Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	king_n	law_n	levy_v	3,963	5	11.2983	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81909	Conscience eased: or, the main scruple which hath hitherto stuck most with conscionable men, against the taking of the Engagement removed. Where amongst other things is shewed, first, how farre the oath of allegiance, and the nationall League and Covenant are obligations; either in their legall intents unalterable or at this time no more binding and alterable. Secondly. How farre in a free people the subordinate officers of the state, have a right to judge of the proceedings of a king in that state. Thirdly, how Zedekia'es case in breaking his oath to the king of Babylon, and our case in making use of our freedome from the oath of allegiance, and supremacie to the king of England doe differ. / The author, John Dury.	Dury, John, 1596-1680.	1651 (1651)	Wing D2841; Thomason E625_4; ESTC R206464	25,629	40

therefore to resolve this doubt also I shall compare our condition of subjection and our Oath binding him thereunto towards the King of Babylon and then if the case bee found alike I shall confesse that we are now as much bound to the master of our Oath as he then was bound to the master of his but if his relation to the King of Babylon was wholly different from ours to our King if his Oath of submission to that King was of another kind then ours was to our King and if his way of freeing himself from his relation and from the bond of his Oath towards the King of Babylon was quite another thing then what hath been intended by us then I hope you will not make our case parallel to his but in all these matters a vast difference will be found between him and us ergoe his guilt cannot be made ours First his Relation to the King of Babylon was to be the vassall In respect of the relation wherein he stood to Nebuchadnezer and wee to the King of England of a Conquerour for the K. of B. having ruined the state of Iudah and subdued the Nation made Zedekiah his vassall to rule it in his name who bound himselfe by Oath so to do but wee stood not under our K. as a Conquered natio● by him but as free borne subiects under a King bound to rule by law Secondly the Oath by which Zedekiah did submit himself to the K. of Babylon was prescribed according to Nebuchadnezzars will and no doubt it was absolutely to keep the Nation in his subjection In respect of the oath which he tooke and wee tooke without any condition of Laws of Priviledges of Liberties or of any such thing supposed or imposed on Nebuchadnezzars part but the Oath by which the people of this Nation were bound to be subjects to their K. was by those that framed and imposed it made to be taken and kept under certain conditions viz. that we should be Subjects by Law and not otherwise and that our subjection to him should be consistent with the priviledges of Par. the native liberties of the nation no otherwise and to make this Oath binding those who imposed it upon the people had power to impose another Oath which was reciprocall thereunto upon the King that he might be bound to them to rule by law as well as they to him to be obedient according to law by which meanes the tye of the Oath was severall wayes limited and the K. himself as well bound up in his commands as they in their obedience by a Law but no such thing can be imagined between Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar Thirdly his way of freeing himself from his relation and oath was In respect of his way of breaking of his oath and of our way of being freed from it by a direct rebellion contrary to the intent of his Oath and Covenant but our way of freeing ourselves hath been Legall agreeable to the Tenor of the Law and to the sense of the Authority by which the Oath was given and made Legall for the Oath in the sense of the Legislative power was never absolute but conditionall it did not binde us to the Kings personall and arbitrary will and command but to his government and authority as he had a leg●ll standing and the sense of the Parl. touching the Oath of Allegiance how farre we are thereby intended to be made subordinate to the K. is expressed in the Nationall Covenant which makes it clearly conditionall and the Parl. it self hath freed us long agoe from the obligation of that condition by declaring that he had forfeited his right to govern any longer So that the difference between Zedekiah and us is so vast in this point of being free from the Oath that I can find no resemblance at all in the one to the other for as in our case if the K. kept not his Oath to his Subjects they were absolved De lure from their Oath to him in Zedekiah his Case there was no such contract between the K. of Babylon and him but the will of the Conquerour was his law in our case there was a Law to Regulate both the K. and us in keeping of our Oathes and Trustees in Parl. to see that law kept who herein were above the King and in cases of aberration empowered to see faults amended both in King and Subjects but in the case of Zedekiah there is no such thing the Authority of Nebuchadnezzar was above all Humane positive Lawes and Zedekiah was sworn to be absolutely his Subject in such things and to keep his people in subjection thereunto In our Case the King to whom we were sworne deserted his Station of Government and left his trust by leaving his Parliament and levying warre against it but in Zedekiah his Case no such thing is imaginable In our case the Parliament having the Supreme Authority of the Nation and having conquered the King doth oblige us to be true and faithfull to the free States without him but in Zedekiah his Case no such thing is conceiveable and many other things of a different nature might be insisted upon in our Case which cannot be brought home to Zedekiah his Case to free him from his Oath as we are freed from ours for his whole action was directly opposite to the cleare intent of his Oath and to all the circumstances of the publique good of the Nation oft he Iews as the Lord himself doth intimate in Ezech. Ch. 17. 4 5 6 7 8. but our actions in following the Parliament have been all along consonant to the Legall intentof our Oath by which we are absolved from our relation to the King as also by all the circumstances of his miscarriages of his illegall proceedings and of his breach of trust towards the publike by all the circumstances of the publike good to be procured without him not according to the iudgement of particular men for in this Case my Rule is not to make every private man a Iudge of the publique good but of the Supreme Authority of the Nation and by all the circumstances of his removall from the Throne and of our present standing under the Supreme power of the Nation which now is over us So that to Oblige the conscience of private men to intend the restauration of a royall governmēt upon the account of such an Oath from which we are made so many wayes Legally free is to me a great mistake of Duty and a dangerous snare to intangle weake spirits into the occasions of publique disturbances whereunto I know you are not inclined to give any the least Overtures but the danger is that other men who are of a turbulent disposition and by such a mistake of their dissol●ed relation and seeming Obligation to that which is contrary to their present Duty being otherwise personally discontented may st●enthen and heighten their distempers to a full resolution of publique disturbance and endeavours of distructive unsettlements from which I am sure your genius and pious thoughts do abhorre Thus you have that which I can at present suggest which I beseech the Lord so to addresse as it may tend most to your comfort if you be still unsatisfied and if you be already satisfied that it may be a meanes to confirme you in that which is agreeable to his holy Will and profitable to the good of the Common-wealth of Israel in the love of which I subscribe my self West minster this 8. Decem. 1650. Your faithfull and affectionate Servant I. D.