Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	know_v	way_n	2,597	5	4.7191	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70705	The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained.	True son of the Church of England.; True son of the Church of England. aut; N. N. aut; A. A. aut	1689 (1689)	Wing N45; ESTC R223803	26,704	41

do again deny The Coronation Oath and Oath of Allegiance are mutual Ties of Protection and of Obedience to the Laws the King to obey the Laws in Administration of Justice and the People to obey the Laws in being Passive to them It is impossible for a King to Govern with that Justice and Equity but he will have some Enemies and if the People do not protect him how can he be safe in his Throne There is a Natural Allegiance due to all Men that is from one Man to another and there is a Political Allegiance due to the King for protecting me in my Civil Rights c. and this is the only Cause and Foundation of Allegiance to which I have spoken more large in the 20 and 21 Replyes 32. The Law indeed Indemnities the People for Obeying an Vsurper or a King only de Facto but this supposes a Fault which without this Law was severely punishable besides it doth not say that they shall assist the King de Facto in his Warrs c. but only take care to secure them if they do so What Fault can there be supposed in Obeying or Assisting an Usurper or King de Facto when the Law does not Punish but allows of such Obedience and Assistance Treason cannot be committed against a King out of Possession of the Throne but it is Treason to be aiding or assisting towards his Restoration which is Conspiring against the King de Facto And as long as a King in Possession tho not by regular descent governs according to the Laws of the Land he ought to be assisted and may require his Subjects Assistance in his Warrs After all the Clamour and Noise that hath been made about the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance it appears by this that it is only Conditional and that it is dissolved whenever the King ceases to Govern or Reign 33. As for your Aphorism the Safety of the People c. I do not dispute the truth of it But whether the Way to observe this supream Law be to violate the Right of Succession I do and so will you I believe upon second thoughts very much question The Divine Law is the same in one Countrey as in another I would fain know whether the Law that is made in France That no Woman shall Inherit the Throne and the turning out the King of Portugal and setting up his younger Brother who was more fit to govern and many like Instances might be given be against this Divine Law and whether or no England for its Security may not exclude the next Heir to the Crown or turn out He that shall be upon the Throne who are uncapable or will not govern according to the Laws of the Land. I do affirm that there is no other Right of Succession than what proceeded from the People and that this was given to the King for the time being and to his Heirs upon Condition that He and they should Govern according to the Laws and Customs of the Countrey else to what purpose was these Rules and Bounds of Government given but that he should be obliged to govern according to them and not according to his Will and Pleasure What an Essay would it be upon our Reason to think that our Ancestors who made Kings were such Fools or Mad Men as not to reserve to themselves a Power of turning them out if they endeavour'd to destroy them or act contrary to those Rules they had set them If they had no such Intention or Reserve yet it follows they had such Power and that it still remains because there neither was ●or is any Law to the contrary and this has been several times Executed as may be seen in the 18 and 19 Reply 34. The Kings of England as all other Kings came to their Crowns by Divine Appointment and are only recognized or received to their Rights by the People The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are given to the King for the time being only to prevent what Mischiefs might otherwise ensure to the Community Sir You are pleased to take no Notice of the latter Part of my 29th Query which is as distinct a Head as any one and begins at the ending of a full Point thô not in a Break like the rest which being very proper in Answer to this Assertion of yours I shall here insert it viz. If Kings are by Divine Appointment is it not rational to believe that God would have commanded all the World to have been Govern'd by Kings or at least the Christian World and have given them a Law to Govern by The Prerogatives and Authorities of the Crown are nothing but the bounds and supports of the Regal Authority and are given to the King for the time being but if he exceeds those Bounds it is no Prerogative or Authority and then most certain the People who gave him his Authority has Authority to take it away Now I would fain know what your Jure Divino King would signifie more than a stalking Horse when his Prerogatives and Authorities are taken from him for you allow them to be in the People for I am sure this is the only way to prevent the Mischiefs which would otherwise ensue to the Community from a false and destructive Governour It cannot be proved that there hath been a King by Divine Appointment for these many Ages last past If they were by Divine Appointment then they would be set up by the immediate Appointment of Almighty God as over the Children of Israel or else the Scripture would have said that their Issue should be Kings and then you must prove a right Line from that Issue which is impossible to beproved or that the World should be Govern'd by Kings Since God Almighty hath no where Commanded or appointed the World to be Govern'd by Kings it absolutely follows That it is the Peoples Right to choose their Kings and Governours and then what greater Nonsense can there be than to affirm the People hath not Right to Punish their Kings by turning them out of the Throne for not Administring of Justice 35. In the first Ages of Christianity the Right of Succession was not a settled Title to the Empire neither were the Christians of that time bound by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy And this is the reason most probably why our Saviour and his Apostles only warn'd them in general to Obey the Emperours who were then in Power without enquiring into their Right and Title Although in the first Ages of Christianity the Roman Emperours were seldom by a Hereditary Right and the Christians were not bound to them by Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy yet the Commands of our Saviour and his Apostles for their Obedience to those Heathen Princes under the Pain of Damnation was more binding than any Oath those Princes could have required of them 36. As for your Challenge I do undertake to prove the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Vnlawfulness of Deposing of Kings