government There is no Government on Earth so perfect that it has need of Laws like the Medes and Persians Government may be considered in the Administration according to Politicks or the Constitution The Word Government is set down here indefinitely without Distinction Alteration of Laws and so Government in the Adminestration is as necessary many times upon emergent occasions to the Body Politick as the fresh Air is to the Natural This Oath was once brought in to the Parliament to have been made common It were a thing not Righteous a destructire thing to have such an Engagement laid on persons in such a capacity It were injurious to have it laid on any Free-holders or Free-Subjects as we are The Constitution of our Nation as Parliamentary is such that no Law can be Established or Repealed but it must pass the House of Commons and so the whole Body concurr in their Representatives to every Alteration of or in the Government which is made if it be Legal No House of Commons but is Chosen by the People Every English-man is intended to be here present either in Person or by Procuration and the Consent of the Parliament is taken to be every Mans Consent says Sir Thomas Smith De Rep. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Nay while the King Consilio Consensu Baronum Leges olim imposuit Universo Regno by the Counsel and Assent of his Barons did give Laws to his whole Realm Consentire inferior quisque visus est in persona Domini sui Capitalis pro ut hodie per Procuratores Comitatus every Inferior seemed to consent in the person of his Chief Lord as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires says Sir Henry Spelman This is so true that in this sense it is that the Laws are said to be Quas vulgus elegerit Which the People shall choose Now then if every Free Subject hath a Fundamental Liberty to Choose Knights and Burgesses and accordingly to inform them of their Grievances and Petition them for Redress and in them as their Representatives do consent to the Alteration of Government and Laws if there be any pass as profitable to the Nation How can such an Oath be imposed on him That he will not endeavour any Alteration as this Is not Chusing Burgesses informing them Petitioning them Acting and Legally Consenting in them to this end An Endeavour and that as much as can be in their Place and Calling And no more than an Endeavour in their Place and Calling was Sworn in the Covenant It is true that New Laws was made and Old Repealed without Alteration of the Constitution but not without Alteration of Government because Government takes in both the Administration and Constitution Let us suppose the word Government confin'd only the Constitution This is the Constitution of the Government in the State which is a Legal Monarchy and this indeed we are so far bound from endeavouring to Alter now we are constituted a Common-wealth that I think it not alterable by the King himself and Parliament though it might be so little a while since when they were a Convention because the Supream Power for the Administration must be supposed in all Communities to be derived from and held by the Constitution But as for Government in the Church We are to know and to acknowledge the Constitution it self hereof is but a Law of the Administration in Reference to the State. And consequently when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulations of Parliaments the great Question will remain How these men who are Presbyterian or Independant in their Judgment and think Episcopacy against the Scripture can be denyed the Endeavour only before mentioned which consists but in Choosing Representatives and doing no more than the Constitution allows in order to the Prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience both by Oath and the Word of God Is not the Foundation Liberty of the whole People and our selves with them here in danger Judg ye that are Wise and what an Anointed Plot 〈◊〉 had here in the Nation that an Allegiance in effect should be Sworn to the Bishops as well as to the King by such Impositions For the Words then or Form I wonder at this Rigor in the Compiler that a man must Swear Not to endeavour any Alteration Had it not been enough to be Engaged not to endea any Alteration of the Substance of our Government Episcopacy in the Church and Monarchy in the State but it must be Not Any Alteration It were well that we were so absolutely perfect And again must we not at any time endeavour any Alteration What if times should turn and we be in a Confusion as in Cromwell's time and immediately after What if any such like chance or changes come Must these Men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to render back this Government that we have No not the King and the Bishops if the Iniquity of the Times should put them out for they have Sworn they will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or State. Sirs The Matter of this Obligation being against the Fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Parliament and the Words you see so ensnaring and that against the Duty all owe to the publick good I offer it to you to consider in the first place whether this last Part be according to Righteousness For the Middle part of the Oath Here is a Position of Taking Arms by the Kings Authority against any Commissionated by him which must be Sworn to as Abhor and Trayterous There is a Case that hath been always in the Mouths of the Understanding Refusers of this Oath and Subscription Suppose some Writ Sued out and comes to the Sheriffs Hands and suppose persons come to oppose the Execution by the Kings personal Command or Commission and he thereupon raises the Posse Comitatus upon them I