Sword have yet Complyed with the Parliament to obtain a sure Title then the power of putting in and establishing such Chief Commanders appertaineth to the Parliament But how comes it then saith he that there is such variety of kinds of Supream Government Reply This hath come to passe sometimes because the peoples Right hath been invaded by force and power and so the people hath not acted freely and sometimes by the interest of some persons in the people they have been wrought up to give consent to this or that kind of Supream Government or it may come from the variety of apprehensions in several Common-wealths affecting and chusing rather this then that kind of Government Notwithstanding in those Common-wealths where the people chuse their Representatives to act their power for them Common Reason saith that such Representatives are the Supream power 2 He saith In citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omitts the King and House of Lords who in the then Parliament Concurred in this Enacting and Imposition Reply Neither King nor House of Lords had power to make a Law that was the Prerogative of the peoples Representatives and the King must confirm what they did Herein was the Representative Supremacy above the other 3 He saith That although the King was then rightfully and actually Enthroned in the Regal Power and Dignitie and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the People to his Heirs yet he dares to say That no Law of God or Nature obliged them to except of such a Person and his Heirs Is not the Fifth 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 Reply 1 I speak of things Originally as they were at first himself spake a little before That Government in the special forme of it and the persons holding it was Chosen and immediatly Constituted by men Where then is either Law of God or Nature determinatively binding to it Therefore what Right any such Family hath it was Originally by the Peoples receiving such a Family and therefore it was free and voluntary 2 The 5 Commandement Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. exalts not any Family to the Throne nor doth require the people to accept of such and such a Family to be over them but being accepted and while continued requires subjection but no further 3 The Kings Ancestors came by Conquest and if rightfully Enthroned in Regal Power then the Title by Conquest it seems is good by his Assertion which yet in the present change I beleeve he wil not acknowledge nor dare I grant it without the consent of the Representatives in Parliament Therâ—ore it is that Kings themselves when they have got the Crown by the Sword have desire to hold it by Consent of Parliament and their Acts for it 4 What Right came Originally by Parliament and the Acts thereof and not by any expresse Law of God or Nature cannot be an everlasting Right but may be with-drawn together with al the Confirmations of it if the Causes be just by the same power that set it up But for the Consequence he saith It hath no Truth in it or colour of Reason nor Inference from the Antecedent But what Reason shews he for blasting the Consequence and reproaching it in such sort 1 He saith The Act cannot for ought appears to me be Repealed but by the same power that made it Reply If he mean by the same power the Representatives in Parliament then the same power that made the Act hath Repealed it but if he mean by the same power the King and House of Lords together with the Representatives in Parliament I have shewed That the King and House of Lords have no Legislative power at al and that it is the Representative sole priviledge to make Laws and the King must Confirme therefore they could do it without him 2 He saith The Allegiance sworn was not founded upon that Act or Oath but due before Reply I have not Asserted That the Allegiance is founded upon that Act or Oath but I hold the contrary viz That the Oath is founded upon Allegiance that was due before But this I Assert That Allegiance was never absolutly but conditionally due 1 While the Prince keeps his Oath in the Coronation taken to administer Justice 2 While the Parliament have not declared him to have broken his Oath and so that relation cease betwixt him the people consequently the Allegiance to be at an end and consequently the Oath of it to be extinct This is cleerly my Tenant That while Allegiance is due to any Governor whatever the Oath that hath been taken of it is binding and that al persons and powers in the World are never able to absolve or acquit the persons that have taken it from it But yet withal this I hold That 1 Allegiance may expire 2 That it then expires when the Condition of it is not kept 3 That the Parliament is the Supream power and so the Judge oâ— this when the Condition is broken 4 When they declare that the Condition is broken unlesse there be a palpable unrighteousness in their Declaration and when they by their Acts do discharge the people of their Allegiance and do Repeal the Act for the Oath of Allegiance then the people are free first of their Allegiance and then of the Oath which they took of it And this is that which I further hold That the People or Common-wealth are firstly and principally subject to the Parliament their Representatives for they have put their whole power into their hand so far as concerns the exercise of it and have put themselves into subjection under them and therefore their Allegiance is firstly due to them and through them to any Governor or Governors Prince or other Magistrate or Magistrates whom they shal either set up and entrust with the exercise of Supream power when they Sit not or whom they shal confirm finding in that power when they came to Sit. Why else have persons who have come to the Throne by Conquest immediatly called Parliaments to ratifie and confirme their Title which they foresaw might be justly questioned without such ratification And in this sense it is That the Parliament it self hath taken the Oath of Allegiance to Princes not Collectively as an House sitting in power and authority of Parliament for in that sense themselves were Supream but as single persons and members of the Common-wealth they themselves are subject to the power that as a Parliament themselves erect and confirm And I also conceive That hereupon there is no Allegiance to any Magistrate against the Parliament but that the Parliament may make it void while they remain the Peoples Representatives and continue in that place and power As now in this Change of things the Councel of State is the Supream power of the Nation at al times when there shal be no Parliament sitting
Whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Propriety of the Subject or subverted it We know what their Education was Who then could take an oath in righteousness and judgment in reference to them It is good to know first and to swear afterward 3 Not to any one kind of Government Monarchical or any other to uphold it and continue it in a constant way without changing of it Reason Because though Civil Government in general be an Ordinance of God tending to mans good therefore to reject it would be sinful yet this or that kind of Government is not an Ordinance of God but an Ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2. 13. And if an Ordinance of man then man may change it for his own greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful Then to swear not to change it is sinful and in righteousness and judgment may not be done for all kinds of Government is not equallie good uor are they equallie suitable to all people and experience makes persons wise to discern what is better and what is worse for themselves Therefore an Oath to uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable is unlawful Consequence Then the oath of allegiance serving to uphold Kingly Government against all other was an unlawful oath for who knows not what a plague this kind of Government hath been to this Nation and who knows not that the most of our Kings have been Tyranâ—s and who knows not what a Blessing the change of Government hath brought to the United Provinces Objection But suppose there was some unlawfulness in the taking of such Oathes yet is there not a necessity of keeping them being taken Answer If that Oath taken against the life of one man by Herod because unrighteous and cruel was not only sinfully taken but more sinfully kept then such oaths of allegiance which are absolute and not conditional which are single and not mutual which are to Heirs whether wise-men or fools whether just men or Tyrants which are to uphold Monarchy the woful fruits whereof having been long tasted and felt by this Nation seeing they are dangerous and may proâ—e as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not only unlawful to be taken but unlawful to be kept POSITION II. SUppose the Oath of Allegiance be a lawful Oath yet the Subject is now absolved from it by them that have Power to absolve from it Reason The Representatives of the People which in reason are the Supream Power of the Nation imposed this Oath upon the Subject by an Act for it made in Parliament by which they obliged the Subject to Allegiance to the King then in being and to his Heirs And this Act done by their Representatives was their own voluntarie Act to which they were not obliged by anie law of God or Nature for there is no rule requiring them to accept of such a Person to be their Prince and his Heirs after him and to swear Allegiance to him and them but this was the Subjects own free Act in their Representatives Therefore if the Represâ—ntatives take away this Act and repeal it they thereby set the Subjects at Libertie from such Allegiance and from that Oath by which they are bound to it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it because not bound by anie rule from God but obliged by Abraham onlie Consequence This present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which was Enacted to be imposed there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it But then it will come unto this Whether the Parliament be the Supream Power Whether the Representatives of the People be the Parliament Whether the present Representatives that now Sit in Parliament be the Representatives of the People To the First I say 1 It is evident That the Norman Kings coming in by Conquest had never any true Right to the Crown of England but what the Parliament gave them Then the Power of the Parliament was greater then theirs because that Power that is the Cause of Power is greater then that Power that is the Effect of Power 2 The Power of Parliament is the Power of the People now in Reason the Power of the People is the Supream Power because thence as from the Root all Power first sprang and proceeded To the Second I say Iâ— the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power and the Supream Power then the Representatives of the People are the Parliament and none else for the Representatives of the People are the People in them and there is the Root of Power therefore they are a Parliament To the Third I say The present Representatives that now Sit in Parliament are 1 All of them Chosen by the People therefore of Right they Sit in Parliament 2 The present Representatives are all that are left to Sit in Parliament for the most of the rest have Deserted their Trust without any Force upon them for though some were Secluded and Secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily Departed from the House 3 The Representatives that Remained and Continued to Sit in Parliament were alwayes when fewest and still are above the Number allowed of by Law and therefore they are a Parliament There is one Objection which may be urged against the Parliaments Absolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and against their Abolishing Kingly Government It may be said That Kings have the same Right to their Kingdoms Crowns and Revenues as others Quest have to their Mannors and Demesnes Such Right which Kings have had they never justly came by it but Answ by Force and Flattery have obtained it and have Usurped upon the Birth-right of the People to whom it belongs to Chuse them that must Rule over them and Kingdoms with the Appurtenances thereto were never intended for particular mens Advancements to lift up such Families in Glory and Greatness or that the Heraeditary Right of any should be in them but that Wisdom Righteousness and Vertue was to lift up men unto them and Crowns and Revenues were to encourage them in acting in such Places and men that were so Qualified were to be Heirs and Successors set up by the People after them And the People themselves nor their Representatives could neither Give nor Sell away this Priviledge from their Posterity in which the welfare of the People is so mainly concerned and without which a People are given up and sold to Ruine This cannot be said of Mannors and Demesnes which are things which fall under Commutative Justice and are things vendible and wherein particular men are concerned and not the Common-Wealth AN ANSVVER TO A PAPER Pretending to prove the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Void and non-Obliging Containing TWO POSITIONS The Substance whereof is Repeated in the Process of this ANSWER THE drift of
it were not in Judgment this defect makes not an oath Unlawful as to the nullifying of it A rash oath if of a lawful thing binds Judg. 21. 7. 15. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Josh 9. 14. 15. as before was proved 2 Nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may bind himself to his own 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 intending the publick good to that which is of a mutual nature and may in the event turn to his own hurt and ruine and might he not so swear yet having so sworn he is bound to stand to his Oath Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. 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 and 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 faithful to it self 3 His Third Exception against the Oath as unlawful and void is That it is to uphold one kind of Government for continuance and in a constant way without changing His Argument to make good this Exception proceeds thus If of the several 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 kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable then to swear to uphold any one Government continually and constantly and not to change it is sinful and in Righteousness and Judgment may not be done But of the several 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 kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable Ergo For Answer hereunto First I observe there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument as somewhat transgressing the rules of arguing 1 In the Consequence there is something of the error called Ignoratio Elenchi for we swear not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitly or indeterminatly as his words import to uphold one Government continually and not to change First We swear only to His Majesty his Heirs and Successors so that when ever they are al 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 mutual consent of both parties to wit Those sworn to and them swearing as it is in al humane Contracts and Oaths Al 's Theol. Cas C. 15. Reg. 2. of this nature ‡ 2 In the Minor there is somewhat of the fallacy called petitio principii namely That any kind of Government granted to be lawful can prove inconvenient and hurtful to the Subjects The Governors 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 wil 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 hurtful because it is an Ordinance of God for mans good Rom. 13. 12. 4. and that in specie as afterwards wil be shewed and as a Goâ—ernment it hath a political goodnesse seated in its being by the unchangable Law of Nature Secondly But admit the Argument were not peccant in form yet the Assumption in the main of it which is That man may change the Government he is under for his own greatest good and must change it when he hath proved anie Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold anie one Government longer then it continues most safe and profitable I must flatly deny What Position more Anarchical could be delivered For the disproof I offer thus 1 He saith Man may change the Government c. but the holy Ghost saith Prov. 24. 21. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change He alloweth a change to be for greater good but the holy Ghost tels us in the next words Vers 22. For their Calamitie shall rise suddenlie and who knoweth the Ruine of them â—oth 2 If men may change for the better and must change upon a supposed hurt then all Oathes Engagements or Promises of Obedience Allegiance or Fidelity to Magistrates are unlawful to be undertaken for al such Bonds are in relation to a present and particular Government the Engagers are under And they are not for the time present or for an instant but for a future Continuance And there is in al such Engagements a making over of the Right which the Engagers have in the matter Covenanted to the persons Engaged to according to that known Rule Omne promissum cadit in debitum either then such a change to be made by the persons under Authority may not must not be or such Engagements may not must not be by them undertaken The former imports a power and duty inherent in the Subjects to reserve in themselves a liberty to alter and to practise it when they judge it convenient The latter speaks a binding out from any such deed and an abandoning of any such Right but the Scripture is cleer enough for such Engagements Eccles 8. 2. 2 King 11. 4. Josh 1. 16 17 18 Judg. 8. 9 10. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Thirdly This Position not only disalows all such Engagements but dissolves the natural or moral bond it self of duty and subjection to Magistrates for to be free to change when a man judgeth it best is to be free when he wil and that is not to be tyed at al by this means any man is disingaged from subjection both in foro interno externo when he wil say He thinks the present Government not safe or profitable or another to be better and having so resolved he is absolved He may now disobey the Commands stand our against the Judgements take up Arms against the Person and Authority and be exempt from the Sword of the Magistrate yea although he
Oath by an Act of Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no Law of God or Nature obliging them to accept of such a Person and his Heirs and to swear Allegiance to them If therfore the Representatives take away and repeal this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the Subjects at libertie from such Allegiance and from their Oath binding 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. First For the Antecedent I shal only note 1 He sets up a Supream power over us by Reason not by Law or the Peoples Constitution and this Reason is not the Nations but 1 Either his own private judgement and if that may create a Supreâ—m power to him then every otâ—er private mans Reason is to set up one to him even where there is one already over the people he is of 2 Or it is the Common Reason that is in all men naturally and if so how comes it to passe That there is so much variety of Kinds of Supream Government and that Representatives have it not in all times and Nations yea that scarce they ever had it 2 That in citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omits the King and House or Lords who in the then Parliament concuâ—ed in this Enacting and Imposition 3 That although the King then was rightsully and actually Enthroned in the Regal power and Dignity and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the people to him and his Heirs 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 Fifth Commandement the Law of God and Nature and those Precepts Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repeâ—â—ions and divine Ratifications thereof And doth not that Law command every people and person Allegiance to their particular lawful Governors and was not the King in Being his Heirs in Capacity and designaton such Secondly But for the Consequent there is no Truth in it nor colour of Reason or inference from the Antecedenâ— for it Besides That the act cannot for ought appears 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 Acknowledgement and the first words of it are I A. B. Do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World That King James is lawful King of this Realm c. Suppose the Representatives to be the Supream 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 many Divintty extant to have power eo ipso to absolve from it when the imposers are also the party sworn to there it is granted both by Protestant ‡ Doct. Sanders de juram oblig prael 7. §. 8. Theolos Syntag. juris l. 50. c. 12. and Papists ‡ they have power to release from the Oath not because they are the imposers but because they are the party sworn to for omnis qui promittit sacit jus alteri cui est facta promissio the right of the thing sworn is theirs to whom the Oath is made and therefore they may release from it and this is â—â—e true ground of that power he supposeth in Abraham to acquit his Servant not his being the imposer of his 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 faith impose the Oath which is sworn to the King and bind in Allegiance to him If they that impose an Oath may Release from it then may any Court or Magistrate Release a Juror or Examinate from the Oath they have giâ—en him then it a man impose an Oath upon himself as in some cases he may he may absolve himself when he wil from it though he therein obliged himself to God or another man And this is truly the case here as he himself states it The Subjects by their own act in their Representatives impose this Oath and by their own personal act swear iâ— and after by their own â—ctin their Representatives absolve themselves iâ— 2 The Repeal of the act is no Repeal or dissolution of the Oath the Parliament that framed and by their act imposed the Oath did not thereby make it an Oath but it was the Subjects swearing which made it an Oath and an Obligation or Religion to him as the Ministers rehearsing and dictating the words of Marriage to the Couple Marrying each other makes not the Marriage but the parties themselves declaring in those words And as the Clerk in a Court reciting the words of a Jurors Oath to him makes not the Oath but the Jurors assent to it The Parliament can conjoyn or punish the refusal or manifest breach of an Oath But a promissory Oath being the act and Covenant of him that swears and a part of divine Worship the bond of Conscience upon the swearer and the validity of Gods Ordinance and the Obligation that is therein entred into unto God as the invocated witnesse and judge cannot be within the Parliaments authority to nullifie in al Subjects Oathes which may be made with or without their imposition There are cases indeed wherein a superior as a Husband Master Father Magistrate may make void the Oath of their respective inferior by ANALOGY or equity of that Rule Numb 30. but those are 1 In matters that are belonging to the Right or Power of the Superior to dispose of as the Representatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their owne Right ‡ Animadvertendum tamen est penes â—os non esse facultatem rescindendi quod libet jus jurandum subditorum sed illud duntaxat cujus materia est eorum potestati subjecta Alsted Theol. Cas Cap. 15. Reg. 2. But the Allegiance in this Oath sworn is none of theirs but the Kings and therefore sworn to him by the Subjects and in particular by them 2 By that Law Numb 30. the Superior may interpose to nullifie his Inferiors Oath made without his knowledge and consent and that must be done in the day that he hears of it but there is no further power given by that Law in the matter of Oathes Now in this our Case the Representatives have been so far from being ignorant of the making of this Oath and disalowing it as soon as it was know to them that
deliberated upon and this may be concluded on advisedlie as morallie certain that it is better to have the Crown setled in a Line wherebie sometimes a vitious person may be advanced then to have it under Election at everie personal change This hath been the experimented Maxime of the wisest States Reply The true sense of this Answer is That there is no place for deliberation in swearing to Heirs of whom we can know nothing how they wil prove save only how to prevent a greater mischief which is supposed wil come by new Elections upon every change which wise States do decline but what evil there is at al in a wel Governed State by new Elections at every change I am not able to reach but experience wil instruct That the greatest and longest lasting Wars have been where Competitors in point of Title have contended for the Crown And how frequently one hath supplanted another to obtain the Kingdom Stories do plentifully shew 2 If it were not in judgment saith he this defect makes not an Oath unlawful as to the nullifying of it a rash Oath if of a lawful thing binds as before was proved Judg. 21. 2. 7. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Josh 9. 14 15. Reply 1 Nor did I ever assert That an Error in Judgment when the Oath is righteous in the nature of it might be broken though there are cases which are very dubious 2 The Scriptures which he cites are none of them in a righteous thing nor did they al of them bind nor ought they to have done therefore he mentioneth them improperly For First That Oath which the Tribes did make of not giving their Daughters to the Benjamites after they had cruelly cut off al the Women appertaining to that Tribe was an unrighteous and cruel Oath and should not have bound them Secondly That Saul should lay a Cuâ—se upon the People that tasted any thing til evening was also not only a rash but an unmerciful and unjust Oath and Ionathan said as much of it when he heard of it so far was he from being troubled that he had broken it and he thought not himself guilty of death Shall I die saith he for this And the People rescued him and the Oath stood not in that branch of it And that of Josh 9. respecting the Gibeonites was a sinful Oath in the matter of it as it proved though they knew it not as wel as a rash Oath and there was Error personae in it also which is enough to break any Oath and therefore there was special reason why it held and it reacheth not to us And it is against this mans own Position That an unrighteous oath in the matter of it should hold now this oath to Heirs is of this nature not only rash and not in judgment but unrighteous and therefore ought not to hold 2 He denies that part of the Consequence which concerns righteousnesse in an oath which I lay down in the Position thus Nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine His words are these Though the Subject may not bind himself to what is necessarilie or at the time of his swearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt or ruine yet he may swear intending the publick good to that which is of a mutual nature and may in the event turn to his own hurt and ruine And might he not so swear yet having so sworn he is bound to stand to his Oath Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. Iudg. 21. 5. 15. 18. which is contradictorie to what this man here saith Reply He states the Question amisse and puts the case so as that it is not the case for to swear to Heirs from generation to generation though it be uncertain which Heirs and at whattime such Heirs wil prove corrupt and unjust in adjuration yet it is more then probable even as certain as that there wil be change of weather when yet for the present it is fair and pleasant that such Heirs wil stand up in ensuing generations 2 Though there may possibly be cases in which oathes that were taken with a good intent but proving accidentally pernicious to the takers must be kept yet if this be asserted by the Answerer That meer voluntary arbitrary oathes made without any Condition and at the best if not forced in favour of such a Family and intended for mutual good but proving ruinous to the makers and serving only to strengthen cruelty and unrighteousnesse in the persons to whom made that such oathes ought to be kept hath neither the colour of Reason nor Scripture for it and this is the case directly in such absolute oathes to Heirs Nay in the case which himself makes it wil not hold that such an oath should be kept For suppose a man should swear to another to go to such a City for him at such a time to effect such a businesse but he afterwards comes to understand That at his return there are persons that wil be in ambuscado to take away his life â—â— this man bound to keep his oath if the other wil hold him to it 3 As for the Scriptures they are not pertinent and some of them have been oft Answered That in Psal 15. 4. is meant of an oath that is made to another by which that other may be profited and the person himself that sweirs comes at unawares to be thereby damified such an oath ougâ—â— to be kept though it be to a mans losse but the oath 〈◊〉 we are discussing is of another nature an oath by which not one 〈◊〉 but a Nation not disadvantaged somewhat but even sold as it is 〈◊〉 times to ruine or what is worse even vassalage by which not the person to whom the oath is made is profited but his base lusts satisfied to his own ruine at the last That in Josh 9. 15. is not exemplary as I have often said before For I would ask Whether if a Counterfeit Prince as stories make mention of many had under pretence of being such a one viz. The right Heir to the Crown gained an oath of Allegiance would that oath have stood against the right Heir I am sure this man wil not assert it The other Scriptures have been answered already therefore I passe them over If the Heir saith he should misprove his power is bounded by the Law and commixed with Parliaments if he vary the power of Parliament the Lawes and Libertie of the Subject are the same The late King confessed and declared a remedie against Tirannie to reside in the Parliament there may be prevention then of the Kingdoms ruine whatever the Heir prove if the Kingdom be faithful to it self Reply But what are Parliaments if the Prince wil not cal them or may speedily dissolve them Or what are Laws if the Prince wil not keep them Or what are the Liberties of the Subject if the Prince wil overthrow
Ordinance the meaning is The King not King-ship where Kingly Government is on foot the person of the King the Man not the Power as it ought to be exercised according to Law is the Ordinance of God and must be obeyed After the Consequence by way of Illustration I expressed my self in some words concerning the heavie plague that hath been upon this Nation in Kingly Government and of the many blessings that have followed the Change of it among the United Provinces which he takes great offence at wherein I shal be justified by the Chronicles that record the Reigns of the Kings of this Nation and the plentiful experience which many thousands living have had of the truth thereof in some of them Notwithstanding lest I should move his patience further I shal forbear any further Reply It is enough what the Parliament when the House was ful and Voted NO more Addresses to be made hath published to the World concerning the late King In the last place in the Close of the first Argument he comes to consider of the Objection which I knowing many other would be ready to make it both framed and answered The Objection was Though the Oath might be unlawful to be taken yet being taken it ought to be kept The Answer was That if Herods Oath was unlawful to be taken and much more unlawful to be kept being only an Oath against the life of one man then this Oath of Allegianâ—e if absolute was not onlie unlawful to be taken but also to be kept because verie dangerous to the lives state and liberties of a Common-wealth of men His Answer hereto in substance is this He cannot paralel Herods Oath and ours in the mater wherein Herods was unlawful both in the taking and keeping What was the matter of that To shed innocent bloud To massacre a guiltless and holie Person Now what is the matter of ours To yeeld Obediance in lawful things to a lawful power Is it anie more And are not the matter of these two Oathes as far unlike as light and darkness Reply There 's only this difference That Oath was to kil directly This consequently That speedily and out of hand This surely and undoubtedly though uncertain in reference to the time when For if the Oath be of absolute obedience to the Father and Son and Sons Son and al after-Heirs then not only active but passive obedience must be yeelded and if the person be the power as he asserts from Rom. 13. 2. compared with vers 3 4. his words are these The Magistrate not the Government abstractlie are called Gods Ordinance then the person may not be resisted in any thing let him do what he wil let him become a Nero yet he may not be resisted no not in his Ministers For his name and his authority is in them and it is impossible to resist them but there wil be a resisting of him in them And if this be so then the Floud-gates are set open to al Iniquity and corrupt men which are chief in power and are secure from al opposition and resistance that know that they may have life and state and al at their demand without contradiction are invited to al unrighteousnesse and oppression Even as a gracelesse person that is in want and knoweth that the Judge wil neither hang him nor punish him is invited to rob and steal what an unrighteous Oath then is this in the very matter of it that tempts the Prince in such sort to al lewdnesse and wickednesse and that wil certainly either sooner or later be destructive And how unmeet is it to be kept It is as it a Judge should swear to al poor persons that are in want That whatever they do he wil not question them those who are good would be good still notwithstanding this Oath but yet it would invite naughty minded persons to al dishonesty and unrighteousnesse and it would expose the lives and estates of men that have any thing to extream danger though it would be uncertain who the persons are that would suffer or at what time they might suffer violence but they are not secure any moment such is the Oath of absolute Allegiance and such an Oath as this kept is more murtherous then the Oath of Herod In the Second place he comes to Consider of the Second Position viz. That the Representatives of the People which in reason are the Supream power imposed this Oath by an Act of Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no Law of God or Nature obliging them to accept of such a person and his Heirs and to swear Allegiance to them if therefore the Representatives take away and Repeal this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the Subject at liberty from such Allegiance and from their Oath binding to it there remains no more Conscience of it to such which have taken it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it He begins with the Antecedent of this Position and Notes Three things 1 He saith He sets up a Supream power over us by Reason not by Law or the Peoples Constitution Reply Though it be by Reason yet it is by Law and by the peoples Constitution also for the People appoint their Representatives and the persons whom they appoint are the Parliament and this is according to Law And this Parliament hath the power of making Laws and repealing them and the King by Oath is sworn to confirme what they conclude on and present unto him as at the beginning of the War was held out in those Declarations which they put forth for the Kingdoms satisfaction The Parliament then is above the King according to Law and the peoples Constitution For he is bound up to their Conclusions which they make for the good of the Kingdom and they are not bound up to his yet it is according to Reason also But he asketh What Reason Private or Common Reason Reply 1 Common Reason shewes that in the mixture of Families in one Common-wealth where there is no natural headship as in one Family there hath been there without consent there can be no headship or power or Government And those that must Consent are the Root of that power or Government that comes to be amongst them 2 Common Reason shews also That al the people that give this Consent unto a power or powers to be over them cannot act this power which is founded in their Consent 3 Common Reason shews That those whom they Substitute for the acting of their power in matters of Supream concernment are the Supream power 4 Common Reason shews That if these Substitutes or Trustees for the people do chuse one Statesman to Rule over al or a Councel of State to do it yet they that chuse and set up such persons are greater in power then they that are chosen 5 Common Reason shews That if such Princes who have gotten Possession of the Kingdom by the
The OATH of ALLEGIANCE AND THE NATIONAL COVENANT PROVED To be NON-OBLIGING OR THREE SEVERAL PAPERS ON THAT SUBJECT VIZ. 1. Two POSITIONS with several REASONS of them and CONSEQVENCES flowing from thence 2. An ANSWER to the said POSITIONS A REPLY to the said ANSWER wherein the Truth of the Positions is Vindicated and the Oath of Allegiance and the National Covenant are made Non-Obliging By SAMUEL EATON Teacher of the Church of Christ at DARKENFIELD in CHESSHIRE LONDON Printed by Peter Cole at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhil near the Royal Exchange 1650. To the READER Good READER IT is not many daies sinâ— I was informed that some Positions of mine respecting the Oath of Allegiance were made publick to the world and that an Answer thereto was annexed and together with the Positions was printed which at first I could hardly receive for truth but for further satisfaction the book was sent me and in the Title Leaf I read An Answer to some Positions of Mr. Samuel Eaton dispersed by him I am necessitated for the Vindication of my self to publish the bad dealings that I have met with in this business from Brethren I will not call them false-brethren though their proceedings do hold forth too much falseness and baseness I had occasion in the latter end of the last yeer to be often times at a Gentlemans house of honorable note in Lancashire he declared himself unsatisfied how the Oath of Allegiance could be Non-Obliging which was so absolutely taken by many of the Subjects and by himself I gave him such Answers as were suitable to my present apprehensions his request was That I would put down in writings what I had presented in words or any other conceptions of the like nature about that subject and send them to him I condescended and in a free friendly way presented him with my sudden thoughts and inclosed them in a letter to him having had his promise not to communicate the same to any save to one friend of his whose private conceptions of thâ—m he would entreat and would shew them to me But thus it fell out there waas a piece of dishonestly I might put a worse term upon it acted by some that would be better thought of The letter sent to this Gentleman was opened a Copy was taken of the Positions conteined therein and many Copies written out of that Copy and dispersed abroad all â—ver two Counties before ever the Gentleman to whom I writ and sent the said Positions received his Letter I wondred much at it knowing that I had not given any Copy to any Creature and had not so much as shewed it to any at that time save to three persons The Gentleman discerning that the Letter had been opened and hearing that Copies were got abroad thought himself bound to search it out some pains was taken to discover it at last it came to light I could both name the place where and the person by whom it was done but for some special reasons I forbear The Gentleman when he had perused the Writing sent it to his friend and his friend instead of Answering it himself as I expected procures an elaborate Answer unto it which after the space of six weeks or two months was sent unto me and therein my two Positions were spoken to but nothing else that was contained in my Paper was medled with And the Author of this Answer at that time thought to have proceeded no further in his Answer but about six weeks after the receipt of the other the second part of his Answer was given to me both which are now printed to the view of the world by means of some Brethren about Manchester to whom a Copy of the Answer was sent without the knowledg and unto the offence of the Author thereof as I am credibly informed I had sent my Reply to that part of the Answer which first came to my hands to be perused in a private way before I knew that any thing was extent in print but am now forced to expose it to Publick view By all this it may appear that I intended not to engage in this Controversie but could not decline the giving of an Answer to a Question propounded If any satisfaction shall arise to any by any thing which I represent I shall be thankful to God However I shall not repine because it was Gods Will that my private conceptions must thus come to light Notwithstanding wrong doers must give an account I remain Thy friend in the Truth SAM EATON POSITION I. EVERY Oath to make it warranâ—able and lawful ought to be taken in Judgment and Righteousness Ier. 4. 2. The Oath then of Allegience that it may be in Righteousness and Judment must be 1 Conditional not Absolute mutual not single taken by both Parties not by one onlie by the Ruler or Governor not alone by the Ruled by the Prince as well as by the Subject Reason It is against the ground and reason of the Primitive Institution of Government which is the good of the Subject That there should be any Oath to hind the Subject absolutelie to Allegiance and Dutie whether the Prince or Governour rule for the Subjects good or not therefore such an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in judgment or in righteousness therefore such an Oath is not lawful So again it is against Equity and Reason and against the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince or Ruler to submit to him then the Prince or Ruler is bound to the Subject to rule well and administer justice rightlie if therefore the Obligation be not mutual but single it is not lawful Consequence Then if the Oath of Allegiance taken to the late King were in judgment and righteousness and so lawful the King was or ought to have been as strongly bound to all his Subjects by Oath as any of them to him then if he break his oath all the Subjects are absolved if they will Then at what time the King levyed War against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of oath in him of their Allegiance else the whole Parliament and Parliamentary party were both perjured persons as many of them as haâ—e takeâ— that Oath and are Rebels that have taken up Arms against the King 2 Not to Heires Reason Because who knoweth as Solomon saith Eccles 2. 19. whether the Heir will be a Wise man or a Fool a just and righteous man or a wicked man and tyrant Now if no man know this then it is not an Oath in judgment if any man swear Allegiance to an Heir nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may hind himself to his own hurt yea ruin and destruction Consequence Then the oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it that respected Heirs an unlawful oath for who knows what any of the late Kings Posterity might have proved Whether they would have upheld Religion or have changed it
the First Position and the prosecution thereof with which I begin is to shew the said Oath to have been unlawful and unwarrantable in the taking of it and so void in the fact or making 1 I shall premise for the cleering partly of what follows That an D. Sand. de Iuram obl pr. 2. §. 14 Oath may be unlawful 1 Either in regard of the matter or thing sworn as if a mâ—n swear to do any impossible or sinful act 2 Or in the Manner or Circumstances of swearing as if a man swear unadvisedly or with a false intention or other-wayes unduly for manner The former way of unlawfulness makes an Oath void in the taking but not the Latter So that though a man swear an Oath in some sort not in Truth that is not intending to be tyed to or to keep it or not in Judgment that is not consideratly enough yet if the Oath be in Righteousness that is of a just and lawful matter or thing it is of Force otherwise no Oath could bind in foro externo or be of any use for Confirmation for who can discern with what mind another man Swears Again This evidently appears by the validity of that unadvised Oath of the Princes to the Gibeâ—nites Joshu 9. 15. 18 19. 2 Sam. 21. 2. And of that Oath of Zâ—dâ—kiah and his people to Nebuchadnezzar 2 Cron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13 21. 2â— which they entred into treacherously Hos 104. ‡ Annotat of â—â—â—mes Diodat on Hos 10 4. 2 I observe what a gross Imputation the first Position layeth upon the King and Parliament that framed and Ordained the Oath of Allegiance and all other Parliaments since that have Continued and the Successive Houses of Commons that have Sworn it with those multitudes of Magistrates Ministers and of other Professions in the Kingdom that have taken and still hold themselves bound by it having had all the while so much Divine and Gospel light shining forth to and in them as if they had published pressed taken and justified as against the Papists by writing an Oath the matter of it unjust and sinful This man had need bring cleer Reasons for what he here thus chargeth upon so many Worthyes for place piety and judgment and declare them A Lye against the Title or the Title a Lye against this more publickly then by a Private Paper that he may call to Repentance the whole Nation that is as he supposeth involved in this impiety of an unlawful Oath But let us first by the Tryal of his Reasons see whether he hath not more need to repent of this his Charge His general exception against the lawfulness of the Oath is That it is not according to the rule Jer. 4. 2. in Iudgment and in Righteousness Were it defective in judgment that is in deliberatness of taking that would not be as I have said a ground to invalidate its obligation ipsoâ—acto seeing it were but a failing in the manner not a corruptness in the matter a fault in the Person swearing not in the Oath sworn and in the person a defect internal or of the mind not externally visible in the act and to be presumed to be found only in some persons swearing not in all That part therefore of the Allegation were it true might have been left out and as often as it is brought in to prove the Oath unlawful so as not to bind it addes no strength to the Conclusion But to descend to his particulars 1 To manifest the Oath 's disagreement with the said rule of Ieremiah His first particular Exception is That it ought to have been Conditional not Absolute Mutual not Single His Argument in effect runs thus That it may be in Iudgment and Righteousness it must be Conditional not Absolute Mutual or taken both by Ruler and Rulled not Single or taken onlie by one Partie But this Oath is not so Ergo c. That the Reader may understand us both and I may more cleerly pass on in my Answer I must interpose a distinction or two upon the Terms 1 Saith he The Oath must be Conditional not Absolute 1 I conceive the words Conditional and Absolute may be taken 1 Either in reference to the thing sworn which is Obedience or Allegiance to the KING thus the Oath must be Conditional not Absolute that is the obedience which we bind our selves to must be with limitation and câ—ndition restraining it as all obedience to men in any relation is to be to just honest lawful things or so as to Consist with our obedience to God not absolute or illimited in that sense 2 Or in reference to the tye or obligation of the oath as the qualification thereof and so I say it may be Absolute and must not of necessity be Conditional that is The subordinate and limited obedience which is due to the Prince or Magistrate I may swear unto absolutely or withour any special Condition annexed to my Engagement Special Condition I say for I must once again distinguish to wit of Conditions 1 Some are general and such as no promisary oath that is lawful can be without those are I think all of them reduced to these two heads namely that the thing sworn be Honest and Possible These Conditions are presupposed and not wont to be exprest and notwithstanding the including of them an oath may be said to be Absolute 2 Others are Special and Proper Conditions which are ingredients in some oaths the which are by reason of them termed Conditional They are usually either somewhat that is Contingent as when a Merchant Covenants and Swears to give an hundred pounds to another man or to a publick Use if his Ship that is gone to Sea return home safe with her Merchandize or that which is Arbitrary or in the choice of mans Will his commonly to whom the oath is Engaged as if a Master Covenant and Swear to maintain his Servant with Meat Drink and such Wages if he be a true and diligent Servant to him It is not the Former but this Latter Conditionality which he requires in the oath of Allegiance to wit That the Subject be only bound to his Duty of Allegiance if and so long as the Prince observeth his duty of Government inviolate and this in truth is not in that oath nor is it necessary to make the oath lawful The Major therefore of this Oath-impugners Syllogisme I deny in that first part of it viz. It must be Conditional not Absolute To make good my Denial 1 I will Answer what he saith to prove it 2 Bring in my Reasons against it and leave the Reader to judge betwixt us 1 All that he saith for proof of that Assertion is this It is against the ground and reason of the Primitive Institution of Government which is the good of the Subject that there should be any Oath to bind him Absolutlie whether the Prince Rule for the Subjects good or not This were something if it were
whereof a breach on one side might be a discharge on the other and that neither the tenor of their Oaths hold forth any such thing neither is the matter of them capable thereof being necessary not arbitrary The Third is Then at what time the King Levied War against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance This is a Consequence of the former Consequence and stands or fals with it That therefore being Answered and Disproved this vanisheth The Fourth thing is no Consequence but a Reason of the two last Consequences and in method of arguing is therefore an antecedent to prove them it is thus Else the whole Parliament and their partie were perjured persons so manie of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebels in taking up Armes against the King First If their taking up of Arms against the King as he terms it were Rebellion their absolution from their Oathes were it so indeed by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no Rebellion for the debt of Obedience is existent in the Subject before any Oath taking and it is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the pretended dissolution of it and consequently makes that taking up of Armes which would have been if the Oath had not been as he supposeth nullified Rebellion neverthelesse Secondly We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved declared and in many Treatises in Print maintained al along the late Wars That the Armes of the Parliament were not against any brance of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed stil to persist in yea and in the act of their Armes bearing Covenanted to yeeld and maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and Dignity the Rights whereof and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience are prefixed by the Lawes of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Courts and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting What is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personal presence or command yet for the King his Crown and Dignity 2 His next Exception against the Oath of Allegiance is That it is an unlawful Oath in that it is sworn to the Kings Heirs His Reason for this Exception proceeds thus Who knoweth as Eccles 2. 19. whether he will be a wise man or a fool a just or a â—ricked man and Tyrant Now if no man know this then to swear to an Heir is not an Oath in judgment nor is it righteous for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine Consequence Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch that respected Heirs an unlawful Oath c. I admit of the Antecedent but utterly deny the Consequence 1 For the whole Consequence I Answer 1 This inference is directly contrary to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2. 19. makes from the words Solomons is Yet shall he have Rule over all my labours wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun This mans inference is in effect because no man knows whether he wil be a wise man or a fool therefore he shal not have Rule c. that is We must not Engage before-hand that he shal Rule while it is uncertain what he wil prove though Solomon saith Notwithstanding that is uncertain yet he shal have Rule 2 The same Reason if it held would lie against any Oath or Engagement to any Rulers in being whatsoever they are for say they be come to maturity and for the past and present time have given proof yet who knows what they that are now wise and just morally may hereafter come to be The Scripture supposeth That not only a just Father may have a wicked Son but a righteous man in profession and external carriage may turn from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Ezek. 18. 24. Neroes Quinquâ—nnium of Reigning wel is generally known the good beginnings of â—eash and Vzziah 2 Chron. 23 24 and 26. and therefore degeneracies are sufficient instances of the lubricity of men in authority Yea it is wel known how fearfully Solomon himself with Asa 1 King 11. 2 Chron 16. and others fel in divers particulars of a grosse nature if we must first know and swear afterwards we must never swear to any promissorily 3 This Consequence were it of force would equally condemn in general al promissory Oathes and other Covenants and Engagements betwixt man and man for it cannot be fore-seen in any what the persons contracted with wil prove or whether the Covenant wil be beneficial ot hurtful and in particular the Laws and Sanctions of those Nations in al ages which have settled successive Regality or any other Government â—or 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 vicissitudinary Election but warranted by the word of God Israel offered a successive power to Gideon Judg. 8. 22. and God himself instituted and bound the People to a lineal 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 fâ—r about an hundred yeers in the lineage of the Maccaâ—ees 4 We have Scripture examples of an uncontroverted integrity of Oathes and Engagements to Princes and their Heirs and to Princes in their yong unripe and untryed yeers Take for instance that of Abrahams swearing to Abimelech King of Gerar his Son and Sons Son 1 Chr. 23. 29. 22. 29. 1. 22 5. that of Davids making Solomon King in his own life time and engaging the people to him when he was yet yong and tender and that of JEHOJADAHS and the Peoples making Ioash King and swearing to him when he was but seven yeers old 2 King 11. 4. 22. 2 For the two parts of the CONSEQUENCE in several 1 The Oath is not in judgment because no man knows what the Heir will prove I say 1 It may be in Judgment so far as a future contigency can be deliberated on and this may be concluded on advisedly as morally certain that it 's better to have the Crown settled in a line whereby sometimes a vicious person may be advanced then to have it under Election at every personal change This hath been the experimented maxime of the wisest States ‡ Minore discrimine sumi princip m quaÌ„ quaeri Tacit. H. lib. 2. 2 If
never Conditioned with the Prince for in their Oath to him neither expresly nor implicitly had not been justifiable upon this mans Assertion That an absolute Oath is lawful His third Exception is setcht from Experience His words are It hath consisted with the publick good yea contributed to it or else the Papists would not have so opposed it from the time it was first set forth until now and no complaint at all hath been heard against it â—ill now 1 It had been necessary that he should have shewed what good it Reply hath contributed to it and how it hath been consistent with it considered as absoluâ—e as now he and many more do understand it and hold themselves still obliged by it 2 The Papists â—ad reason to oppose it because it was given out to be intended principally if not solely against them And their Allegiance in reference to their Religion which subjected them to a forreign power tell justly under suspition to engage them therefore more firmly to the Prinee this oath was contrived and Enacted 3 Many precions conscientious men were long since much more then Papists offended at it foreseeing that there would be a great snare in it as it was urged without an explication Yea It was pressed more upon them then upon the Papists and the Papists most of them knew how to get off from it and to avoid it but not they When the Persecution was so hoâ— against Inconformists that many thousands were forced to fly the Land then was there a command That all Ports and Havens should be narrowly looked unto that none might be suffered to passe out of the Nation till they had first taken this Oath and my self hardly escaped at that time 4 It might â—ave proved fatal to this Nation had this Parliament understood it as this man doth in an absolute sense and not according to the Laws of the Land For then had the Design of the late King and his Father to make themselves absolute Monaâ—chs and to bring the peo-into an absolute subjection to their arbitrary Government been accomplished and there had been no place so much as for a Defensive War but absolute slaves the Kingdom must have been as they were several yeers before this Parliament sate He comes to distinguish of things that are against the peoples good and saith he That some things are against the peoples good in their own nature and other things accidentally and saith That any thing almost that falls under a Political consideration may be against the peoples good in the latter Consideration though unlawful and for the present probably yea necessarily for the peoples good and of this sort I suppose he makes this absolute oath of Allegiance to be It is but by accident that it proves hurtful but it is good in it self He might and must distinguish of things accidentall some things are Reply accidental in reference to the time when and yet ceâ—â—ain that they will be in reference to the Causes whence they come and the Course of Gods Providence other things are so accidental as that it is contingent whether they will be at all Christ speaks of offences That it is necessary that they should come and the Apostle of Heresies That there must be Heresies and yet both the one and the other are accidental in reference to the persons by whom and the time in which they should come So it is in Common-wealths there are many things that are against the good of the people which though accidental in reference to the persons and time yet certain and inâ—allible in reference to the Causes and the course of Gods Providence and when there is not provision against such evils but rather a door set open for them by either persons or things done 't is against the good of the people because all knowing men may easily foresee such things though they cannot so punctually discern the times and seasons of them I shall give some instances Wars are things accidental yet certain at one time or another and that Government that provides not against it but rather invites it by security and negligence is against the good of the people and ought to be either redresâ—ed or removed Murthers Rapes Fellonies in a Common-wealth are accidental yet they will certainly be and those States-men and Lâ—gislaâ—ors that provide not against them are against the good of the people There may be Instances of other kinds Wolves amongst the Flock are accidental yet they will be and those Shepherds that provide not against them by feeding the Church of God with wholsome sound Doctrine are against the good of the Flock Storms and Tempests at Sea are accidental yet they will certainly come and those Ship-masters and Marriners that go to Sea without good Tacking they are against the good of their Principals and those that fraught them and against their own lives also And so it is with Tyrants in Government they are accidental in a Common-wealth yet it is certain such there will be since so great corruption sell upon mankind and those Oath-imposers and Oathes that are imposed that provide not against such but rather invite and set open a door to Governors to be such are against the good of the Common-wealth and people and such is that Oath of Allegiance if it be absoluâ—e and not conditional as this man would have it 2 He distinguisheth again of the goodnesse of the End and of the means tending to that End and he makes the happinesse of the Community to be the goodnesse of the End and this to be intended and not deliberated on or chosen by the Law-giâ—ers The means he makes variable in relation to times and people and saith That that may be good in the nature of a means for one people or time that is not good for another Reply I allow of the Distinction in the former branch of it fully and say with him That the happinesse of the Community is the goodnesse of the End And I ad this That the just freedom oâ— the Subject is the happinesse of the Communitie which an absolute Oath of ALLEGIANCE fights against I also concur with him in the second branch of the Distinction of the goodnesse of the means that it is that which falls under Deliberation and Counsel but that all means is variable and changable after Counsel hath found it out I deny For the goodnesse of the means may be considered Generally or Specifically Consider it in its general nature and it admits not of any such variation according to times and places but consider it in its special nature and then it may admit of variation For Example Government in general is a good of the means respecting the happinesse of the Community and yet is necessary for all Communities that they may be happy but this or that special kind of Governmentis not necssary for all Communities in all places and at all times but there may be some change and variation So to Govern
but a necessity upon such a Condition The duties of Masters and Servants are necessary in the general but particularly considered in reference to this or that person giving up themselves to be Servants unto such and such Masters it is meerly arbitrary before the Pact and there is place for such respective Oathes betwixt them and that the one breaking the other is free upon it But he goes on to consider of the Reason of the Position viz. That it is against Equitie and Reason that the one should be further or longer bound to the other then the other is bound to him And he saith That if that be granted yet there is no necessitie that the Oath be mutual for the Prince may be bound and is bound and it cannot he otherwise but that he should be bound to his dutie as long as the Subject is to his by Scripture Conscience and positive Laws and yet not sworn at al. Reply If al be granted that he saith let the Reader judge whether if the Subject be bound to the Prince by Scripture Conscience and positive Lawes and by an Oath to the Prince over and above al the other and the Prince be bound to the Subject by Scripture Conscience and positive Laws but not by an Oath Whether the Subject be not further bound to the Prince then the Prince to him But in this particle further he meddles not which yet was in the Reason of the Position but saith The Prince is bound and that as long but he saith not and that as far and yet he would seem to grant the whole Reason and notwithstanding deny the mutual Oath but it is without Reason The Proposition remaining stil in strength as I suppose and the Reason of it also notwithstanding al that hath been endeavoured by him against it the Consequence remains firm also And as he disables them not so need not I to confirm them Only in the end of the Consequences there was for further illustration rather then confirmation the Parliaments Fact in taking up Arms produced as sutable to those inferences and serving to cleer the Oath of Allegiance to be Conditional and not Absolute to be Mutual and not Single in the very accompt of the Parliament it self who best understood it For had not they in that Oath of Allegiance sworn with this limitation in their own understandings viz. According to the Laws of the Kingdom as the Condition whether expressed or not and had they not known that the King was sworn to them to Govern according to the Laws and that these two Oathes had mutual respect to each other this Oath of Allegiance in an absolute sense Considered had they not renounced it as unjust and wicked would have made them guilty of disloyalty and Rebellion in taking up of Arms which I am sure my Antagonist whoever he might be would not charge them with Now unto this he Answereth two things 1 He saith If their taking up of Arms against the King were Rebellion their absolution from their Oathes by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no Rebellion for the debt of Obedience is existent in the Subject before any Oath taking and it is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the Oath should be dissolved Reply But in this argumentation he builds upon that which I have oft destroyed and takes that for granted which I have oft denyed viz. That there is an absolute debt of Obedience to this or that Magistrate which is not so save only upon mutual Covenant which comes afterwards to be confirmed by Oath and from which by the breach of Covenant and Oath upon the Magistrates side the Subject is acquitted viz. From his Oath and Covenant together so that the one doth not survive the other as in al mutual Oathes it is there is an absolution from the oath and from the thing of which the oath is together as in Josh 2. 20. appears they would be quit of the oath and not only so but of the thing also if she kept not within or should discover 2 He saith We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved declared and in many Treatises in Print maintained al along the late Wars That the Armes of the Parliament were not against any brance of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed stil to persist in yea and in the act of their Armes bearing Covenanted to yeeld and maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and Dignity the Rights whereof and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience are perfixed by the Lawes of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Courts and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting What is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personal presence or command yet for the King his Crown and Dignity Reply In this sense that he puts upon the taking up of Arms there is enough to ratifie and confirm that which al along I have been contending for and there is nothing that contradicts me but what contradicts it self I shall take up some passages in the Relation which he makes 1 He saith The King as King acts onlie by his Courts and Laws and what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting It is as much as if he should say The King fals under a double consideration as a man and so when he departs from Laws and from Justice he is only to be lookt upon as such and as a King and so only when he keeps to his Laws and to his Courts of Justice Now we know that the oath of Allegiance was made to the King as King and so the Subject hath nothing to do with him in point of obedience or Allegiance save only as King that is When he Rules according to Law Again The oath of Allegiance being to a legal King when the person of the King is a Tyrant and breaks al Laws and overthrowes al Courts of Justice where is then this legal King and if there be none the subject is then discharged from their oath of Allegiance This distinction betwixt the man and the King is but a notional conceit for take away the man and where is then the King and sure I am that God wil make no such distinction when he shal come to judg Princes but al their miscarriages in Government irregularities in the managing of their Offices shal be charged upon them as Princes set over the People then it wil not be said What he doth besides or against the Laws and
Courts of Justice is the mans not the Kings acting it wil appear then That Kings as Kings have offended and been unjust and tyrannous 2 He saith That the Parliament hath declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws that is for the King ruling by Laws and against the King that is the person that carrieth that name which is indeed but the man when he violates al Laws in Ruling for they were only sworn to the King acting by his Courts and Lawes and what is this but the same that I have asserted in the Positions viz. That if the Subject were absolutly engaged by oath to the person of the King whether he Rule wel or il and that this oath were lawful the PARLIAMENT must needs be disloyal in taking up Armes against the person of the King 3 He saith That which is against the Kings personal Presence or Command is not against the King that is is not against the King in Law or against such a one as the King ought to be according to Law So that he grants That Allegiance is not to a personal King or his Commands unlesse he be a legal King and a King according to Law for things may be done against his personal Presence and Commands wherein he concurs with the Positions but contradicts himself For where is any place for passive obedience if that be true which yet is one of his Reasons of unconditional or absolute Allegience 4 Now whereas he saith The Parliamentarie Partie enterprized nothing against his Person c. There seems to be a contradiction in it For he saith They declared their Arms to be for the Laws and so against al that opposed them which his Person personal Presence and Commands often did And indeed did they not make his Person flye from place to place And was not his Person often in danger as the persons of those that fought under him were And was not his Person secured in Holmesby-House And had their Allegiance been to his Person as distinct from the Laws they had violated it And whereas there is mention made of the Covenant which they entred into to preserve his Person and that in the very times of their Arms bearing It is manifest That they bind themselves first to maintain Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdom and then in Religion and Liberties to preserve his Person and Honor and no further but as might stand with them which shews that they were bound to them firstly by Law and not to any Allegiance to his Person against them but so far as they might preserve them and therefore in the very time of this Covenant they are found in wayes of chastizing him though with a scope of preserving him if possibly Religion and the Subjects Liberty may subsist with it And first they correct him in his Instruments and then in Person in securing him which was not very honourable unto him but the preservation of Religion and Liberty of the Subject forced them to it At last their Counsels were to make no more Addresses to him but to lay him aside and to settle Religion and Liberty without him and this was more dishonarable to him but their Covenant which bound them first to Religion c. compelled them to it and there was yet further liberty in the Covenant left for them to cut him off and his also if the necessity of the preservation of Religion and Liberty of the Subject should require it And indeed it is not rational to think That they could have a lawful power without contradicting the oath of allegiance or the Covenant of inflicting lesser Censures and Penalties upon him and yet want power to inflict higher and greater punishments if the nature of the Crime deserved them and the necessity of conserving Religion and Liberty required them But he comes to consider of the Second Exception against the Oath of Allegiance which the Position mentions viz. as there is in it A swearing to the Kings Heirs he mentions my words in the Reason that I lay down of my Exception against it viz. Who knows whether he will be a wise man or a foole c. And he mentions my Consequence viz. The Oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it an unlawful Oath And he makes this Answer First I allow of the Antecedent but utterlie denie the Consequence of it Reply But it must be understood that I mean it as it is now made use of and insisted upon and urged by many who have taken it of an absolute Oath to them whatsoever they prove to be For the strength of the Reason which I bring against it lies in these words They may bind themselves therebie to their own hurt and ruine which if it be not absolute they cannot do therefore I dispute against it as absolute as I did against the other branch of it But let his Reason of the whole CONSEQUENCE be weighed 1 Saith he This Inference is directlie contrarie to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2. 19. makes from the words Solomons is Yet shall he have Rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun This mans is in effect because no man knows whether he will be a wise man or a foole therefore he shall not have Rule Reply 1 Let the text be weighed and truly examined and it wil appear that Solomon speaks not of the kingdom which he was to leave to his Son whether a wise man or a fool but he speaks of his labour wherein he had laboured in getting Riches in gathering Wealth in building Houses in planting Vineyards in improving of his earthly Estate in the World He shewes there is a vanity in it His Son shal have Rule over al. In Vers 18. he saith He hated all his labour because of this which cannot be meant of his labor in the Kingdom in Government and it is sutable to that in Job 14. 21. Psal 49. 10. 2 If Solomon should mean it of the Rule of the Kingdom yet he speaks not of it as a thing that he did approve of but of it as that which he counted vanity 2 He saith The same Reason if it hold would be against anie Oath or Engagement to anie Rulers in being whatsoever they are for say they become to maturitie and for the past and present time have given proof yet who knows what they that are now wise and just morallie may hereafter come to be The Scripture supposeth That not onlie a just Father may have a wicked Son but a righteous man in Profession and External carriage may turn from his carriage c. Reply 1 This Reason of his wherewith he disputes against the Exception that I make viz. Of Oathes to Heirs is very strong against himself in reference to absolute Oathes which he would maintain and shews how dangerous absolute oathes to Princes or other Governors are and how destructive they may become if not
them As the late King gave out He would never have anie more Parliaments And if the Scots had not frighted and forced him probably he would have made his saying good What are al these if the People be absolutly bound to Allegâ—ance whether the Prince Rule wel or il and must obey in lawful things and be passive in al the rest And suppose they may oppose Wil it not engender a War and how that War may issue who can foretel It may be a Kingdoms Ruine here is then but a poor Remedy such an oath then as endangers al this cannot be lawful nor is it fit to be kept But he comes to examine my Third Exception against the Oath of Allegiance Which is against swearing to anie one kind of Government absolutlie wiihout admitting of a change for a greater good and benefit and to prevent inconvenience and hurtfulness which hath been observed to come through such a Government And 1 He blames the form of arguing in these words I observe saith he there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument as somewhat transgressing the Rules of Arguing 1 In the Consequent there is something of the Error called Ignoratio Elenthi for we swear not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitlie or indeterminatlie to uphold one Government continuallie and not to change 1 We swear onlie to his Majestie his Heirs and Successors so that when ever they are extinct which may be sooner or later as divine Providence disposeth the Oath of it self ceaseth and determineth Replâ— â—n swearing to Heirs we swear to al that are of the blood for the â—â— Heirs in Law and while any of them are alive the oath never ceaseâ—â— and the blood hath lasted neer 600 yeers already and may last probably enough til Doomes Day 2 Swearing to Successors though not of bloud though al the bloud should be extinct is a swearing that there shal be Successors and that we wil obey them And is not this to swear indefinitly to uphold one kind of Government where is then that fault viz. Ignoratio Elenchi 2. Notwithstanding the Allegiance sworn to the said persons there is power of change in the Government left to the mutual Consent of both parties to wit those sworn to and them swearing as it is in al humane Contracts and Oathes of this nature Reply 1 But this man hath sure forgotten that which he hath often asserted viz. That the Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors was without anie Condition or reserve of a disingagement or that it was due by absolute and unalterable Rule and without dependance upon another and not with mutual respect Which if he have spoken the truth wil be an impediment to this power of change by mutual consent However it be it s very palpable that he hath contradicted himself in his Assertions 2 If the Oath be to Heirs and Successors and binding how can he say They may be discharged through mutual consent from that part of it which concerns Heirs without Contradiction again to himself in reference to what he asserts afterwards in pag 8. His words are these Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God And those Precepts Rom. 13. 4. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof And dotlâ— not that Law Command everie People and Person Allegiance to their lawful Governors And was not the King in Being and his Heirs in Capacitie and Designation such Thus he Disputes against absolution from the Oath of Allegiance not only in reference to the King in Being but also in reference to his Heirs in Capacity and Designation as a breach of the Law of God and yet it seems by mutual Consent the King in Being and the People may dispence with this Law of God and may cut off the Heirs from Regnancy and change the Government and not be guilty of breaking this Law of God 3 This grant that he makes of a power of change through consent is as good as nothing for how unreasonable wil it be to conceive That a Person in Possession of a Kingdom wil consent to loose it and alter the Government The Second fault he finds in the form of Arguing is in the Minor There is saith he somewhat of the fallacie called Petitio principii namelie That anie kind of Government granted to be lawful can prove inconvenient and hurtful to the Subjects The Governors indeed may prove bad and so indeed a change in the persons or a regulating of them is the apt remedie for that hurt but the Government is the Ordinance of God and hath a political goodness seated in its being Reply But he forgets himself again and makes that to be Petitio Principii which he had before granted and doth afterwards grant in that comparison which he makes betwixt several kinds of Governments and several Callings He had said pag. 2. in that distinction of the goodnesse of means tending to the happinesse of a Community That it was variable in relation to times and people and that that may be good in the nature of a means for one people or time that is not so for another And he cites out of Aristotle Pol. Lib. 3. these words Est enim genus hominum naturâ varia comparatum atque affectum aliud servile aliud colendis Regibus accommodatum aliud timo craticum populare atque horum generum suum cuique est ac distinctum commodum And more there is exserted by him out of Aristotle to this purpose And then afterwards in comparing diversity of Governments to diversity of Callings he doth by Consequence speak the same thing again viz. That though al Governments be according to God warranted in the Scriptures and in that sense Gods Ordinance as al lawful Callings are for there is no difference but what may be said of the one in this respect may be said of the other yet al Governments are not alike good and profitable alike congruous and agreeable alike safe and sutable to al people nay there may be a comparative evilnesse and hurtfulnesse in some Governments to some Common-wealths some Common-wealths know how to put a bridle upon Kings better then others can and so it is in Callings which is his own Comparison some Callings though good in themselves and Gods Ordinance in the sense before expressed yet hurtful to some persons and pernicious also and therefore to bind up to one Calling is unlawful especially when by experience it hath been found hurtful through the unsutablenesse thereof and so it is of Governments and so he cavils against that as not granted which yet is granted by himself more then once Having done with the form of Arguing he comes to consider of the Argument it self which is That man may change Government for his greatest good and must change it upon experience of the hurtfulnesse of it And he flatly denyes it and saith No Position is more Anarchical then this is Reply 1 But it was necessary that
is sinful Reply It is not my Position but his own Fiction that dissolves al Government For I have not asserted but he hath imagined so much That any man may be free to Change when he judgeth it best but I place the power of erecting and plucking up and changing for the Common-wealths Good where it ought to be of right in the Representatives of the People As for that Title which in scorn he puts upon me I passe it over knowing That it is more his shame to do it then mine to suffer it But saith he I would fain have him declare what thing Magistracie and Subjection is Reply The Apostle hath declared Rom. 13. 1 c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. to which I adhere Magistracy is a Principallity or higher Power ordained of God and yet in reference to the special form of Government and the persons holding it chosen and immediatly constituted by men for their good And Subjection is the Peoples acknowledging and obeying for their own good this Principallity to ordained of God 2 Sam. 15 20. 1 Kim 11. 26. 1. 12. c. Act. 5. 36. and so constituted by men 4 He saith This Doctrine wil acquit and justifie all the Conspiracies and Treasons that ever were enterprised against the power of the Magistrate since the World was for all will be pretended to be for the great good of the Common-wealth Reply This is a great slander that is cast upon this Doctrine so far as it is mine for seeing that it only reserves a liberty in Common-wealths to change upon weighty Causes which their Representatives are Judges of and Agents in it justifies no particular persons noâ— particular parties Risings but it may be truly said That this Doctrine cuts the comb of al Tyranny and wil force and constrain Goâ—ernors to a good behaviour But after he had so greatly aspersed and vilified this Doctrine as he cals it which indeed was formed in his own heart he approacheth somewhat neerer to the truth of my Assertion by way of Objection but reacheth not fully the sense in which I intended it His words are these But it may be said Not particular men or a lesser partie are to judge of the expediâ—ncie or take in hand the change but the whole People And he argues against it thus 1 He saith Seldoâ—e or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Government of themselves affect or move to a Change it is the flatterers and dâ—ceivers of the people that lead the people to it Reply If they do not affect and move to a Change yet if their Representatives do it who are not I hope in this mans accompt the flatterers and deceivers of the People but the Trusâ—â—es or tâ—e people for their good the people do it in them unlesse they do in their Petitions generally appear against it 2 How the judgement and will of the whole Bodie of the people saith he should be known and declared unto execution before particular men Act to a Change of their own private judgement is to me a thing unimaginable Reply When the whole Body of a people have entrusted certain Selected ones with their Power their Trustees meeting together and holding Corespondence with the several Counties and Places that Chose them and sent them out in their Name mav act for a Change for the peoples good And is this unimaginable Besides If this were not yet the Common-wealth consists of rational sociable Creatures which meet at Church and Market as the saying is that is have occasions of the Communication of Councels and so it comes to passe That the apprehensions of some men comes to be the Spirit of the most of the People nor is there any indirectnesse or unlawfulnesse in this 5 He saith This necessitie of retaining a power in Subjects to Change and of using it for a greater good or removing of a temporal hurt in opposition to an Oath sworn against that Change is directlie against these Scriptures tying men that swear to their own â—urt not to Change Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 18 19. and condemning those that for such ends have receded from their Oathes Ezek. 17. 13. c. Iosh 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam. 21. 2. Reply 1 These Scriptures have been oft made use of and often Answered That in Psal 15. 4. speaks of particular mens swearing for the adâ—anâ—age and good of another and their own disadvantage but speaks not of things that have been and may be pernicious not to single persons alone but to Common-wealths and not profitable to any unlesse to saitsfie the lusts of some parricular persons And I would ask Whether if a Common-wealth should swear Succession of Judges in al the Courts within it self should such an Oath stand or not Or whether would not such an Oath rather fal under his own Exception That the thing sworn to must be just and honest else it is not obliging And I would know a Reason wherefore it should not much rather be asserted of the supream Judge 2 If there hath been such a perpetuating Oath to any Family yet it is Conditional while that Family carrieth it justly and according to the Laws of the Kingdom and so it is That as a Family advanceth it self sometimes by vertue over the people meriting their favour as Gideon did and gaining their Promise yea oath that they shal Rule and their Son and their Sons Son So a Family may by vice dishonour it self and lose that favour and be adjudged worthy to be sleighted and Cashiered yea Censured and Punished as Sauls house came to reproach and ignominie And an Oath or many Oathes would not have supported it or confirmed it 3 That Oath of Josh 9. 18 19. to the Gibeonites was ratified after they knew that they were their neighbors and after they knew that they had transgressed the Commandement of the Lord though unwillingly by making peace with them and therefore if they had not had some special warrant from the Lord for it it would have been in them double iniquity to have confirmed it But it s more then probable That being it was in Ioshua's dayes to whom God did much reveal himself and seeing they had mist it by rashnesse before in not enquiring at Gods mouth they went to God about it and had his direction in it therefore the offence of Saul became so heinous as 2 Sam. 21. 2. shews 4 That in Ezek. 17. 13. c. is not for his turn but rather against him For 1 Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah King who was not King til he made him and so he was of Nebuchadnezzar's setting up 2 Nebuohadnezzar took of him an Oath to be faithful and he brake this Oath 3 Therefore Nebuchadnezzar justly came against him and deposed him and put out his eyes and carried him to Babylon and so indeed originally it was the Common-wealth in their Representatives make the King for their best Title was from Parliament and they take him sworn to Rule according