that height as that he in person departs from them a war breaks out betwixt them the Kingdom is divided by partieship with them on the one side or the other the two Houses continue acting joyntly no onely in managing their military defence but in the other publick both religious and civill affairs of the Kingdom they petition remonstrate and declare for a necessitie of an association and conjunction of the King and the two Houses as the fundamentall constitution and government of the Kingdome they enter into and prescribe to the people Protestations Vows Oaths and Covenants for the upholding of the Authority and Power of both so constituted they professedly fight for that associated Power they proclaim them Enemies and Traitors they prosecute them with fire and sword sequestration of estates and other punishments that go about to divide them asunder or oppose the aforesaid Authority and all this they do and avow as the indispensably necessary discharge of their trust Suppose after all this the Army raised and imployed by the said two Houses in the aforesaid war confederating in their Leaders as by the immediate sequell manifestly appears with a small party in the Lower House Remonstrates to that House without any addresse to the other many high and strange things they would have done by them and amongst the rest that the King be proceeded against as for treason and other capitall crimes in like manner his two eldest Sons if they render not themselves within a day to be set them that it be declared that the peoples Representatives in the House of Commons shall have the supreme Power and all other shall be subject to them in which demands that House not being so obsequious to them as they expect but standing upon the collegueship of that Government which they with their associates the King and the House of Peers are intrusted with the Army forthwith marcheth up to the doores and by force of Arms seizeth on and shuts up in hold one sort of them and by a strong guard set at their doores shuts out another suffering onely a small number of them and such as please them to sit in the House Suppose lastly this little number left in the House shall approve of and second these proceedings of this Army and by their act or Vote confirm the seclusion of that greater number of the Members of that House and taking upon them to Act in the name of that House shall Enact or declare themselves to be the onely Supreame Authority in the Nation and by that pretended solitarinesse and supremacy of power shall take away and abolish the other House of Parliament destroy the life of the King deny and disanull the Title of his Heirs and Successors to the Crown and Kingdome abolish the office of a King and ordain and govern solitarily over the people as their onely supreame Power and require their obedience and subjection as to such The quaere in this case thus propounded is whether this said party as thus acting and as to this latitude of Authority be usurpers yea or no whether this their removing others from the Seat of Supreame Power and assuming it peculiarly to themselves be or be not Usurpation as Usurpation hath been before prescribed and that to the very apex or highest pinacle of it yea whether they be or be not guilty of a double Usurpation First in usurping the name and Authority of that House It may haply be said for this 1. That possibly they may make a quorum or as many in number as are required to act R But are they not supposed to be under actuall and present force which hath been without contradiction by any adjudged a ground of nullity to Parliamentary proceedings For though all are not required to be present yet the House must be free for all to come to that their acts may be free and authorative 2ly That perhaps they may be most willing voluntary and free in their acts and the force that hath taken away others may be no force but a security to them being of the same principles apprehensions and designes with them R But though they as men may be free yet taking upon them the name of the House are they free as an House the House includeth virtually every Member of it many whereof being violently excluded by those that guard the meeting place how free soever those persons are that sit how can the House be said to be free nay doth not their voluntarinesse and free complyance make the Usurpation compleater Could they be said to be enforc'd to declard and act such things we might by a favourable interpretation onely judge their Acts to be null but when their proceedings flow from their own wils and they so concur to the exclusion of others more then themselves from the exercise of the power they with them are intrusted with and assume to themselves a power never confirmed on them by the people but meerly of their own creation how can this be lesse then Usurpation to the life 2ly In usurping in the name of that House the sole supremacy of Power in the Nation It will be pleaded perhaps that the House of Commons in the supposed case is the onely Representative of the people to whom alone the Nation hath committed the Supreme Power R 1. That House is not a Representative of the whole Nation but onely of the Commons which though the bulk and far more numerous part yet cannot stand for the whole in choosing a Representative but onely for themselves 2. If it could be made good that to that House the whole Nation in the originall constitution of Government had committed the sole Power the quaere would easily be cast in the negative but how will that be proved The case at it is put presupposeth Antiquitie and by past practise and the actings of the present House of Commons untill brought under force to proclaim the quite contrary 3. If nothing ab origine can be shewed for that did the King that summoned this Parliament or the People that chose this House of Commons supposed in the Case passe over any such prerogative to them de novo If either of them did let us hear how 4. It is too grosse an absurdity to be charged upon the supposed present and all former Representatives that being intrustsed by the people with the sole Supremacy they have of themselves associated to them the King and the House of Peers it being beyond the power of the constituted and onely in the Constitutors to make such an alteration in the fundamentall Constitution as Representatives cannot make Representatives or Proxies so can they not take in Associates or advance others not impowered by them that impowered them into a Collegueship with them I leave it therefore to every Reader to determine the Case and passe Judgement Whether the sole supreme Power in the presupposed party be derived to them legitimately or be not a Self-created power and so a meer
say I shall take notice of when I have layed down mine own sense and Reasons I shall therefore here labour to make good these two things 1. That meer forcible extrusion deprives not any lawfull Magistrate of his right and title to supreame Power 2. That violent possession gives no right to the Seat of Authority and consequently the Subjects allegiance is not turned about by the changes of powerfull possession and dispossession 1. Forcible extrusion or dispossession divests not of Dominion that the state of the Subjects allegiancec should be altered by it First if the vindication or recovery of a Princes or peoples right of Dominion out of which he or they are ejected or excluded be a justifiable ground for his their and others in their behalf leavying and waging war and prosecuting with the sword those that withstand the said recovery then the right of him that is expulsed by force is not cancelled or disanulled The reason of this consequence is of it self evident for nothing can be the ground of a war but a just and reall title either to be defended or recovered but I assume the recovery or redemption of a Princes or peoples right to a Kingdome with-held or wrested from him or them is a just ground of drawing the Sword and commencing a war This is proved if it needeth any proof by the war of the Judges people of Israel against the Kings and Nations that at severall times invaded and ruled over them against whom they rose up and rescued themselves and the Dominion of their Land from them the story of which acts we have in the book of Judges and by the warres of Samuel and Saul against the Philistines recorded in the 1. Book of Samuel as also by Davids warlike undertaking against and suppression of Absolom who had carried away all Israel after him into a Rebellion against David expulsed him out of the Land 2 Sam. 15. c. and 19.9 In like manner by Jehoiada's and the peoples rising in Arms against Athalia the usurping Queen 1 Macca chap. 1. c. in the right of Joash and their suppressing and destroying her and enthroning him by force of Arms. 2 King 11. And by the wars of the Maccabees against Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors g Ioseph de Bell Iudaic. lib. 1. cap. 1. Cron. Carion lib. 2. And the many undoubtedly lawfull wars of other Princes and States in such causes as these which to insist on is superfluous in so clear a matter Secondly If right and title to Soveraignty be not built upon possession but upon the Law of the Land or other consent of the people then it is not lost by dispossession this consequence is founded upon that which a learned Statist h Considerations touching a warre with Spaine written by Francis Lo Veâ—ulam c. pa. 3d. saith Is a received maxime almost unshaken and infallible Nihil magis naturae consentaneum est quam ut iisdem modis res dissolvantur quibus constituantur There is nothing more agreeable to nature then that things should be disolved by the same means they are constituted From which he infers very pertinently to our case in hand That if the part of the people or Estate be somewhat in the Election you cannot make them nulloes or ciphers in the prorivation or translation But the right and title of Soveraignty is not built upon possession which the proof of the latter Position will clear but upon the peoples consent which hath gone for so currant an axiome especially of late that it will certainly passe without contradiction Thirdly If a private property be not lost by losse of possession neither or rather much lesse can such a publique property be lost by that means there can be no such difference made betwixt them as to enervate this consequence and however who sees not the incongruitie of this that that which is the conservatory and protection of a private mans property should be of a so much more slipperie tenure then it but a private property is not lost by dispossession if it were for what use serveth the Law or Magistracy one main end of which hath been to vindicate the Subjects right from usurpation or what call you property But he that either hath any or granteth such a thing to be as property will let this assumption passe Fourthly If violent extrusion take away a Soveraignes right then rebellion where it prospers and prevails is no treason for there can be no treason or other crime imputed as against the Crown dignity or authority of them whose right therein is extinct and null so that they are onely according to this opinion traitors or rebels that rise up in Arms and rebellion against the lawfull Power and do not succeed and speed according to their desires By this account treason and rebellion shall consist not in the maliciousnesse of the intent or attempt but in the misfortune of successe or impotency of the prosecution of it Fifthly If force dissolve Magistracy then that prohibition of resistance under pain of damnation Rom. 13.2 is in vain in that it concerns onely them that cannot resist effectually and is no more then if he had said resist not ye that want power to do it lest if ye do ye incur damnation for they that have power and please to use it to the deposing of the Magistrate being that in so doing they put an end to his right how can guilt remain on them 2. Violent intrusion into and possession of the Seat of Authority gives no right to it and consequently neither draws allegiance after it nor evacuates it in relation to another First an unjust action cannot produce or create a right i Non est aequum ut ex actu injusto ius sibi quis acquirat D. Sand. de Iuramenti oblig Praelect 6. Sect. 4. Morall good and evill are at such distance that the one cannot be the cause the other the effect but violent intrusion into Authority is an unjust action Luk. 12.14 Man who made me a Judge c. and that whether it be by one that should be a Subject to that power Rom. 13.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth c. ver 5. Wherefore ye must needs be subject c. Tit. 3.1 1 Pet. 2.13 or by a Forreiner Judg. 11.12.27 2 Chron. 20.10 2ly If violent occupation made a right k O pubes domitura Deos quodcunquaevidetis pugnando dabitur praestat victoria mundum Cl. Claudiani Giganto machia then it were lawfull for any that could make a sufficient strength for it to rise up in Arms invade and seise on any Kingdome or Territory he can prevail over yea to kill and destroy men and Countreys for Empire and Dominion as l Cicero scribens de officiis tertio libro semper Caesarem in ore habuisse Euripidis versus quos sic ipse convertit nam si violandum est ius regnanti gratia violandum est aliis rebus pietatem
as well as reason dictates for where or in what Age did meer force assume the Empire without a lawlesse arbitrarinesse challenged to it self 10ly If you yeeld the Sword such a right where it can be master in the publick or civill State why should it not have the same interest in the private domesticall and personall So that pyrates theeves and robbers may justly claim a right to that which they can lay their hands on and be accountable to none for their spoil and rapine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11ly Whereas the Apostle to the Romans Chap. 13.2 forbiddeth resistance or contraordination to the lawfull power ordained of God and that upon pain of damnation to be received by him that doth it if force give a right to that power his action that resists with victory shall be justifiable and the resister shall gain a Crown instead of receiving damnation and none shall fall under the guilt and penalty of resistance but he that offers to resist and cannot make it good The sense then which this Position puts upon this text is catachresticall and it glosseth the words so as to be an incouragement to resist the power for he that resisteth the power prosperously according to it possesseth justly that ordinance of God and in truth purchaseth to himself not damnation but domination Having thus I hope sufficiently cleered the duty of Allegiance to be not the violent intruders but the oppressed and violently extruded Magistrates I shall proceed to other Reasons against Subjects giving up themselves to the obedience of a usurping party 3. If I should do that I should yeeld assistance to the Usurper in his wrong doing and usurpation and so become a partaker of his sin obedience to one as the supreame Magistrate is a comprehensive thing and includes many duties towards him at a power viz Receiving Commission from him for offices or acts otherwayes not competible to me maintaining and defending him in his power by pay counsell intelligence Arms and prayers all which I am bound to yeeld the Usurper to my power if I resigne mine allegiance up to him and how shall I do these things and not 1. support and have communion with him in his wickednes 2. Combine against betray and resist the right of the injuriously dethroned Magistrate 3. And make my self uncapable of obedience or being a Subject to the lawfull Power hereafter 4. It were a publick wrong to the Nation I am a member of so to bestow mine allegiance were I and the Countrey free from all tye of subjection in the presupposed Case to the expulsed Magistrate yet I could not lawfully make such a private bargain of my allegiance it s the part and duty of a particular person in a Nation that is joyned together as one body politick or Common-wealth not to choose his head or supreame Governor by his single election or vote but when a new Magistracy is to be erected or Magistrate advanced to attend the common and generall vote of the people or body politick he is of solitarily or with a small party to alter the state and posture of my publick allegiance in this case would be sedition and faction the current of the people or community I am of is to be followed at least where they justly dispose of the Soveraignty over them It was in it self a loyall and right resolution had it been in such a case as this and not misapplyed which Hushai exprest Nay but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose his will I be and him will I follow It would be to me I confesse a difficult case and harder then I will here undertake to resolve if the body of the Kingdom in the case in hand should either collectively or representatively conspire notwithstanding their oaths vows and Covenants to abrogate the ancient Soveraigne Power and to set up the Usurpers but that 's not the present case here is no generall consent of the Kingdom presupposed or pleaded for in behalf of the Usurper the dispute is about obedience to meer Usurpation And in this state of things to leave every man free to make over his allegiance by himself is to open a doore to more divisions then ever yet were in any Age or Nation and would confound all not an heptarchy but a chiliarchy 1 Sam. 10.27 2 Sam. 19.41.20.1 or myriarchy might follow When Saul had a generall vote of the people to be King they were children of Belial that refused him and at Davids re-investing after Absoloms treason and fall the men of Israel challenged them of Judah for going about to restore the King without them the far greater part of the Kingdom and that man of Belial Sheba the son of Bichri was justly pursued with the sword unto death for blowing a trumpet of defection from David when they both had consented to re-advance him 5. But there is a bar yet behinde of as main a strength as any yet stood on to keep back such a submittance to the Usurper and that is the Oaths Vows Protestations and Covenants presupposed above to be taken by the people for their owning obeying and defending the power or Magistracy displaced and in opposition to whose right the Usurper comes and continues in I have hitherto discussed the question in a case without reflection upon any particular Kingdom or reall Subject and so I shall do still onely I shall borrow leave in the prosecution of this Argument to presuppose in the aforesaid Case the Oaths and Covenant were the same that have been taken in this Kingdom of England The Author of the book called The lawfulnesse of obeying the present Government in his 11. page moveth an inquiry thus It were good to consider whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant which in a fair and common sense forbid obedience to the Commands of the present Government and Authority and proceeding he onely makes enquiry into one clause of the Oath of Allegiance which he strives to bow to his sense and passeth by all besides I shall speak to what he saith on that clause anon and shall here onely interrogate or propound by way of quaere concerning divers clauses in the Oaths Protestations Vows and Covenants First concerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy whereas in the former it is sworn I shall bear faith and true Allegiance to his Majestie his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown or dignity And in the latter I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Kings Highnesse his Heirs and lawfull Successors and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges preheminencies and Authorities granted to the Kings Highnesse his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm First do not these Oaths binde whomsoever hath taken
them clearly plainly and in terminis to an Allegiance over-living his Majesties person and pitched upon his Heirs and Successors so that he is not tree from the Oaths at his Majesties decease or then left at randome to pay his allegiance to whom he will choose 2. Do they not intend by His Majesties Heirs and Successors the same persons joyning them together with the copulative and and not using the discretive or and the former Oath twice comprizing both in the following clauses under the same terme or pronoune viz them theirs so that according to these Oaths His Heirs are of right his successors and none can be his Successor whilest he hath an Heir and longer the Oath lasts not but his Heir and if any conspiracy or attempt should be made to prevent his Heir from being and continuing his successor or to make any one his successor that is not his heir if he hath one is not the Subject sworn by vertue of this Oath to continue his allegiance to his Heir as the right successor and to defend him in that his right to his uttermost 3. And doth not the tearm lawfull annexed to Successors in the Oath of Supremacy manifestly exclude all cavill of a distinction betwixt Heirs and successors the word lawfull whether you interpret it of legitimation of birth or proximity of succession in regard of line according to the Law of the Land entailing the Crown upon his Majesties issue or rather both the latter including the former restraining successors from meaning any other then his heirs 4. And do not both these Oathes binde the swearer to assist and defend to his uttermost power against all attempts Monarchy or the Kingly Office and Government in the race of his Majestie cleerly expressed by many tearms to wit Their Crown or dignity all jurisdictions priviledges preheminences and Authorities granted to the Kings Highnesse his heirs and successors or united and annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Realm How then can he yeeld obedience to them that are not his heirs nor lawfull successors nor do so much as wear his Crown or sway the Regall Scepter How can he not oppose and withstand them in the assistance and defence of the right of his Majesties heirs and lawfull successors 2. Concerning the Vow and Protestation of the 5. of May 1641. and the Solemn League and Covenant 1. How can any that hath taken the said Protestation according to it maintain and defend the true Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine and yet yeeld obedience to an usurping authority coming in and holding in derogation of and opposition to the lawfull Prince when as the publick doctrine of that Church layed down in the 2. Tome of Homilies and the last Homily thereof approved of by the 35. Article of Religion fully and flatly refuteth and condemneth any Subjects removing or disposing their Prince upon any pretence whatsoever 2ly How can any man according to the Protestation maintain and defend the power and privileges of Parliament and according to the Covenant preserve the rights and privileges of Parliament and yet yeeld obedience to a small party of one of the Houses of Parliament as the Supreame Power the said party excluding the rest of that House and the other House wholly and deposing the lawfull Prince and abolishing the Office of the King whose presence personall or legall and politicall hath been declared inseparable from the Parliament and joyning with an Army that with force hath demanded and carried on these things 3. How can be according to the Protestation maintain and defend the lawfull rights and liberties of the Subject and according to the Covenant preserve the liberties of the Kingdom and yet obey and own a meerly usurped power Whereas the most fundamentall civill Liberty of a Kingdom and Subjects is to have a Government over them set up by the constitution or consent of the people not obtruded on them by those who of their own will and power without any calling from them assume it to themselves 4. How can he according to the Covenant preserve and defend the Kings Majesties Person and Authority c. and yet yeeld obedience to those usurpers who after his death cast down his Authority and place themselves instead thereof as the Supreame Power whereas his Authority in the plain intention of the Covenant is to be preserved and defended beyond the tearme of his life and in his posterity as it appears from this clause compared with those words in the preface Having before our eyes the glory of God the honour and happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity 5. Lastly how doth he according to the Protestation to his power and as far as lawfully he may oppose and by all good wayes and means endevour to bring to condigne punishment all such as shall either by force practise counsels plots conspiracies or otherwise do any thing to the contrary of any thing in this present Protestation contained and according to the Covenant not suffer himself directly or indirectly by whatsoever combination perswasion or terror to be divided or withdrawn from this blessed Vnion and conjunction whether to make defection to the contrary part or give himself to a detestable indifferencie or neutrality in this cause which so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdome and honour of the King but all the dayes of his life zealously and constantly continue therein against all opposition and promote the same according to his power against all lets and impediments whatsoever that yeeldeth allegiance and obedience to a party standing and leading all those that agree to obey them in so palpable contradiction and opposition to some materiall points and concernments of Religion divers most fundamentall rights of the Parliament and people and all the Authority and whole being of the King contained and covenanted for in the aforesaid Protestation and Covenant respectively CHAP. III. The question discussed Whether submission to and acting under a usurped Power for the time be lawfull with a reservation of Allegiance to the lawfull Power supposed to be expulsed I Now come to enquire into the other opinion before mentioned viz That one may submit and act under a usurped Power for the time and during the intervall of its prevalency with reservation of allegiance as due and cordially devoted to the lawfull Power expulsed And about this we shall not insist long because we finde not much contestation or difficulty In regard of the justnes and necessity of some things which may be the subject or matter of the Usurpers command and the Arbitrarinesse of others and the lawfulnesse of either not depending upon the command or warrant of a superior but resulting out of the nature of the action it self so that a private man might do it were there no Magistrate to command it or no command from the Magistrate
he undertook to answer this clause as not forbidding obedience to them have not onely put by the rightfull Successor but abolished the Crown and Regall dignity it self unto what then would he have his mecenates to be successors or how will he reconcile obedience to them with defence of the Crown and royall dignity 2. It is to be admired that a person of so fair a character as is given him by the worthy Authors of the Religious Demurrer should begin this Section of his with a generall deliberative It were good to consider whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant which forbids obedience to the Commands of the present Government and yet take no notice of any thing in this or the other Oaths and Covenants save of this clause onely in this Oath which it seems he thought he could not onely loosen from obliging against him but draw over to be accident to him which how well he hath performed I leave the Reader to consider And I further admire how seeing he accounteth Oaths sacred bonds and reverend obligements he feared not to use such enforcement to the clear letter of so tender and sacred a thing for though any body can say a tyrant sine titulo or a Usurper is a Successor de facto when he is in yet that he is such a successor as the Oath intends viz one that we are sworn in allegiance to and are bound by that Oath to defend to the uttermost of our power c. Having withall probably at the same time sworn in the Oath of Supremacy Allegiance to the lawfull Successors and to our power to assist and defend all jurisdictions priviledges c. belonging to those Successors is a grosser interpretation then I hope he himself will own when he considers it or any considering and conscientious men can receive And I could wish he would consider whether when he took the Oath he had this sense in his minde or rather it be not newly excogitated upon the coming into question of these late transactions and how neerly this practise entrencheth upon perjury r Alterum perjurii genus est ubi recte jura veris non syncerè agere sed novo aliquo excogitato commento iuramenti vim salvis tamen verbis declinare cludere D. Sanders de Iuxam oblig praelect 6. Sect. 7. 4. But having said what he thinks fit to the clause he will have one glance at the urgers of it Yet withall this quaere may be added while the son is in the same posture in which the father was how comes this Oath at this time to stand up and plead for disobedience in regard of the Son that was asleep and silent in regard of the Father 1. They that plead this Oath for disobedience or rather denying obedience to the present Power in regard of the Sons right did the same in regard of the Father when it was apparent that not a meer defence of Religion and Liberties and a recovery of the Kings personall presence to the Parliament was the end of the war but the Fathers death and the Sons dis-inheriting with the deflowering of the Crown and over-turning of the Throne it self Witnesse amongst other testimonies what the London Essex Lancashire and Banbury Ministers have declared publickly in their respective writings they are alike sworn to have according to their power and vocations stood for the Authority of both and not allowed the deposition of either or the usurpation of their Power by others they have prayed against bewayled stood astonied at witnessed against the proceedings that have been against both of them and to this day they lament that the clear Word of the Lord held forth by their testimonies hath not prevailed for the prevention or retractation of those direfull and the world throughout scandalous courses 2. The Son cannot yet be in the same posture his Father was in whilest an overture or proposall for satisfaction hath not once been made to him wherein he is in the view of the Kingdom more harshly and extreamly dealt with then even his Father was and as his Fathers sufferings as to life were without president so are his as to succession to the Crown Mr. Ashcam whom I had in hand before Chap. 2. hath divers strange and unapproveable passages reflecting upon the Oaths under debate which I shall cull out as I meet with them in severall places In his 2d part Chap. 8. Sect. 6. he layes down foure Cases wherein he saith Subjects are freed from their sworn Allegiance His three first viz 1. If a Prince abandon 2. If he alienate 3. If Nero-like through mad furie or folly he seek in an hostile way the destruction of his whole Kingdom will I presume be taken not to concern our case in hand the fourth possibly may be judged applicable to it which therefore I shall take notice of and a brief animadversion will serve he delivering it as he doth other odde and unsound stuffe with a pythagoricall magisteriousnesse and without the assistance of reason to induce a perswasion to it in the Reader Fourthly saith he if the Prince have part of the supreame right and the people the other part then notwithstanding an Oath of Allegiance to him he may be opposed if he invade the other part of Supreame right And a few lines after he affirms with Grotius He may lose his right by the Law of War And in the next Section he saith of all those foure Cases and therefore of this That they shew how we are absolved in our own consciences from all Oath and Contract when one party forfeits his Conditions first The defensive opposing of a Prince invading his Compeers part by the party invaded where the Supreame right is so shared supposing the Oath of Allegiance to be cautioned according to that sharing I shall not dispute it being beside the present question but his losing his right by the Law of War and the Subjects absolution from Oath upon that his supposed forfeiture of conditions I shall a little call into question 1. He tels us if we will take it upon his word if the Prince invade the others right he may lose his right by the Law of War What the Law of War means if diverse or varying from Gods and other humane Laws I understand not nor is it materiall in discerning into the permanency or cessation of right and of an oath concerning it we are to have recourse to the Law of God and Nature and if by these the Princes title and Subjects oath remain firm notwithstanding his invading the peoples right the Law of war like Alexanders Sword may violently cut in sunder but it cannot unloose either the single tye of right or the superadded of an oath How should this forfeiture come if any wayes by way of satisfaction for the trespasse upon the others right But theologicall Justice appoints not that where one invadeth anothers right the Invaders right should thereupon be cancelled and that
means not meerly power or authority abstracted from persons but persons clothed with that Authority Now that persons clothed with Authority may be said to be of God there must be not onely Gods institution of the office or magistracy in the abstract for the meer ordaining of the office makes not this or that man a Magistrate more then another but also his ordering of the persons to the office but they that are thus ordered of God viz not providentially alone but by way of vocation approbation and authorization as it is above proved the sense of the words of God must import to the Magistrates place must needs be granted to be lawfully possest of it or to have to it a just title This universall negative therefore of the Apostle There is no power but of God must not be taken in the simply universal sense as if there were no other power in the world but such but as a restrained universall to wit There is no lawfull power but of God and so alone can I conceive it consistable with that of the Prophet Hosea 8.4 They have set up Kings but not by me they have made Princes and I knâ—w it not These two sayings of the holy Ghost must needs be true and therefore must not be contradictories which they are not if you take them uttered in a divers respect the former of a lawfull the latter of an illegall magigracie 2ly The powers here are said to be ordained of God and v. 2. to be the ordinance of God Judâ— 4. Ier. 33.25 that is not by his decree or handie-work meerly as ungodly men are said to be ordained to condemnation and the being and posture of heaven and earth are said to be Gods ordinances but by his word or written sanction a person in this acception is to be tearmed Gods ordinance that is by divine rule put into a place or state those Magistrates then onely can be said to be ordained of God and his ordinanance that for the substance at least enter by the doore that he hath made or the means and manner he hath prescribed The sons of Aaron in their priesthood and the Levites in their ministery were Gods ordinance in as much as they were ordained according to Gods appointment Whereas Korah and his company Levit. 8. Numb 8. though they officiated as Priests yet they were not so because they wanted that ordination A man and a woman are by Gods ordinance husband and wife who are espoused together according to divine rule and not they who onely perform the acts of such one to another In like manner not whosoever can get into the Seat of Authority by any means are Gods ordained but they who come in according to Gods prescript and regulation Absâ—lâ—m and Adenijah though they got into the kingdom of Israel were not Gods ordinance but David and Solomon whose places they usurped were these being put into the place by Gods direction 3ly The Power here may not be resâ—sted under pain of damnation v. 2. But 1. An usurped Power or they that get men under their command by force without right may be resisted and subdued Gen. 14. Abraham and his confederates justly took up Arms and by them rescued Lot and the Sodomites from Chederlaomer and his participhants The Judges and Tribes of Israel righteously warred against and vanquished the Nations that successively obtained and exercised dominion over them in the book of Judges so did Samuel and Saul against the Philistines that were for a time their masters 1 Sam. So did David whilest he was king in Hebron with the house of Judah against Ishbosheth Abner and all Israel 2 Sam. 2.8 9 c. 3.1 2 Sam. 18. 2 King 11. so did David and his men against Absolom and the people that followed him so did Jehoiadah in the right of Joash against Athalia Lastly thus did the Maccabees against Antiochus and his race Which examples I but mention having urged the most of them before b Tyrannum absque titulo qui est invasor quilibet privatus potest debete medio tollere neque enim ille Rex est sed privata persona Alsted Theol. Cas ca. 17. Reg. 8. And indeed to imagine the Apostle here to tye men conscientiously and under pain of damnation to obey and sit down without any reluctancy under yea to maintain assist and sight for them who do by force without any right at all usurp Authority over them though they were Turks theives Irish Rebels Papists or whoever the worst of men and cruellest of Tyrants and though the sufferers should come to have strength in their hands to relieve themselves is an imposition I think beyond the thoughts of any sober minde and that which none but they of the Anabaptisticall spirit will advisedly own and them also we may rather finde saying then doing so the proceedings of the Parliament yea of all parties on both sides in the late warre disclaim this doctrine yea the Army it self may be judge in this matter who must either condemne this sense or all their own warlike actions this would make the Apostle not onely to put an insupportable passivenesse upon people but to discourage just Magistracy if opposed and grown weak whereas his manifest scope is to uphold it 2. They that come in by meer force with expulsion of the just Magistrate have apparently committed this crime of resisting the Power that is the ordinance of God and so have incurred the sentence of damnation or condemnation which may be understood of punishment by men and it s a strange conceit to think that the Apostle dosh here at once both condemne their act and confirm their authority gotten by it and that the same persons should by the same means be both the resisters that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or set in an opposite order to that ordinance and condemned for it and the power and ordinance it self that is to be obeyed and not resisted 3. If they that come in by force against the just Magistrate are the resisters of the Power here to be submitted unto then those that shall obey those resisters in the full latitude of obedience here injoyned which comprehends assistance and maintenance of them do become therein resisters of the said just Power also so that obedience to the Usurpers is rather forbidden then taught in this text 4ly The Power here to be obeyed is the minister of God to thee a revenger to execute wrath c. v 4. 1. No man can be called a minister of God but he that is called of God to that service wherein he is his Minister not onely the office must be authorized but the person must be invested with it by God there must be some act of God either immediately or mediately put forth towards the person or this relation to him of being his Minister cannot be founded now whosoever is the subject of such a divine act or vocation hath without controversie a
therein written he understood to be his charge given of God which he mentioneth in the aforesaid Proclamation c See Annotations of â—ivnâ—s on 2 Chron. 36.22 Ezra 1.2 Diodat ibid. Musculu in Isa 45 1.13 Adde to this that Mr. Diodati interpreteth that speech of God to Cyrus viz I girded thee Isa 45.5 of the Lords making him King and giving him power and authority v. 1. And that of ver 13. I have raised him up in righteousnesse he understands thus That is by a firm decree of my justice and by a just calling Now if Cyrus the first of the Persians had a valid title what can controul his Successors right in Judea 2ly If there had been no right in the Persian King over Judea yet the acting of Ezra and Nehemiah could be no president or warrant for a now acting under a usurped Power in the case we have in hand 1. Consider the speciall qualification and call of these two persons Ezra 7.1.2 1. For Ezra he was a Scribe and a Priest and some think one of the highest to wit that he was that Josedech who was the father of Joshua the high Priest this is Jerome opinion d Ludovivlves in August de civet Dei lib. 18. cap. 36. and so might be authorized by vertue of that office to transact all that he is said to have done in his book 2. He is said by some of the Ancients to be a Prophet Neither can he be denyed so to be saith a late learned and solid Divine e Mr. Roberts his Clavis Bibliorum on Ezra in that he was a Pen-man of Scripture 3ly And besides these functions he seems to have had a speciall call of God in his undertaking what he did it is said The hand of the Lord his God was upon him when he first enterprized his work Ezra 7.6 which phrase is often rolterated upon the severall passages of his imployment Chap. 7.9.28 c. 2ly Nehemiah was the Governor Neh. 8.9.10.1.12.26 it is not any where said that I finde that he was sent with that power by the Persian King but it is more probable he was chosen to that office by the people of Judah both because he was one that was very zealous for the interest and publick advantage of that Nation and by reason he came thither some yeers * Ezra 7.7 coÌ„pared with Nehe. 1.1 after Ezra and acted in conjunction with him Neh. 8.9 Now in Artaxerxes letter to Ezra at his first going up from Babylon to Jerusalem it is committed to Ezra's trust To set Magistrates and Judges up among the people Ezra 7.25 with this proviso After the wisdome of thy God that is in thine hand by which is meant the Law of God But by the Law of God the people of Israel were to create their own Magistrates and Kings Deut. 16.18.17.14 15. And besides his Governorship it seems he had in like manner to Ezra a divine instigation and vocation to his work It is said That God put that in his heart to do at Jerusalem Neh. 2.12.18 which he went about and when he was come thither he told them of the hand of his God which was good upon him upon which report they said Let us rise up and build 2. Let it be more narrowly observed what Ezra's Commission was from Artaxerxes and it will be found 1. That he himself was not authorized to fine imprison and put to death as this Author affirmeth let the text be better marked Chap. 7.26 2. In the charge of setting up Magistrates and Judges it cannot be thought he was intended to do it otherwise then as a private man or Priest might be instructed to do it viz. with the peoples concurrence For he as I even now observed was to manage that businesse after the wisdom of his God that was in his hand to wit according to divine Law which appointeth the people to do it 3ly That in all this Commission he and the rest that went up with him were authorized to do no more and in no other manner then the Law of God required Ezra 7.14.18.23.25 and consequently they were warranted before by it to do all that they did and this of Artaxerxes was but an encouragement strengthening of them to it 4ly Whatsoever he acted Chap. 10. in the matter of the Oath Proclamation and reformation in the point of marriage Besides that there was nothing done by him in it that was solely appertaining to the Magistrates office all that he transacted was by the motion appointment and consent of the Congregation the Princes and the Elders Ezra 10.1.3.7.8 c. ver 12.19 yea even by the free assent of the parties 3ly As for all the authoritative actings of Nehemiah which he alledgeth they must be attributed to his place of Governor and whence that is to be derived I have spoken before Lastly You bring in the Judgement of two or three Popish Divines Which I shall altogether passe over for that their reasons taken from the tacite or interpretative consent of the people the confusion that comes in by having no government and the expedience of choosing the lesser of two evils I have answered before Only one thing brought in by the last of them being not before answered I shall here reply to which is as followeth It is manifest that the Romanes by tyranny did possesse Judea in that very time wherein Christ and John Baptist did preach yet Christ Matt. 22. did teach that tribute was to be given to Caesar yea himself did give it John Bapt Luk. 3. commanded the souldiers this onely that they should do violence to no man and he content with their wages wherein he did rather perswade them to continue in the service of Caesar First To that of Christ Matth. 22. wherein the main of this allegation lyeth which is stuck at by many I have two things to say First His Answer to the Question about the lawfulnesse of giving tribute to Caesar is to be weighed and therein it may be questioned whether he positively taught that tribute was to be rendred to Caesar His words are Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods Here Christ delivers a precept of giving to God and Caesar each their right in the generall without asserting or explaining what the right of either is in particular or mâ—king application to the case then before him he seems to leave them that moved the question to do that His words determine not the point either way expresly all that can be inferred from the plain current of them is a conditionall rule equally favouring the affirmative and negative if it be Caesars due render it if not c. Such a waving answer will not appear unbeseeming him if it be considered who they were that propounded the quaere to wit the Pharisees with the chief Priests and Scribes and with what intention it was put forth by them viz to
least not to oppose the Usurpers Finally let them recollect before they enter that doore what they have sworn to his late Majestie his Heirs and lawfull Successors what to the Parliaments Power rights and priviledges and what to the Kingdom Et magnum sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 veniendumne sit in Consilium tyranni si i◠aliqua de re bona deliberaturus sit Quare si quid ejusmodi evenerit ut accersamur quid censea◠mihi faciendum utque scribito Nihil enim mihi adhuc accidit quod majoris consilii est M. T. Cicero epist ad T. Pomp. Atticum l. 10 ep 1. and Subjects lawfull rights and priviledges and deliberate how they keeping of those things and sitting down with these men will be reconciled I finde that even wise Heathens have scrupled at this without the supposition of such Oaths CHAP. IIII. The obligatorinesse of the Oaths and Covenant urged in the 2d Chap against obedience to Vsurpers made good against divers late Authors BEfore I take in hand to answer Arguments that are brought for the confirmation of those two opinions for obedience to Usurpation and against which I have argued in the preceding Chapters it will be convenient in this place to take notice of such allegations and Exceptions as are made against the obligation of the Oaths and Covenants before urged as binding out from that obedience sundry late Authors having pleaded that the Oaths and Covenant either are not now in force but expired or do not extend too and binde in the case to which they are applyed I begin with the Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons Novemb 20. 1648. which unto the clause in the Solemn League and Covenant Art 3. obliging to endevour to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom alledgeth divers things some of which concern onely the obligation to the preservation of the Kings person those are past consideration other reflect upon it in relation to his Authority as unto which I have urged it to be still in force and therefore shall examine what the Remonstrance saith for the invalidating of it as unto that bringing in onely so much of its argumentation as can be construed to tend to this purpose and of this nature I observe two Allegations 1. The words in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms are a restriction to the engagement for preservation of the Kings person and Authority so as to oblige them to no further nor in any other way then shall be consistent with the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms but if by reason and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to Religion or publick interest then surely by the Covenant itself the preservation of his person or authority is not to be endevoured so far or in such a way or at least the Covenant obligeth not to it but against it page 55 56. 1. It is not necessary nor proper to take the words in the preservation c. as restrictive to the engagement either way that is either for the preservation and defence of the Kings person and Authority on the one hand or of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdoms on the other It is not necessarie I say for those words in the Article in our severall vocations are an expresse and fully sufficient restriction taking in and binding to all lawfull and just wayes of preserving and defending each of them and excluding all unlawfull Neither is it proper in there being clearly conjunctive and as much as with and equally looking both wayes that is both to the preservation and defence of that which goes before and that which follows unto the preservation and defence of all which though they be not of equall worth or intrest so that one of them must come behinde the other in the order of our endevours of their preservation and defence yet the Covenant binds equally in regard of the firmnesse of the obligation yet if any shall still contend that clause to be restrictive in that manner which the Remonstrance saith I will not strive in a verball contention with him for the taking of it so no more lesseneth our obligation to the preservation of the Kings Authority then if it had not been inserted we being tyed notwithstanding it to all just wayes of preservation therof and no more had been involved if it had been left out 2. But the sinews of this Argument lyeth in the pretended or implyed inconsistency betwixt the preservation and defence of Religion and the Kingdoms liberties unto which I say 1. There is doubtlesse a fair consistencie non-opposition or agreement betwixt the safetie of every one of these the being of each of them may and can stand with the other it is a groundlesse surmise and grosse absurditie to imagine an inconsistency betwixt the just intrests of any of them our taking of them together into the Covenant yeeldeth thus much if there were any incoexistency amongst them we could not have sworn to their joynt preservation or if we did the Oath was of impossibles and so as to this branch both unlawfull and void or non-obliging in the making of it a Regula juris rei impossibilis nulla obligatio 2. An endevour to preserve the one and the other will well enough stand together a lawfull power indeed actually and effectually to preserve them all may happen to be wanting and any one of them may fall under danger and I may want just means to relieve it but an endevour which can onely import a doing what is within power and warrant may be yeelded still to the preservation of every of them 3. Seeing then that an inconsistibility either of the things one with another or of the endevouring their preservation cannot be pleaded as possibly incident or occurrent evident it is that there cannot at any time lye a necessitie of taking a way of any of them and that the obligation of the Covenant to the endevour of preserving every of them continually stands in force during their respective existence and consequently it bindeth out from intending seeking attempting or prosecuting the abolishing or destruction of any of them for that is indeed truly inconsistent with the said endevour and therefore a palpable violation of the Covenant It must here be granted that the lawfull and necessary defence and preservation of one of them sometimes may so imploy me that I cannot at that time by the same means act for the others safety ye◠what I act for one may put the other in hazard and in the issue not onely be accompanied with but though against my will and endevours to the utmost of my lawfull capacity contingently and besides my intention prove the losse and
ruine of the other and this is incident not from any contrariety or inconsistency that is betwixt them but both because they are distinct and separable things and so cannot alwayes and by the same medium be concurrently prosecuted and because some of them are more worthy then the other which must therefore have the preheminency thus far that if they cannot altogether with my best endeavours be secured I am to prefer the security of the most precious and expose any of the other rather to danger then it As for instance it will I suppose be admitted to be agreeable to the Covenant for the Kingdoms rather to omit the safeguarding of their Liberties and put them to the hazard then the true Religion where both cannot be joyntly put out of danger but all this amounts not to a disobligement from the endevour of preserving them all nor to a liberty upon any emergency of active direct and purposed making away or removing of any of them though under pretence of securing the other I have read of one Alcon who finding his son fast on sleep upon the grasse and a Serpent creeping upon his breast he not apprehending how otherwise it was possible to save his son took his Bowe and shot at the Serpent upon the boyes breast which though to the manifest endangering of his life yet the chose rather to take that course then by suffering the Serpent to leave his life to a more certain destruction and either his art or good hap was such as that he prevented and slew the Serpent and preserved his Son b Ars erat esse patremâ—cit â—tura peâ—ic â—m Et parâ—er â—â—venem somnoque mortâ— levavit Manilius li 3. those whom we are bound and most solicitous to preserve we may upon an extreame exigence put in some hazard that we may preserve them but there is a great difference betwixt this and a deliberate purposed declared prosecuting them to destruction 3. But how doth the Remonstrancer prove the Assumption viz The inconsistency pretended betwixt the endevour of the preservation of the Kings person and Authority and the preservation of Religion and liberty thus he saith By reasâ—n and experience we finde the preservation and defence of his person and Authority to be not safe but full of visible danger if not certainly destructive to religious or publick Interest If the one could be said to be certainly destructive to the other you would have said it without an if not but it seems you have not confidence to assever so much and yet they cannot be purely inconsistent without such a destructivenesse so that your own extenuation sufficiently discovers the weaknes of your proof all that you affirm is That there is no safetie but a full visible danger in the preservation which you impugne 1. The danger you pretend is in the disposall and use of the things to be preserved not in the nature of the things For instance the Kings Authority is politically and morally good the ordinance of God and if well used may be eminently advantagious if evilly used may be dangerous enough to Religion and liberties the like may also be said or the privileges of the Parliament and of the liberties of the Kingdoms in relation to Religion and to each other will you thence infer an inconsistency of these with Religion or a disobligement from the Covenant for preservation and defence of these 2. As there may be danger that way to the things specified so there may be danger and insecurity to the same things on the other hand viz in the destruction of the Kings person suppose it were undone and Authority and let impartiall Reason and Experience judge whether the preservation or destruction thereof hath more danger in it to Religion and the Kingdoms Liberty 3. But seeing there may be some danger on each side and in the preservation of the Kings Authority there is no more pretended but danger and that but of suffering not of sin it is apparent that as there is no such inconsistency as is intimated so the obligation of the Covenant to the preservation of the Kings Authority stands good and our safest way is to avoid the horrid sin and greater danger of Covenant-breaking by standing upon the said preservation 2ly The other thing which the Remonstrance alledgeth and is to be cleared is this Where severall persons joyning to make a Covenant do make a covenanting clause therein to the good or benefit of another person not present no party to the agreement but whom and whose Interest they would willingly provide for as well as for their own to the end be might joyn with them in the agreement and partake the benefit thereof as well as themselves if this absent party when it is tendered to him for his conjunction shall not accept the Agreement but refuse to joyn in and oppose it and begin prosecute and multiply contests with all the Covenanters about the matters contained in it Surely that person in so doing by his once refusing upon a fair and full tender sets the other Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant as to what concerns his benefit or interest therein Now whether this be not your case c. 1. True indeed a releasement from Covenants and promissory oaths which concern matters betwixt man and man is granted lawfull some wayes But 1. this must be done by the party with whom the Covenant and to whom the Oath is made c Si is cui juratur ratum habuerit iuramentum veliâ— servari non potest ab alia quacunq tertia persona relaxari ratio est quia nemo potest ius alteri acquisitum nisi ipse consenserit adimere D Saunderson de iuram 1. rom oblig praelect 7. Sect. 8. but as the Remonstrancer acknowledgeth this Covenant was made the King being not present nor a party covenanting or covenanted with but a third person the persons covenanting and covenanted with mutually as by the Introductory part is manifest were the Noblemen Barons Knights c. in the Kingdoms of England Scotland and Ireland it was it may be desired and hoped that the King and his Issue would afterwards approve and joyn in it but the Covenant was actually plighted and therefore did actually binde in every branch of it they not taking it and the parties with whom we covenanted not releasing us the pretended refusall of the King could be no discharge from it 2. A releasement can be made by the party covenanted with and sworn too onely where the Covenant is for the particular and proper interest of that party or so far onely as concerneth him but not to the prejudice of a third parties concernment without his consent d Dico sexto relaxationem partis valere ad vinculum juramenti solvendum quantum ipsius interest non tamen valere in praeiudicium tertiae personae Ratio est quia potest quilibet per actum suum de iure
proprio quantum vult remittere sed non potest quisquam de alieno iure quicquam demere ipso vel inconsulto vel invito si alterius cuiusquam intersit ex aliquo suo iure obligationem non solvi obligatio non solvitur Ibid. but the Covenant even in that part of it was not meerly or chiefly of a private or personall importance to the King himself but was and is of a publick interest to the Covenanters themselves and the Kingdoms the Kings refusall therefore and opposition to it could be no release from it we say on all hands the King is for the Kingdom as the means is for the end We have ten parts in the King said the men of Israel of David and at another time they said and sware Thou shalt no more go out with us to battell that thou quench not the light of Israel What portion have we in David and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse the ten Tribes said when they made a revolt from and rebelled against Rehoboam The Introduction of the Covenant in laying down the concernments and ends for the making of it expresseth it self thus Having before our eyes the glory of God and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the honour and happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and the true publick liberty safety and peace of the Kingdoms wherein every ones private condition is included And a little afterwards We have for the preservation of our selves and our Religion from utter ruine and destruction resolved and determined to enter into a mutuall and solemne League and Covenant c. And Art 6. it styleth its cause This Common cause of Religion liberty and peace of the Kingdoms which cause it saith presently after so much concerneth the glory of God the good of the Kingdoms and honour of the King 2. The King never refused to agree to nor did he oppose the matter of this particular clause as touching this there could be no dissent on his part his prescribing and standing upon the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy wherein this clause is contained his avowing the difference and war on his part to be for the defence of his person and authority his putting forth Oaths to them that adhered to him for the preservation of these makes it as clear as noon-day that he refused and opposed not this branch Now upon this confideration the Remonstrancer hath not onely failed in his allegation but overthrown his own argument he saying in the place before cited Although the Kings refusing sets the Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant 〈◊〉 to what concerns his interest and benefit therein yet the Covenant as to other matters concerning the right and benefit of the Covenanters one from another stands still obliging and in force I may by the same reason say the Kings refusing the Covenant upon exception against other clauses not this and his opposing other matters in the Covenant not this could not dis-ingage or release the Covenanters from this about which there was not the least dissent or reluctancy but a concurrence full enough on his part so that the Covenant must stand still obliging and in force as to this part 3. If the Kings said refusall and opposition could have discharged us from this member of the Covenant as to his own person and interest in the Authority yet with all your straining you cannot stretch them to our release from preservation and defence of the Kingly Authority in relation to his posterity who were in proximity to him interested in it and for whose interest therein the Covenant was also made e Having before our eyes the honour Happinesse of the Kings Majestie and his posterity and whose refusall of it nor yet a tender of it to them you do not cannot once plead I have done with the wrong glosse of the Remonstrancer endeavouring to impeach the obligation of this clause of the Covenant I finde another a deare friend of his tampering with it also to clude the tye of it and he offers it no lesse violence but in a more unhandsome and grosse manner It is that Polemick or Army-Divine Mr. J.G. in his Defence of the Honourable Sentence c. The man in that book undertaketh and bends his skill to a double unhappie and crosse designe to wit to varnish and guild over that which is very foule and to besmear and obscure that which is very clear In his prosecution of the latter he fals upon this sentence of the Covenant in dealing with which he correspondeth with the Remonstrancer and as this hath challenged to himself a prerogative to enforce men and Magistrates so doth he arrogate to himself to be a bold enforcer of words and Covenants a more strange and presumptuous perverting of plain words I never read nor heard then that which he useth to this clause when he saith page 51. Evident it is that those words in the Covenant in the preservation and defence of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdoms import a condition to be performed on the Kings part without the performance whereof the Covenant obligeth no man to the preservation or defence of his Person or Authority And this condition he makes to be page 52 53. That he preserve and defend the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdom and of this his paraphrase of the words he saith If this be not the clear meaning and importance of them the Covenant is a Barbarian unto me I understand not the English of it The vast exorbitancy audaciousnesse and impietie of this his wresting and straining of these plain words I leave the Reader to take the measure of I shall onely endeavour to free them from this his distortion 1. Let the words themselves speak they do not say in his preservation and defence c. but in the preservation and defence c. plainly referring to the same preservation and defence of Religion and Liberties which is before promised and sworn in this and the preceding Articles and as evidently referring to the same persons preservation and defence of them here which are to preserve and defend them in the former clauses and which are to preserve and defend the Kings Majesties person and Authority in this viz the Covenanters If the Covenant had intended to pitch the preservation and defence in this clause upon another person or persons as the performers besides those to whom the same actions are referred immediately before it would have pointed them out distinctly but when it expresses no other ordinary construction will attribute them to the parties before nominated and no regular construction can put them upon any other This reading is plain English to him that knows the language and will understand and Mr. G. proves himself a barbarous dealer with the covenant in that he will have it either to admit of his antigramaticall sense or to be a Barbarian
to him I dare appeal to Mr. Gs. own conscience if it be not either speechles or a Barbarian to him whether when he took this Covenant he understood this clause in the meaning he would now thrust upon it or rather hath not played the Doedalus since in shaping and bringing forth this sense to serve his turn and defend what hath been since acted 2. In making this the importance of those words Mr. G. contradicts his friend or Patron the Remonstrancer in his expounding of them and takes away the very medium or ground of his argument before brought in out of his book page 55 56. and answered above For he page 55. takes those words either as a restriction to the engagement for preservation of the Kings person and Authority to wit as obliging no further then is consistent therewith yea he proposeth whether the said engagement may not be so understood as to be fulfilled in the preservation of Religion and Liberties neither of which senses can carry that clause to the King as the performer and in page 56 he explaineth this preservation and defence of Religion and liberties to be the Parliaments Covenanted utmost endevour to preserve them Let Mr. J. G. then leave endeavouring to reconcile the Covenant and his cause which are at too great odds to be reconcileable and go make the Remonstrancer and himself friends who differ so diametrically in their sense of these words 3. How will Mr. G. make this sense of his and the proceedings against the late King stand together for before the King was so proceeded against he had consented to all that was positively proposed to him for Religion at least for 3. yeers and for the privative part propounded to wit the Abolition of Episcopacy he had not denyed it but granted the present suspension and referred the utter extirpation of it to the deliberation of the Assembly and ordering of Parliament against whose consent he had agreed nothing should be done for the restoring of it and had granted fully the Parliaments overtures for Liberties Neither doth the Remonstrancer or any other as far as I have observed insist on the shortnesse of the Kings concessions in any particulars of either nature as the ground of those capitall proceedings but on the inexpiablenesse of his former facts and the unsafenesse of trusting him for future upon any tearms If then the King immediately before the fatall prosecution against him did as his present state would permit concur so amply in the preservation of Religion and Liberties they were bound that had taken this Covenant by vertue of this clause taken in Mr. Gs. sense whatever had been his former carriage then to endeavour the preservation of his person and Authority The Covenant in this branch is indefinite and unrestrained in regard of time it doth not say suppose Mr. Gs. meaning had been its words we shall preserve the Kings person and Authority if he shall within a yeer or two after this preserve Religion and Liberties but obligeth the Covenanters whenever the King should joyn in preserving Religion and Liberties as Mr. G. understandeth it to the preservation of his person and Authority Here then Mr. G. instead of weakning the Covenant as to the end it was urged by those whom he opposeth hath by wringing turned it against himself and that his adored cause which he would have defended and that with more strength then is in any of those reasons or rather shifts and colours brought by himself or any other Roscius for it 4. If that indeed were the sence of that clause which he would out-face us into the accepting of what can be said against the binding of it to the preservation and defence of the kingly Authority still though the then King be deceased it being before proved that this clause obligeth to it in reference to the Kings posterity against whom there can be Objection of a fail in this supposed condition it being unperformable without default whilest possession of the Authority is with-held and the Authority being with-held before either any refusal of the supposed condition by him that should perform it or any overture to him for the obtaining of it be made I have thus done with the exceptions made against the obligatorinesse of the Covenant in the matter in hand I now passe to the Examination of what is pleaded against the force of the Oaths of Allegiance amongst the impugners of them I le begin with him whom I had last to deal with Mr. J. G. who in the same book pag 58 59 60. thinks to discharge us from these bonds with a Reason framed as followeth In recitall whereof I shall rehearse as much of him as expresseth his Argumentation omitting those two hetorogeneous instances of keeping back a mad mans sword and of a States dis-engagement from league with another State that hath first broken league with it as impertinent both to his reason and our case Peter Martyr saith Mr. G. well observes concerning the promises of God that they are to be understood according to the present state and condition of things when they are made meaning that no performance of them is intended â—y God in case men shall decline from that integrity under which and in relation unto which such promises were made unto them so neither are the promises of men whether made with oath or without to be so understood as if the makers of them stood bound to perform the tearms of them under any possible change or alteration what soever in the persons to whom they are made Chrysostome writing upon those words Matth. 19.28 shews that Judas though the promise of sitting upon a throne was made unto him as well as unto any other yet by reason of that change which afterwards appeared in him through his wickednesse forfeited and lost his right of interest in that promise nor doth any promise though confirmed with an oath of allegiance obedience or subjection unto a King and his Successors or posterity binde any longer or otherwise either before God or men then whilest and as this King or his successors shall continue in the same deportment of themselves in the discharge of their trust and administration of their power whereby they commended themselves to us at the time when we sware such allegiance to them and in consideration and expectation whereof the same was sworn by us therefore the King being so notoriously changed c. evident it is that God himself by the tenor and importment of his promises and Jesus Christ by the like tenor and import of his fully and fairly acquits us from all engagements and tyes which the Oath of Allegiance at the time of our taking it layed upon us 2 Pet. 1.4 Psal 138.2 What and must the exceeding great and precious promises of God and his fidelity and truth therein which he hath magnified above all his Name be thus traduced must the honour of God which is so much concerned in taking and violated in
in M. Anton Philip 2 ae Prov 14.34.16.12 Nay Religion will dictate to us in the words of the wisest earthly King That righteousnesse exalteth a Nation and The throne is establisht by righteousnesse Under Usurpation then we can expect no settlement and to submit to it is to help to fasten that which is certain to fall and to fall with the greater confraction by how much it is more favoured Commotion and tumultuousnesse is sure in reason to follow violent domination Let Israels many and turbulent changes of their Kings after their departure from the house of David be a president for it of whose kings for their speedie and fatall ends it may be said as it was of many of the Romane Caesars that they rather seemed to be kings in a Scene or personated on the Stage then reall Authorities The standing off from obedience is but like to speed the Commotions and make them easier To perswade men to couch down under Usurpation when it is gotten up to â—ave troubles is as if a man that is got into the briars should stick therein because he may rake himself in offering to get out or he that hath a festered sore or grown disease in his body should let it alone and go on because it will stir the humours and cost him some pain to be cured 2. The same Author proceeds And whether it to wit any clause in any Oath or Covenant forbids obedience to the present Authority more then to Laws that have been formerly enacted by those which came into Authority meerly by Power 1. You have not yet produced any former Princes that had any hand in the making of a Law that came into the regall Authority meerly by power for although some of them got possession by the Sword yet to omit the alledging of other title they were confirmed by the Kingdoms consent in Parliament before they concurred in Enacting Laws for the Kingdom 2. The Laws you reflect on were not meerly made by those Princes whom you pretend to have come in meerly by Power but were constituted by Parliamentary Enacting And for any former Parliaments coming into the Authority meerly by force you neither do nor can alledge any thing 3. He urgeth further If it be said that in the Oath of Allegiance allegiance is sworn to the King his heirs and successors if his heirs be not his successors how doth that Oath binde Either the word successors must be superfluâ—us or it must binde to successors as well as to heirs and if it binde not to a successor that is not an heir how can it binde to an heir that is not a successor And if you will know the common and usuall sense which should be the meaning of an Oath of the word Successors you need not so much ask of Lawyers and learned persons as of men of ordinary knowledge and demand of them who was the successor of William the Conquerour and see whether they will not say W Rufus and who succeeded Rich the 3d and whether they will not say Hen the 7th and yet neither of them was heiâ— so in ordinary acception the word Successor is taken for him that actually succeeds in Government and not for him that is actually excluded This Author in these lines raiseth much dust that it may serve him for a double end 1. To obscure the genuine sense of this clause of the Oath that it may not seem to make against him as indeed it doth and then to detort and wrest it to the advantage of his Usurpers interest 1. He would cast a mist upon the words of the Oath to over cloud its true sense and this he attempts in the fore-cited Discourse untill you come to this mark ‖ he endeavours it by placing an ambiguity in the word Successors and setting it at odds with the word Heirs whereas this clause of the Oath is clear enough in it self and far enough from the use he would make of it and firm enough to the sense which he opposeth Which that I may evince I desire the Reader to observe these two things 1. That the Oath intends by Heirs and Successors the same persons which may evidently appear 1. By the manifest drift of the Oath and intention of the Authority that prescribed it which is the continuance and assurance of the Crown upon concession of his then Majesties just title to his Heirs in succession after him and one another lineally and the defence of them therein against all other corrivals or opposers this I cannot see which way will be gainsayed and being so it will inforce us to grant the Oath and Oath-giver could not mean by successors any other then heirs 2. In that the words heirs and successors are joyned by the copulative and whereas if they should have intended different parties the discretive or should in true syntaxis have been put betwixt them 3. In that his heirs and successors are immediately in the Oath denoted by the same pronounce them and again by the same possessive their in those words and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their persons their Crown or dignity but if they be not the same persons how come they to be thus particled together especially how can they immediately after his Majestie be instituted to the same Allegiance and defence therein in relation to the same Crown and dignity admit them divers and the Oath will import a contradiction and will any man imagine so irrationall a thing as that Authority hath so long imposed and the Kingdome especially the most intelligent persons in it have universally taken an Oath so irreconcileable to it self 4. The Law of the Land unto which this Oath must needs be yeelded to be consonant ordains his Heirs to be his Successors 2. That the Oath understands by Successors those onely that are so de jure and not any others that contrary to right may intrude into the royall Seat and injuriously make themselves successors onely de facto For 1. In the Oath we swear Allegiance and defence to Successors now what man of conscience would ever impose or take an Oath of this nature to any but in his intention a just party for to such a one alone could he swear in righteousnesse according to Jer. 4.2 2. The Oath appropriates the Crown and dignity to Successors as theirs in these words their Crown and dignity now theirs and their right are all one 3. The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy must needs accord and this may be the best Explanatorie of that now this viz the Oath of Supremacy prefixeth the word lawfull to Successors and confineth our allegiance to his lawfull Successors in these words The Kings highnesse his Heirs and lawfull Successors which epithite will not permit the word Successors either in that or in the Oath of Allegiance unlesse you will unreasonably make them jarring to be carried to