Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	master_n	servant_n	wage_n	1,026	5	11.4895	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82549	The oath of allegiance and the national covenant proved to be non-obliging: or, three several papers on that subject; viz. 1. Two positions, with several reasons of them, and consequences flowing from thence. 2. An answer to the said positions. 3. A reply to the said answer, wherein the truth of the positions is vindicated, and the oath of allegiance, and the national covenant are made non-obliging. / By Samuel Eaton, teacher of the Church of Christ at Darkenfield in Chesshire.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1650 (1650)	Wing E124; Thomason E606_2; Thomason E613_18; ESTC R205852	78,765	83

the First Position and the prosecution thereof with which I begin is to shew the said Oath to have been unlawful and unwarrantable in the taking of it and so void in the fact or making 1 I shall premise for the cleering partly of what follows That an D. Sand. de Iuram obl pr. 2. §. 14 Oath may be unlawful 1 Either in regard of the matter or thing sworn as if a m●n swear to do any impossible or sinful act 2 Or in the Manner or Circumstances of swearing as if a man swear unadvisedly or with a false intention or other-wayes unduly for manner The former way of unlawfulness makes an Oath void in the taking but not the Latter So that though a man swear an Oath in some sort not in Truth that is not intending to be tyed to or to keep it or not in Judgment that is not consideratly enough yet if the Oath be in Righteousness that is of a just and lawful matter or thing it is of Force otherwise no Oath could bind in foro externo or be of any use for Confirmation for who can discern with what mind another man Swears Again This evidently appears by the validity of that unadvised Oath of the Princes to the Gibe●nites Joshu 9. 15. 18 19. 2 Sam. 21. 2. And of that Oath of Z●d●kiah and his people to Nebuchadnezzar 2 Cron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13 21. 2● which they entred into treacherously Hos 104. ‡ Annotat of ●●●mes Diodat on Hos 10 4. 2 I observe what a gross Imputation the first Position layeth upon the King and Parliament that framed and Ordained the Oath of Allegiance and all other Parliaments since that have Continued and the Successive Houses of Commons that have Sworn it with those multitudes of Magistrates Ministers and of other Professions in the Kingdom that have taken and still hold themselves bound by it having had all the while so much Divine and Gospel light shining forth to and in them as if they had published pressed taken and justified as against the Papists by writing an Oath the matter of it unjust and sinful This man had need bring cleer Reasons for what he here thus chargeth upon so many Worthyes for place piety and judgment and declare them A Lye against the Title or the Title a Lye against this more publickly then by a Private Paper that he may call to Repentance the whole Nation that is as he supposeth involved in this impiety of an unlawful Oath But let us first by the Tryal of his Reasons see whether he hath not more need to repent of this his Charge His general exception against the lawfulness of the Oath is That it is not according to the rule Jer. 4. 2. in Iudgment and in Righteousness Were it defective in judgment that is in deliberatness of taking that would not be as I have said a ground to invalidate its obligation ipso●acto seeing it were but a failing in the manner not a corruptness in the matter a fault in the Person swearing not in the Oath sworn and in the person a defect internal or of the mind not externally visible in the act and to be presumed to be found only in some persons swearing not in all That part therefore of the Allegation were it true might have been left out and as often as it is brought in to prove the Oath unlawful so as not to bind it addes no strength to the Conclusion But to descend to his particulars 1 To manifest the Oath 's disagreement with the said rule of Ieremiah His first particular Exception is That it ought to have been Conditional not Absolute Mutual not Single His Argument in effect runs thus That it may be in Iudgment and Righteousness it must be Conditional not Absolute Mutual or taken both by Ruler and Rulled not Single or taken onlie by one Partie But this Oath is not so Ergo c. That the Reader may understand us both and I may more cleerly pass on in my Answer I must interpose a distinction or two upon the Terms 1 Saith he The Oath must be Conditional not Absolute 1 I conceive the words Conditional and Absolute may be taken 1 Either in reference to the thing sworn which is Obedience or Allegiance to the KING thus the Oath must be Conditional not Absolute that is the obedience which we bind our selves to must be with limitation and c●ndition restraining it as all obedience to men in any relation is to be to just honest lawful things or so as to Consist with our obedience to God not absolute or illimited in that sense 2 Or in reference to the tye or obligation of the oath as the qualification thereof and so I say it may be Absolute and must not of necessity be Conditional that is The subordinate and limited obedience which is due to the Prince or Magistrate I may swear unto absolutely or withour any special Condition annexed to my Engagement Special Condition I say for I must once again distinguish to wit of Conditions 1 Some are general and such as no promisary oath that is lawful can be without those are I think all of them reduced to these two heads namely that the thing sworn be Honest and Possible These Conditions are presupposed and not wont to be exprest and notwithstanding the including of them an oath may be said to be Absolute 2 Others are Special and Proper Conditions which are ingredients in some oaths the which are by reason of them termed Conditional They are usually either somewhat that is Contingent as when a Merchant Covenants and Swears to give an hundred pounds to another man or to a publick Use if his Ship that is gone to Sea return home safe with her Merchandize or that which is Arbitrary or in the choice of mans Will his commonly to whom the oath is Engaged as if a Master Covenant and Swear to maintain his Servant with Meat Drink and such Wages if he be a true and diligent Servant to him It is not the Former but this Latter Conditionality which he requires in the oath of Allegiance to wit That the Subject be only bound to his Duty of Allegiance if and so long as the Prince observeth his duty of Government inviolate and this in truth is not in that oath nor is it necessary to make the oath lawful The Major therefore of this Oath-impugners Syllogisme I deny in that first part of it viz. It must be Conditional not Absolute To make good my Denial 1 I will Answer what he saith to prove it 2 Bring in my Reasons against it and leave the Reader to judge betwixt us 1 All that he saith for proof of that Assertion is this It is against the ground and reason of the Primitive Institution of Government which is the good of the Subject that there should be any Oath to bind him Absolutlie whether the Prince Rule for the Subjects good or not This were something if it were

life it appears not that he was a Tyrant unto the Com-wealth However it i● e●ident that he was given of God immediatly without the interposition of the people and therefore it might be that he must be taken away by God though he had been a Tyrant But what is this to Princes in these times that have no such immediate Cals to Kingdoms Reas 5. Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to prayer for and patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing and your own innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty Reply There will be particular wrongs enough to exercise the patience of particular persons before it come to be miscarriage against the Common-wealth and there will be miscarries enough through weaknesse and invigilancy against the Common-wealth which will exercise the patience of all the people and yet at last if the mischief grow very high and threaten ruine subjection is not so absolute but that the Heads of the people may free themselves and the people from such a yoke Reas 6. Els you dissolve all Magistracy it wil be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of Magistratical affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23. 3 5. Reply If the people themselves were such Ideots and Children as to expect a Government that should be perfect yet I hope it wil hardly be asserted of their chosen men whom they make their Representatives that they are such and therefore I wonder that ever such a Reason should be produced The High COURT where Wisdome should be seated if any where wil not run stark mad to displace the Supream Governor for infirmity and weaknesse which as a man he is incident unto every day and so therein overthrow al Government No no there hath been experience enough of their long suffering But when a Prince to maintain his Lust wil raise a War to endanger the destruction of al his Subjects then let the REPRESENTATIVES of a people know their Priviledg and Duty which is to serve the People however it goes with the Prince Reas ● The Doctrin of orthodox Protestant Divines generally is That obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannical Princes Reply These orthodox Divines speak of subjection of particular persons to such Princes while they are in place and power but they speak not of States which are set up to be at least sharers in Government with the Prince Nor do they presse obedience upon them without any allowance to help themselves by calling him to an accompt in the peoples name 2 He saith We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any Conditions inserted Judg. 11. 9 10. 2 King 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. Nehem. 10. 29. Their Oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one Reply 1 If there be no Condition inserted it wil not follow That therefore there was no Condition but the justice and equity of the thing is to be considered whether i● doth not require a Condition and the Rules of general Equity are to be followed which is consonant to yea commanded in the Scripture viz. To do as one would be done unto 2 The places quo●ed prove not the thing That in Iudges of the peoples Oath to Iepthah may well be understood with this restriction According to the Laws of the Lord and of the Land for Iepthah was a Beleever and a Judge whom God raised up and it is probable that he would not desire Headship over them upon other terms They were also an unfree people when they Covenanted with Iepthah to advance him to Government and if their Oath were absolute they did not put themselves into a worse Condition thereby but might think it better to be servants to him then slaves to the Ammonites and if it were an absolute Rule which he had he must Merrit it before he had it and was to become their Saviour before their Ruler so that this Instance is not applicable to the thing in Controversie That place in 2 King 11. 14. must be interpreted by Vers 17. where it is said That Ie●o●ada made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People which implyes that he mutually engaged them and so it was not an absolute Oath That in 2 Chron. 36. 13. speaks of Zedekiahs breach of oath but nothing of any absolute Oath That in Ezek. may receive the same Answer with the former because it belongs to the same thing That in Nehemiah which respects the Observation of the Fifth Commandement h●th had its Answer before 3 He saith It is a thing within our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to service whether his Master prove good or evil or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in Marriage whether the Mate be observant of duty or no Reply The Question is not whether it be in our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly but whether it be in our lawful power to do it or no and the doubt is not the lesse in reference to these Instances which he produceth of a Servant his giving of himself up to his Master irrevokably whether good or bad and of a Man or Woman giving themselves up in Ma●riage whether the Mate be observant of duty or no but the grea●er For it persons be bound to be wise and just and merciful to themselves then they cannot do such a thing without sin and it would be counted a desparate wicked part in a man to bind himself to another to be servant for ever whether he be kind or cruel whether he give him any thing or nothing yea though he take from him that which he hath And the unrighteousnesse of the thing is the same in the case of an absolute Oath to a Magistrate 4 He saith A conditional oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to Magistrats is not left arbitrary but cōmanded that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullifie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant That which is due the latter way if the Covenant be conditional the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditional but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an

oath a condition put into your oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwayes bound to the things sworn then upon that Condition which being broken by the party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free Thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in its obligation by the conditional oath such an oath therefore is in its end inconsistent with it Reply 1 This Reason is much like to the First and hath its Answer there But 2 It may be demanded Whether obedience to Magistrates be more necessary or due by more absolute unalterable Rule and Precept of Justice then obedience from Servants which came free and upon Covenant to their Masters is If not then Whether obedience to Masters may not and ought not to admit of a Conditional promise or oath to the performance of it without any inconsistency with the necessity of such a duty and if in the necessary obedience of Servants such a Conditional promise or oath may be admitted Why not in the necessary obedience of Subjects to Magistrates And 3 It may be asked how and when obedience to Magistrates came to be necessary He wil not say That before Magistrates were obedience was necessary to them but Magistrates and obedience to them came in together But how came Magistracy I speak of individual persons put into the Office of Magistracy Not by an immediate cal from God as David did and some few others which Scripture mentioneth nor were they originally born to that superiority over the people but were first exalted to that power by the Choice of the People then there was a voluntary Covenant at first betwixt them then if the people looked at their own good the Covenant was Conditional and so their Oath which was to confirm it was Conditional and so their obedience which is the thing sworn to was Conditional and so it was necessary not otherwise but upon a Condition And so it 's commanded in Scripture not otherwise but upon the Condition it was first grounded on and in that way it is necessary and unalterable the Condition being observed upon which it was built and bottomed and more then this cannot be inserted by divine Precept And whereas he makes this distinction A thing sworn may become due either by rule of Equitie or by a voluntary Covenant It appears by what hath been presented That both members of the distinction without jarring meet in this 1 There is a voluntary Covenant which is Conditional and 2 There is a Rule of Equity necessitating upon that Covenant and Condition so that obeying comes to be due both wayes 4 A Conditional Oath doth not weaken but strengthen such obedience which is necessary and unalterable upon such a Condition For the Magistrate comes to be assured by such an Oath that he shall be obeyed upon his good behaviour and just and upright carriage in his Office and that the people wil not be fickle to him if he be faithful in Government to them After his large dispute against the Conditionality of the Oath he proceeds to arguing against the Mutuality of it and First he mentioneth so me of the words in the Proposition and blames them for defectivenesse in point of cleernesse in reference to the Sense in which the Position is to be understood and takes occasion thereupon to speak of different senses and gives one sense which he supposeth will not be owned by me and then an apter sense which he supposeth was in my Intention For thus he speaks 1 His words sound as if he would have the same oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subjects which he will not cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2 But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is That the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince That he will Command and Govern lawfully the Subject That he will performe all lawful Homage and Obedience Reply And what needed so much ado Was the Proposition somewhat defective in words And was it not immediatly made full in the Reason which followed the Position So that he needed not to have said For want of Explanation he must observe some different senses applyable to my words nor needed he to have said I suppose for he might have been at a certainty what my sense was For my words in the Reason are these It is 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 to Administer Iustice rightly Let the Reader judge whether he needed to have come with his different senses or whether the different senses that he brings were applyable to my words when these words were before him After he pretends to have found out the sense of the Proposition he concludes it false But how doth he make it out 1 He saith We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenants between men and men wherein one party only sweareth and not both mutually Gen. 24. 2. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Josh 2. 12. 9. 15. 14. 9 Judg. 15. 12. 1 Sam. 19. 6. 1 King 1. 13. 29. 51. 2 Sam. 19. 23. Neh. 5. 12. Jer. 38. 16. Reply The Scriptures that he quotes to prove undoubtedly righteous single Oaths taken by one party and not by both parties are Oaths most of them of another kind then that which the Position speaks of viz. Oathes the performance whereof lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing but the Oaths that the Posi●ion speaks of to be Mutual are of things and duties which both parties are equally with respect to their several places bound to by the Command of God For the Command to Obey lies no more stricktly upon the Subject then the Command to Rule lies upon the Prince and these Scriptures have been most of them Answered before Only in Josh 2. 12. and Jer. 38. 16. the performance whereof lies on both sides and whether the Oath were reciprocal is not so cleer but conditional it was as from Josh 2. 17 c. Jer. 38. 24. appears and conditional in the very sense I have urged So as that they were discharged if the Condition were not kept and they assented to the Condition whether they swore or not and they are full against him as any text in Scripture 2 He saith We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to the Rulers without the reciprocal swearing of the Rulers to them ‡ 2 King 11. 4. Judg. 11. 10. Ch. 36. 13 such was that engagement Josh 1. 16 17 18. Reply 1 To the Scriptures in the Margent I have Answered before yet this may be added That if there be some examples of Oathes of Allegiance without reciprocal swearing through over much credulity of the Subject

extend but to the detriment of some particular persons rarely doth any Nero-like seek the destruction of the whole But on the other hand set the people free to shake off the reins of their present Government when they shall think it unequal and 1 You destroy the nature of Government as will afterwards be shewed 2 You expose the people to an immediate losse of the very use and enjoyment of any Government the power of mobility and change being sure to invite al ill-disposed persons immediatly to put that power in ure and hurry all if they may prevail into consusion In short a bad Government is better then none it is more tolerable for a people that one or few then that every man do that which is right in his own eyes To be bound to Allegiance may lay the people open to the former to be loose will precipitate them into the latter The former inconvenience cannot be so universally extensive speedily destructive and remediless or unresistible as the latter 2 The latter thing I premised is to give my Reasons for the contradictory to his Major Proposition in that first part It must be Conditional not Absolute Against which I say The oath of allegiance may be absolute or unconditional in the sense before given and for this Assertion I render these Reasons 1 Were there no Oath the limited obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutly that is Whether they Ru●e well or no and that which is absolutly due may be obsolutly sworn The former Proposition I ground thus 1 The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors is without any condition or reserve of a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governors miscarriage reade the Fifth Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13. 1 2 c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 c. 2 God commands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive Tyrants that likely ever have ben Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I speak not here of Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose Title is just but their Government unjust and oppressive 3 Servants are to be subject to their Masters not only that are good and gentle but those that are froward and do them wrong and from whom they suffer for wel-doing 1 Pet. 2. 18 19 20. and by Analogy Subjects are tyed in the same terms to their Governors 4 David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground for that he was his Master the King of Israel and the Lords Anointed though he was then in actual violent and unjust pursuit of his life 1 Sam. 24. 5. c. 26. 9. c. 5 Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to pray for and patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing and your innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty ‡ Ames Medula Theol. l. 1. c. 17. p. 57. Vrsin Cat. p. 3. q. 104 6 Els you dissolve all Magistracy it will be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of Magistratical affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23. 3 5. 7 The Doctrin of orthodox Protestant Divines generally is That obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannical Princes ‡ Calvin Inst l 4 c. 20. §. 24 25 c. Pet. Mart. loc C cl 4. C. 2. §. 12. 18 19. Al 's Theol. C. 17. Reg. 8. Perk C. of Cons l. 3 c. 6. §. 1● Buc. Insti Theol. loc 49. q. 21. Synop. pu● Theol. dis 50. Thes 18. 27. Sharp sim Epoch 5. Q. 44. 45. 2 We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any Conditions inserted Judg. 11. 9 10. 2 King 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. Nehem. 10. 29. Their oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one 3 It is a thing within our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to service so whether his Master prove good or evil or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in Marriage whether the mate be observant of duty or no 4 A Conditional oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to Magistrates is no less arbitrary but commanded and that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullisie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant That which is due the latter way if the Covenant be conditional the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditional but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an oath a condition being put into your oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwayes bound to the things sworn then upon that Condition which being broken by that party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free Thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in its obligation by the conditional oath such an oath therefore is in its end inconsistent with it 2 I come to the latter part of his Major which exacteth That the Oath be mutual or taken both by Ruler and Ruled not single or taken only by the ruled Some explanation of his terms more then is here he might have used for lack whereof I shall as I go observe some difference of sense appliable to his words and so expresse how I deny this branch of his Position and why 1 His words sound as if he would have the same oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subject which if he remember that the oath spoken of is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance obedience or subjection to be yeelded to his Sovereign and that the King is the person sworn to he will no● cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2 But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is That the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince That he will Command and Govern lawfully the Subject That he will perform all lawful homage and obedience And to this I say Although it be true it in fact in our case that the King hath sworn his duty on his part as well