Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
hand_n	david_n	king_n	saul_n	6,232	5	10.0779	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

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

I shal therefore passe over them Afterwards in the Second place he layes down a contradictory Assertion in these words The Oath of Allegiance may be Absolute or unconditional And he renders Reasons for it 1 He saith Were there no Oath the limitted obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutly whether they Rule well or no and that which is absolutly due may be absolutly sworn Reply This is only true while they acknowledge them to be their Princes and Magistrates and do continue them in those Offices and Places and it is as true of every Constable what misdemeanour soever he be guilty of yet he must have that observance of his Place from all while in his Place But the Question is When Princes and Magistrates Rule amisse not to the welfare but ruine of the people over whom they are Magistrates Whether the People be not in that case absolved from al Tye and Obligation to them as Magistrates if they will that is Whether the Representatives of the People which have the Peoples power for the Executive part of it may not if they wil yea and in many Cases are bound in faithfulnesse to the People and for their good to declare such Princes and Magistrates in reference to such miscariages to be no longer Governors and so therein to free the People from their Allegiance to them And it is asserted in the Position That they may if they wil. A Pastor of a Church miscarries in the execution of his Office and becomes a Wolf to devour rather then a Pastor to feed the Church of Christ Is not his Flock notwithstanding bound to obey him in the Lord and according to Rule whilest he remains a Pastor to them But the Question is Whether it be not the Duty of such where the Power is To Depose him from his Office and therein to absolve the People from such Duty as such an Office cals for And so it is in this Case of a Prince or Pastor to a Common-wealth But he Confirms this REASON by Seven other Reasons Reas 1. The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors is without any condition or reserve from a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governors miscarriage reade the 5th Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13. 1 2 c. T it 3. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 13. c. Reply It is to be understood whilest they are Governors and whilest they are Fathers and the same may be spoken of Pastors of Churches for they are Fathers and there is no reserve for a disingagement from duty towards such whilest the office of such lasts But the Question is Whether there be no Reserve for a disingagement from the Office it self and the Relation in reference to that Office as it respects such a person who hath miscarried in it If that be asserted the Fifth Commandement wil not prove it not those places quoted For there are Two sorts of Fathers included in that Commandement there is a Natural Father whose relations is indissolvable what ever the miscarrying be and there is an Instituted Father which originally the People both in Church and Common-wealth were wont to create for the Common good of them all And such a Father as the People make or their Elders or Patriots for them the People may lay aside or their Representatives on their behalf upon misdemeanors in Government the relation in this Fatherhood is not indissolvable and those Scriptures quoted contradict not this For it is known wel That in those times there were great Changing of the Chief Magistrate which took off the People and freed them from their duty when their relation ceased Reas 2. God cōmands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive Tyrants that likely ever have been Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I speak not here o● Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose ●itles a●e just but their Government unjust and oppressive Reply 1 But did God ever Command the Heads of the people who had the power of al the people to continue such in their Places if they had power to remove them It is one thing what God Commands particular parsons to do that have no Power no manner of way and what the duty of the Chief of al the people who represent them is to do 2 Were not those very persons many of them ●yran●s in Title aswel as in Government concerning whom God Commands his People That they should be subject to them Did not the Emperors advance themselves by the power of their Armies that they commanded to whom the Senate was forced to yeeld and yet subjection is required whilst they were in Place What can be said of Nebuchadnezzar himself Was his Title good getting all by the Sword as he did and yet Subjection is commanded to him as his own quotation proves So that it is manifest That al the Scriptures which he produceth are as strong to prove that which he disapproves of as they are to prove that which he would prove by them Reas 3. Servants are to be subject to their Masters not only to them that are good and gentle but those that are froward and that do them wrong 1 Pet. 2. 18 19 20. and by Analogy Subjects are tyed in the same ●erms to their Governors Reply Servants in those dayes were such who were bought with their Moneis and were their Slaves as now many Christians are to the Turks therefore in subjection they must be both to the Good and Froward and could not help themselves and the Apostle exhorts them to be contented and patient in their condition for the Lords sake But yet elsewhere he exhorts them That if they could be free they would chuse it rather Now I hope this mans scope is not To put Common-wealthes into this Condition of Servility and Slavery to Princes Nor will he grant such an abso●ute Dominion to Princes as to Masters over such Servants Such Servants were for their Masters when their Masters had bought them But Common-wealths are not for Princes but Princes for Common-wealths therefore there is no parity betwixt the one and the other The subjection of Common-wealths must not be a bondage as the subjection of such Servants was unlesse it be that som people have forfeited their freedom by some Rebellion or wicked bloudy hostile acts as the Irish have done The yoke may be hea●ie on such justly and yet they have no cause to kick against it Reas 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. ● c. Reply David at that time was but a private man and Saul was King unquestioned by the Heads of Israel and Sauls persecution was but of one private mans