A VINDICATION OF THE Oath of Allegiance IN ANSWER TO A Paper disperst by Mr Sam Eaton pretending to prove the Oath of Allegiance voyd and non-obliging Wherein his POSITJONS Against it are Examined and Confuted By the Author of the Exercitation concerning Usurped Powers PROV 20.25 It is a snare to a man after Vows to make enquiry Printed in the Year 1650. Mr Eaton's Positions against the Oath of Allegiance POSITION I. EVery Oath to make it lawful and warrantable ought to be taken in Iudgment and Righteousness Jerem. 4.2 The Oath then of Allegiance that it may be in Righteousness and Iudgment must be First Conditional not Absolute mutual not single taken by both parties not by one onely by the Ruler or Governor not alone by the Ruled by the Prince as well as by the Subject Reas 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 binde the Subject absolutely whether the Prince or Governor rule for the Subjects good or not Therefore such an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in Judgement or 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 rightly 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 Iudgment and Righteousness and so lawful the King was or ought to have been as strongly bound to all the 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 so many of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebels that have taken up Arms against the King Secondly Nor to His Heirs Reas Because who knoweth as Solomon saith Eccles 2.19 whether the Heir will be a wise man or a fool a just or righteous man or a wicked man and Tyrant Now if no man know this then it is not an Oath in Iudgment if any man swear Allegiance to an Heir nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may binde himself to his own hurt yea ruine and destruction Conseq 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 changed it whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Property of the Subject or subverted it We know what their education was who then could take an Oath in Righteousness and Iudgment in reference to them It is good to know first and swear afterwards Thirdly Nor to any one kinde of Government Monarchical or any other to uphold and continue it in a constant way without changing of it Reas 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 kinde 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 greater good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kinde of government inconvenient and hurtful Then to swear not to change it is sinful and in Righteousness and in Iudgment may not be done for all kindes of Government are not equally good nor are they equally suitable to all people and experience makes persons wise to discern what is better and what is worse for themselves and therefore an Oath to uphold any one kinde of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable is unlawful Consequ Then the Oath of Allegiance serving to uphold Kingly Government against all others was an unlawful Oath for who knows not what a plague this kinde of Government hath been to this Nation and who knoweth not that the most of our Kings have been Tyrants and who knows not what a Blessing the Change of Government hath brought to the united Provinces Object But suppose there was some Vnlawfulness in the taking of such Oaths yet is there not a necessity of keeping them being taken Answ If that Oath taken against the life of one man by Herod because unrighteous and cruel was not onely 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 of just men or Tyrants which are to uphold Monarchy the woful fruits whereof though they have been long tasted and felt by this Nation seeing they are dangerous and may prove as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not onely unlawful to be taken but unlawful to be kept POSIT II. Suppose the Oath of Allegiance to be a Lawful Oath yet the Subject is now absolved from it by those that have Power to absolve from it Reas Because the Representative of the People which in Reason are the Supreme Power of the Nation imposed this Oath upon the Subject by an Act 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 Voluntary Act to which they were not obliged by any 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 free Act in their Representatives Therefore if the Representatives take away this Act and repeal it they thereby set the Subjects at liberty from such Allegiance and from their Oath by which they are bound unto it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his servant might acquit him of it because not bound by any Rule from God but obliged by Abraham onely Consequence This Present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which which was enacted to be imposed there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it But then it will come to this Whether the Parliament be the Supreme Power Whether the Representative 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 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
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 given him then if a man impose an oath upon himselfe as in some cases he may he may absolve himselfe when he will from it though he therein obliged himselfe to God or another man And this is truly the case here as he himselfe states it the subjects by their own Act in their Representatives impose this oath and by their own personall act swear it and after by their own act in their Representatives absolve themselves from it 2 The repeale of the Act is no repeale or dissolution of the oath the Parliament that framed 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 to him as the Ministers rehearsing and dictating the words of marriage to the couple Marying each other makes not the mariage but the parties themselves declaring in those words And as the clerk in a court reciteing the words of the Iurors oath to them makes not the oath but the Iurors assent to it The Parliament can injoyne or punish the refusall 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 entered into unto God as the invocated witnesse and judge cannot be within the Parliaments authority to nullifie in all subjects oaths which may be made with or without their imposition There are cases indeed wherein a superiour 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 own right * Animadvertendum tamen est penes hos non esse facultatem rescindendi quodlibet jusjurandum subditorum sed illud duntaxat cujus materia est eorum potestaâ—i 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 bin so far from being ignorant of the making of this oath and disalowing it as soon as it was known to them that they were the composers and commanders of it yea and have taken it themselves Let any the least warrant yea or president be brought for releasing an oath in this case and I shall sit down Lastly for a close of my answer unto this position I shall observe what the tennor of this oath hath in it I doe beleeve and in conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof And doe renounce all pardons and dispensations to the contrary This is not only the swearers declaration but the Parliaments in compiling and imposing this oath and all Representatives have personally thus declared in taking it shall we beleeve them concerning their power in this matter or this man In the end he brings in three questions and answers to them unto which though they have no immediate reference either to this latter position or the proof of it to which they are subjoyned nor to the question of the oaths obligatorinesse which is the subject of the precedent discourse yet lest the over-passing them should imply that they are unto me either currant or difficult to be answered I shall say somewhat 1. His first question and answer is after this manner But then it will to this Whether the Parliament be the supreme gower R. 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 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 the Parliament is the power of the people now in reason the power of the people is the supreme because thence as from the root all power first sprung and proceeded The Norman Kings did not come in by Conquest the first of them surnamed the Conquerour did indeed so come in although even he layd other claim to the Crown besides Conquest as the ground of the attempt thereof namely a right both by vertue of the Covenant and Oath of Harold and the Donation of King Edward Speeds Hâ—st Book 1. Chap. 7 Sect. 6. 13 14. 16. 30 * Speed B. 9. Ch. 2. S. 54 Chap. 3. S. 12. The next to him William Rufus neither came in by Conquest nor by lineall succession his father on his death-bed being in remorse of Conscience for his cruell government of the Kingdome durst not as he said dispose of the Land to any other then to God only he wisht if it might be the will of God that William his son might flourish in the Throne * Speed B. 9. Ch. 2. S. 54 Chap. 3. S. 12. who accordingly notwithstanding Duke Robert was his elder brother by a generall consent and vote was made King The rest that have followed successivly came in by discent and title of inheritance although in some happily it was wrested and were the most of them peaceably and without contest of any seated in the throne and that which the Parliament usually did was not a creating of a title to them but a recognition of that which they had and a securing of it to their posterity which was for the Kingdoms safety as wel as the Kings interest 2. It is well known this Land was governed by Kings in supreme power long before the Norman race begun so that this exception from the manner of the Normans coming in lies rather against their title who came in by Conquest to be Kings then against the Kings Title to be supreme 3. If the Judgment of Parliaments themselves to whom he would appropriate the supremacy may decide to whom it belongs it will be yeilded to be in the King though not exclusively in reference to Parliament witnesse the Act of Parliament setting forth and enjoyning the Oath of the Kings Supremacy 4 The causing or conveying of civill power by way of consent or election whether it be by the Parliament to the King or by the people to them both or to either of them is no argument of a power
neither the peoples not the Supreme by way of peculiarity and that the Kings power derives as strongly and as nerely from the people as as doth the Parliaments though both have their principall originall from God and are but instrumentally from the people 2. The Consequent is then the Representatives of the people are the Parliament and none else were the Antecedent granted and most true yet he that knows what an argument is or hath but naturall Logick may see that this hath no kind of inference or consequentiall force from it We say that the Lords and Commons of England assembled with the politicall power and presence of the King are the Parliament and for this we appeal to all the use of the word since there was such a thing as a Parliament in England till within these very few dayes and the generall understanding of the word still to the Law common and municipal to the Titles of Parliamentary Acts and Statutes and to the Declarations and constant language of Parliaments themselves from first to last He saith the Representatives of the people meaning the said Commons are the Parliament for this he brings no proofe in the world from the application or use of the word by any though he cannot but know that words signifie according to the pleasure of some Imposer all his medium is in those term The Peoples power and the supreme power Whereas it is a question betwixt us whether there be such a thing as power or supremacy belonging to the people and if that were granted yet it is still a question betwixt us whether the peoples and the supreme power be any more appertaining to the Commons then to the King and Lords I cannot assent to either the affirmative of both are his positions and but barely affirmed by him so that in making this inference he doth but prove one of his principles by another improved and in so doing doth but petere principium 3. His reason of this consequence is for the Representatives are the people in them and there is the race of power This is still but to infer the conclusion upon an unproved principle of his own which I have denyed and refuted above but I shall here touch upon the wide mistakes about this term and thing Representatives with which hee and others are I see overtaken 1. he taketh for granted that the Commons in Parliament are the peoples Representatives which me thinks cannot properly be said if we understand by the people all estates members or parties in the Kingdome and if he doth not so understand it I aske how can he after his own sense place the power supremacy representablenes only in one part of the Kingdom for the said Commons are chosen but by and in the name of the Commoners in distinction from the Peers and cannot are not intended to represent any more then those by and in whose name they are elected and therefore are called the Commons in Parliament besides the Peers are present and therefore cannot be represented If then all the people are not Commoners nor represented how are those Commons truly and compleatly the Representatives of the people 2. He seems to found the Commons power and that in a degree above others that are undoubted powers upon their being Representatives of the people Whereas I think it will upon scanning appear that their representativenesse is not the rise or ground of any Magistraticall power in them 1. That which makes them or any men a power as I apprehend the matter is that they are Gods Representatives and that which ordinarily makes them so is that they are chosen or consented to by the people either personally or in the originall constitution of government unto the administration of an authority ordained by God and thus are in this kingdom the Prince the Peers and the Commons in Parliament though not all the same way but some personally others hereditarily The said Commons have indeed this addition but it is not of Magistraticall power but of popular action and employment that they are the Commons representatives because the colective Commons cannot convene or treat which representation empowers them not to any publique Magistracy or Acts of distributive Iustice but only intrusts and inables them to deeds of Commutative right or contract on the Commoners behalf as the agreeing on Taxes Forces or other requisites to be borne in an equall proportion and which are due as far as proportionable from the people to the publique Magistrates and service 2. If the power of the Commons be grounded on their representativenes of the people then it is necessary all the Members should be present to make them a representative of the whole Body of the people and to inable them to act so as to bind the whole because the Members compose a Representative not so as that every one tepresents the whole but each one represents a part and all of them collectively represents the whole 3 He placeth the dimension and prerogative of the Office of the said Commons in their Representativenes of the people where it seemeth to me they are not meere but more then Representatives of the people They that are meerly Representatives are 1. To act what they whom they represent might act if they were present 2 To act nothing but what they have in charge from the represented But this is not the latitude of the Commons in Parliament they are not thus tyed up For first If they be an estate endued with civill authority they may act authoritatively and so could not the people whome they represent if they were present no such power being seated in them as was a little before alleged 2 If they be a power they are impowred by God and so have in charge from him to act the thing within their Commission whether they are charged from the people to doe them or not yea though the people should command the contrary If they be no more then representees and so be bounden by the latter rule here given perhaps some would aske what charge or Commission did the people ever give either to any Former or to the present Representatives for some actings Thirdly His third Question and Answer is Whether the present Representatives that now sit be the Representative of the people R. First they are all of them chosen by the people therefore of right they sit in Parliament First Whether they be all so chosen I shall not enquire but I have read in Master Prin as I remember it is in his Speech upon the Treaty who it is probable knew the house better then this Gentleman the contrary of some whom he there names 2 But if they all be legally chosen that proves not that they of right sit in Parliament unles there be a right Parliament to sit in R. Secondly the present Representatives are all that are left to sit in Parliamet for the most of the rest have deserted their trust without any force upon them
or so much as implied in either of their oaths 4. Such mutually respective oaths have only place in matters arbitrary or that are in mens choice to do or not to do untill they bind themselves by Covenant but such are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects there being a divine Law obliging each to the duties of their offices before they swear We see no sense imaginable of mutuall nor single will fit this mans turne but it will make his Proposition false either predicated of the Oath of Allegiance at all so doth the first and third acception afore-mentioned or if predicated with that modus of a necesse est so doth the third But let us heare his Reasons for this clause of his major whatever be the sense of it It is saith he against equity and reason and the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince to submit to him then the Prince is bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly Grant all this and it will no way follow therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous must be mutuall in any sense for the Prince may be bound and that as long to his part as the Subject is to his and so he is and it is impossible to be otherwise for Prince and Subject his tie to rule in justice and his to obey in just things are relatives and doe inferre necessarily each other to wit by the tie of Scripture conscience and positive Laws and yet not be sworne at all His major being thus I hope fully refuted I need not to take notice of his consequences as he calls them but in a word I shall touch on them The first is nothing but a hypotheticall repetition of some part of the major Proposition which I have been so long in disproving If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteousnesse the King was as strongly bound to the Subjects as any of them to him this therefore I passe by as the same that was said before and no consequence from it The second is Then if he break his Oath all the Subjests are absolved if they will This consequence I deny I have I thinke fully made it cleare before that the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is absolute not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King whether sworne or not sworne and that it could not have been otherwise and though the King and people have each sworn their duties mutually See D. Sanders de Iuram oblig Prael 4. S 8. yet not with a mutuall respect by vertue 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 falls 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 ellse the whole Parliament and their party were periured persons so many of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebells in taking up Armes against the King 1. If their taking up Arms against the King as he termes 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 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 arms which would have been if the Oath had not been as he supposeth nullified rebellion neverthelesse 2. We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath believed declared and in many Treatises in print maintained all along the late warrs that the Armes of the Parliament were not against any branch of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed still to owe persist in yea and in the Act of their Arms-bearing covenanted to yeeld 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 Laws 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 Court 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 personall presence or commands yet for the King his Crown and dignity 2. His next exception against the Oath of Allegiance is That it is an unlawfull oath in that it is sworn to the Kings Heirs his reason for this Exception proceeds thus Who knoweth as Eccl. 2.19 whether he will be a wise man or a fool a just or a wicked man and tyrant now if no man know this then to swear to an Heir is not an Oath in iudgement 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 unlawfull Oath c. I admit of the Antecedent but utterly deny the Consequence 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 will be a wise man or a fool therefore he shall not have Rule c. that is we must not engage before hand that he shall rule while it is uncertain what he will prove though Solomon saith notwithstanding that is uncertain yet he shall have Rule and so Rehoboam none of the wisest Princes had Rule over Solomons labour yet they that cleaved to him did much better then they that revolted from him and I suppose this gentleman dare not say that an Oath of Allegiance to Solomon and his seed or to Rehoboam himself after the manifestation of his weaknesse was unlawfull 2. The same reason if it held would lie against any Oath or Engagement to any Rulers in being whatsoever they are yea against the new Engagement to the present Government for say that Rulers be come to maturity and for time
specie as after will be shewed and as a government it hath a politicall goodnesse seated in its being by the unchangeable 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 any government inconvenient and hurtfull and must not uphold any one government longer then it continues most safe and profitable I must flatly deny What position more anarchicall 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 feare 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 tells us in the next Words vers 22. for their calamity shall rise suddenly and who knoweth the ruine of them both 2. If men may change for the better and must change upon a supposed hurt then all oaths ingagements or promises of obedience allegiance or fidelity to Magistrates are unlawfull to be undertaken for all 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 all such Engagements a makeing 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 Eccl. 8.2 2 Kings 11.4 Joshua 1.16 17 18. Iugdes 8.9.10 2. Cr. 36.13 3. This position not only disallowes all such engagements but dissolves the naturall or morall 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 will and that is not to be tyed at all by this means any man is disengaged from subjection both in foro interno externo when he will 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 out against the Judgements take up armes against the Person and Authority and be exempt from the sword of the Magistrate yea although he have sworn or subscribed allegiance because such an Oath or promise saith this Doctor was sinfull not in righteousnes but I would fain have him declare what thing magistracy and what subjection is 4. This Doctrine will acquit and justifie all the conspiracies and treasons that ever were enterprized against the power of the Magistrate since the World was Was not the conspiracy of Absolom 2. Sam. 15 1. Kings 11.26.12.1 c. and that of Sheba against David was not the Rebellion of Jeroboam against Solomon and Rehoboam were not the seditions of Thendas and Judas the Gaulnite against Caesar Acts 5.36 were not all the Treasons against Magistracy that ever have bin attempted for the parties yea for the publique greater good as the Conspirators iudged If it be said that not particular men or a lesse party are to Judge the expediency and take in hand the change but the whole people Besides that the people under authority collectively taken have no such power as I intend presently to show it may be said 1. Seldome or never doth a whole nation under a lawfull government of themselves affect or move to a change it is the flatterers and deceivers of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anst poli◠lib. 5. c. 5. ordinaryly that desire and mislead the people to it 2. How the Judgement and will of the whole body of a people should be known and declared unto Execution before particular men act to a change of their own private judgment to me is a thing unimaginable 5. This necessity of retaining a power in Subjects to chang and of using it for a greater good or removall of a temporall hurt in opposition to an Oath sworn against the change is directly against the Scriptures tying men that sweare to their own hurt not to change Psal 15 4 Josh 9.18.19 and condemning those that for such ends have receded from their oaths Ezek 17 13 c Joshua 9 15 compared with 2 Sam. 21.2 6. That position so much now adays insisted on of the Peoples power to depose abolish and alter the power of their Governors at pleasure which is actually setled and both in it self lawful and lawfully set over them I hold is a grosse error some of my Reasons in short are First such a course supposing the governours dissent to it all along is no other then that resistance of the ordinance of God condemned Rom. 13.2 2. It is directly opposite to that subjection commanded every soul that is in the relation of a Subject Rom 13.1 and that 1. Pet. 2.13 3. If the people may do it then it must needs be that they have a civill power and authority over their Magistrates Which is contrary to those Scriptures which make the King supreme and call the powers which the people are subject to the higher powers higher in relation to them who are below and put in subjection to them 1. Pet. 2.12 Rom. 13.1 and indeed if the people have a power over their Magistrates to Judge or displace them how are they magistrates their superiors and rulers the same persons cannot be under and over others in the same kind of order or power If the Magistrates be under the people whom are they over If the people be above the Magistrates whom are they under 4. The Holy Ghost commands the people to render tribute custom feare honor not at random to a Magistracy leaving them at liberty to what they please but to whom they are due they are a debt then which respecteth a determinate object the present Magistrate no debtor can pay a debt by transferring it from one to another or giving what he oweth to another besides the proprietor 5. Magistrates are of God his ordinance and ministers and they are Judges for him as his vicegerents Rom. 13.1.24 2. Cron. 19 6. and therefore tannot stand at the meer will of the people God must have a hand in their removall as he hath in their admission or else it is injurious he removes and admits now not by immediate revelation as sometimes in Israel but by the rule of his word executed by man he hath
are absolute not conditionall c. and which are to uphold Monarchy the wofull fruits whereof seeing they are dangerous and may prove as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not only unlawfull to be taken but to be kept Not granting any unlawfullnes in the taking of this Oath having I hope made good its innocency against all that hath bin said yet suppose I had made this objection I would not take this answer My reason is he cannot paralel Herods oath and ours in the matter wherein HERODS was unlawfulll both in the taking and keeping what was that it comprised as he interpreted it the shedding Innocent bloud the massacring of a guiltlesse and holy person Now what is the matter of ours To yeeld obedience in lawfull things to a lawfull power Is it any more and are not the matters of these two oaths as farre unlike as light and darknesse That which he heaps up to agravate our oath to the height of the unrighteousnesse of Herod is nothing but the three exception which all this while I have been answering and therefore shall content my selfe with what hath bin said to them Only in the close he tels us Monarchy is dangerous and may as often it hath prove distructive to the lives of many men and therefore its unlawfull to sweare or keep the upholding of it This is nothing but what may be as truly said of any kind of government how lawfull soever none that hath bin as much practised as it can be affirmed to have bin less distructive or to be lesse dangerous then it but the possibility of being or experience of having been abused is no valid reason why a government may not be upheld if it be downe must all government fal and if yet it may be upheld to sweare to uphold it may be an oath lawfull for the matter and if it cannot in that respect be made a crime it deserves not to be paraleld with Herods oath What paralel in point of unrighteousnes Herod keeping his oath others violating theirs his execution theirs may have it is not to my purpose in hand to shew I have done with his first position and proceed to his second which is this Suppose the Oath of Allegiance to be lawfull yet the subject is now absolved from it by them that have power to absolve from it This position of a power in any to absolve from a lawfull oath is new as far as I have read or heard among protestants and hath until now been accounted by Papists the Popes and Prelates prerogative by us their antichristian presumption But let us see where and upon what ground he builds such power Reason Because the Representatives of the people which in reason are the Supream power imposed this Oath by an Act in Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no law of God or nature obligeing them to accept of such a person as his heires and to swear allegiance to them If therefore the representatives take away and repeale this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the subjects at liberty from such allegiance and from their Oath bindâ—ng to it there remains no more conscience of it to such as have taken it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it c. 1 For the antecedent I shall only note 1 he sets up a supreame power over us by reason not by law or the peoples constitution and this reason is not the Nations but first either his own privat judgment and if that may treat a supream power to him then every other privat mans reason is to set up on to him even when there is one already over the people he is of 2 Or is it the common reason that is in all men naturally and if so how comes it to passe that there is such variety of kinds in supreame government and that Representatives have it not in all times and nations yea that scarse they ever had it 2. That in citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omits the King and House of Lords who in the then Parliament concurred in this Enacting and Imposition 3. That although the King then was rightfully and actually inthroned in the Regall power and Dignity and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the people to him and his heires yet he dares to say no Law of God or Nature obliged them to accept of such a person and his heirs is not the 5th Commandement the Law of God and Nature and those precepts Rom. 13.1 Tit. 3.1 1. Pet. 2.13 repetitions and divine ratifications thereof and doth not that Law command every people and person allegiance to their particular lawfull Governours and was not the King in being his heires in capacity and designation such 2. But for the consequence there is no truth in it nor colour of reason or inference from the Antecedent for it Besides that the act cannot for ought appeares to me be repealed but by the same power that made it and the allegiance sworn was not founded upon the Act or Oath but due and paid before them both The Oath in its own words terms it self a recognition and acknowledgment and the first words of it are I. A. B. truly and sincerely acknowledg professe testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that King James is lawfull King of this Realm c. Suppose the Representatives to be the supreme power that the Imposing of this Oath was their sole act and the Subjects in them and that they did it voluntarily or unobliged to it doth it thence follow the Representatives repealing that act the subjects that upon their Enacting swore it are now absolved from their allegiance and from the Oath 1. They that have power to impose an Oath were never said in any Divinity extant to have power eo ipso to absolve from it when the imposers are also the partie sworn to there it is granted both by Protestants and Papists Doctor Sanders de Juram oblig prael 7 S. 8. Tholâ—s Syr. tag Jurâ— lib. 50. cap. 12. they have so farre as concernes themselves power to release from the Oath not because they are not the Imposers but because they are the party sworn to for omnis qui promissit facit jus alteri cui est facta promissio the right of the thing sworn is theirs to whom the Oath is made therefore they may release from it and this is the true ground of that power he supposeth in Abraham to acquit his servant being the imposer of his oath if that was not rather the interpretation then relaxation of the oath but where the imposers are a third party from the persons swearing and sworn to there they have no claim of power of relaxation And thus the case is here the Representatives as he saith impose the oath which is sworn to the King and bind in allegiance to him
for though some were secluded and secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily departed from the House First he means they that sit are all that are left de facto to sit I shall not gainsay him But he might say thus if they were but two and all the rest were excluded by force of arms and those two were prisoners in the place those two in this case would be a Representative according to this his reason If he would be understood that they are all that are de jure left to sit I would heare that proved all that he brings for it here iâ— The most of the rest have diserted their trust 1 Say they had would that prove they that are left are all that de jure are to sit what say you to the lesse part of the rest whom you accuse not for deserters what say you to the secluded and â—ecured whom you cannot accuse of deserting their trust I doe not know that the house or those you call the present Representatives have tryed or Judged any or all of either sort of them unto deprivation of the right of sitting nay what say you to those most of the rest taxed by you as deserters of their trust as voluntarily and without interruption departing are they actually divested of their right to sit because they doe not performe their trust therefore ought they not to do it 2 But I can loke upon this charge of those most of the rest no otherwise then as a railing occusation brought against men in dignity and a presumptious slander intollerably cast upon those who have otherwise suffered so much in their trust first It hath been currently and without contradiction to my knowledg published that were secured or secluded in two or three dayes and how can he or any man be able to know or say that there is so much as one man of that house left at liberty that hath not come to discharge his trust and been actually debarred much lesse can any one say that the most of them have not 2 I would aske whether all that disclaimed not the vote about the Kings concessions were not declaredly excluded and actually put back if they offered to enter and if there be not still forces there ready to do the same 3 Not long before the last breaking of the house they that for feare of the Apprentices departed the house were counted the best performers of their trust and they that taried behind in the house were accused as faylers of it Must now the charge be inverted because the persons are varied 2. If they that sit are all that are left to sit de jure yet unlesse they be a number competent in Law to make a house and free from force I would be satisfyed how they can be qualifyed to sit and act especially in so high matters as the taking away the King and House of Lords and establishing a new power and way of goverment which if don by that house at the fullest and freest would be at least questionable the suspension and annulling the acts of the house upon the proceedings against the five Members and the coming of the Apprentices to the Parliament doores are fresh in memory and lively presidents And if the power of an Army not only captivating some Members but keeping the house that only a few scarce the eighth part of the number of them that constitute the house may enter and sit whom they distinguish by no known Character much lesse by any open or legall sentence against the excluded but only by a private roll of paper reserved in their own hands be not a taking away of the houses freedom I know not what can be so called R. Thirdly the Representatives that remain were alwaies when fewest and still are above the number allowed of by Law What number is allowed of by Law what Law that is where written and when made that alloweth of that number and what that number suppose it were 40. is allowed to do this Gentleman tells us not and yet these things should be set downe and scanned before this reason can passe There is a great difference betwixt forty and foure or five hundred betwixt some acts of the house and others in point of concernment If the Members of the house do not each of them represent the whole but all of them aggregatively in that some represent this part some another of the nation how can an eight part of them be said to make a representative of the whole Nation wherein possibly there is not one representative from seven parts of eight of the Land But the above alledged exception of a force upon the house must be wiped off or else the cleering of this point of the number could it be wil not serve The last thing in the Paper which he would it may be not have to be overslipped is a new doctrine concerning the interest of the people in the appointing of their Governors Wherein he saith 1. Such right as Kings have had they never justly came by it but by force and flattery have obtained it What a blasphemer of dignities is this that presumes to revile the whole order of Kings as Usurpers and unjust possessors of the highest civill property Dominion not one of them will he except from injurious attainment of their Crownes no not Melchisedech himselfe the interpretation of whose name bespeaks him King of Righteousnesse Surely he that is the King of Kings would never have stiled hâ—mself so if the universality of them had been so bad and the Apostle Pauls retractation Act. 23.5 The Angels modesty 2. Pet. 2.10.11 Nay the Prince of Angels his moderation Jude 8.9 are high redargations of this insolent evill speaking of dominions If his intention be to reflect more specially on the Kings of this Realm he is yet therein reproved by the current of History by which it is apparent the most of the Kings of this Land received their Crown by succession which is neither force nor flattery It were easie besides that to derive to many of them that title which he himself accounts the only just one viz. The consent of the Kingdome as for instance thus were Cassibelan of the British Edward sirnamed the Confessor of the Saxon and William Rufus of the Norman Kings invested * Speeds Hist B. 5. chap. 6 P. 8. c 6. S. 1. B. 9. c. 3â—… Yea all of them in a manner have had the Nations vote for their Crowns either antecedent in their predecessors concurrent in their personall entrance or subsequent in their establishment by after acts of Parliament and not a few have had this threefold consent Lastly the Parliament that Enacted the Oath of Allegiance and all the Members of the house of Commons with all other subjects that have taken that oath solemnly give this man the lye excuse it if it be incivility in the first words of it declaring the King sworn to be lawfull King
of this Realm I. A. B. Do truely and sincerely acknowledge professe testifie and Declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraigne Lord King James is lawfull King of this Realme c. Secondly Kingdomes were never intended saith he that the hereditary right of any should be in them With what forehead can he say that was never intended which the lawes and statutes of Kingdomes have ordained and setled Particulerly this Kingdome hath for divers successions provided before hand both for acts and oathes for the hereditary descent of the Crowne Will he â—verre that the estates of the Realme never intended that which they enacted and caused to be sworne 3 He tells us that men that were qualified with Wisdome righteousnesse and vertue were to be heires and successors and set up by the people after them that last possessed them and neither the people themselves nor their Representatives could either give or sell away this priviledg from their posterity viz. of choosing and setting up Kings and rulers over them He â—…eth still higher in absurdnesse of asserting and in this passage he is not content to crosse the common sence of others but he will needs overthrow his own way 1 As to common reason how in consistent is this that he delivers for by this position the arising posterity must first give their consent and passe their elective vote to the power they find standing before they can either owe allegiance and subjection to it or enjoy the benefit of protection of it so that Children suppose ours of this age whilst they are under years of consent and after that too untill they please tâ— consent which is at their own choise and may be denyed for ever if they will are both accountable to the present Government for any trespasses or crimes they may commit be it murder or whatsoever is the worst and left out of the lawes protection and redresse in any thing they may unjustly suffer And suppose their judgment or choice concurre not with their parents they must during their parents lives either continue in that estate or chose another government and become another commonwealth apart by themselves Yea by this reason all those that have sitten downe under a present power which they find in the thron and have given no consent to it are in the same condition of outlawednesse and liberty to chose rulers for themselves yea by this means a Kingdome may come presently to be divided into a thousand peeces of states and petty coÌ„monwealths according as their different choices may sway them to the inflaming of the whole with endlesse seditions and the overthrow of all government 2 As to his own way I aske 1 upon what constitution of the people doth the present House of Commons so called claime to be a power not by any made in this age certainly the present people having not as yet chosen any new government but do either acquiesse in the old received from their forefathers or are subjected perforce without their consent to a new if any such be I appeale to the severall proposers of the agreements of the people that have been lately published whether the people of this age have yet setled or chosen any government in their time If it be here suggested that the present people have chosen these Representatives I say to that True the Countries or Corporations have chosen them to be Parliament men but in so doing they ordained not founded not any Parliamentary power they acting distributively within their severall precincts and only nominating two or a few persons upon a writ sent out in the Kings name to consult on the difficult affaires of the Kingdom according to a known and antient custome and constitution of the Realm cannot be conceived to constitute a new power it must then be said they are a branch of the ancient and hereditary government of this Nation and this is not opposed by me but this Gentleman here contradicts this clame and tells us this title is null and could not be made by any of our predecessors in relation to us Secondly Vpon what ground do the said Commons challenge to be the sole supreme power without a King or house of Lords in way of a Common-wealth or free-State if it could be said that in former times the people have placed such a power in the House of Commons that will be of none effect according to this principle which denyeth that the people may conclude their posterity in such an act If it be said the present people in electing these Commons invested them with such a power my simplicity cannot comprehend it at the last elections of Parliament Members the people for ought I have ever heard neither resolved on nor so much as deliberated or moved a word of making over any new power they only elected them according to former custome and trust which was as I understand to sit in the House of Commons and to act in consociation with the King and the House of Peers about the publick affairs of the Kingdome â—o that the upshot is this Gentleman by giving the people the priviledge is violably to chose their own government personally and not by their predecessors hath utterly overturned the present power 4thly But to defend this his position he instructs us in the last place thus This Priviledg the welfare of the people is so mainely concerned in as that without it a people are given up and sold to ruine 1. Are not the Lawes which must regulate both the rulers and the ruler of as great a concernment as the choice of the rulers to the people and yet the people by their Laws do conclude their posterity which are therefore called every mans birth-right Again is not a mans estate of Lands and goods of as great a concernment to his Issue being their earthly subsistence as is their share in the Election of the publique Magistracy yet a man may involve his posterity undenyably in any act concerning his estate Yea is not Religion and Covenanting with God a far greater concernment then this of government yet men may represent and act for their issue in setling religion and entring into Covenant with God as is clear in the example of Israel * Deut. 29 10.11.14.15 Joshua 24.15 2. This reason would make us beleive the welfare of the Nation of Israel was mainly prejudiced and that they were given up and sold to ruine when there was an hereditary kingdome setled over them as there was by the Lord himself in David and his seed Nay we are rather to beleive because he set such a government over his own people therefore it was the better way I have done answering this paper and for a conclusion have only one word to the author of it Seeing he hath undertaken to deal in the removall of mens doubts concerning their solemn engagements unto their Governors I would propound to him a Quaery and that of a necessary and seasonable importance and which is occasioned by what he hath in this paper delivered being conferred with what at this time is publiquely imposed It is only this what may conscientiously be resolved upon in relation to the lately enacted Engagement from the principles and premises layd down by him in prosecution of his first position He therein avers that an oath of allegiance must be 1. Conditiall not absolute or whether the governor rule well or not 2. It must be mutuall or taken both by rulers and ruled so as the ruler be bound to the Subject to rule well and administer Justice rightly as well as the subject is bound to him and not single or taken only by the ruled 3. It must not be to those whom no man knoweth how they will prove whither they will be wise or fools just or tyrannicall 4. It must not be to any one kind of government to uphold and continue it in a constant way without changing of it and that if it transgresse in any of these qualifications it is unrighteous sinfull and unlawfull I will not Query whether or no but assume it as undoubted and clear if an oath to persons in authority must be thus regulated a Promise Covenant or whatever engagement of that nature must be so also and if his reasons or any other that can be brought conclude an oath failing in any of those rules to be unlawfull they will as strongly inferre the sinfulnes of an Engagement in that matter if it be dissonant in any particular from them Next I will not doubt to say the above-named Engagement is as far discrepant from these Limitations in every point as is the oath of Allegiance if not further 1. It is absolute or without any proviso of their ruling wel that are or may be in power 2. It is single or without the rulers Engaging to the subject to rule well and justly 3. It is to those of whom we may be as unsatisfyed how they will prove hereafter as we can be of an heire 4. It is to one kind of Government called the Common-wealth as it is now established and that described with contradistinctions from and exclusion of King and Lords It is also to uphold and continue it in a constant way for it is a Covenant de futuro binding to be true and faithfull to the government for future time in those words I will be true and faithfull and binding to it as established and therefore is for some continuance and constancy which being left indefinite and illimited is more extensible in duration then is the Oath of allegiance which determines with the Kings race and it is without changing the continuance how long soever it is to which it engageth which must needs be some it being as I said a tye for future must of necessity exclude changing for so long as it lasteth It will easily I hope be yeilded he that binds himself to be true and faithfull to this Government as it is now establisht is bound out from attempting a change of it while the Terme of the same obligation endureth I demand therefore how he will both stand to these principles and justifie the engagement and whether he hath not as to himselfe and all those who hold with his said premises damned it and so far as his reasons in that position can prevaile perswaded all others that they ought not to take it but are in conscience bound to reject it FJNJS