Sword have yet Complyed with the Parliament to obtain a sure Title then the power of putting in and establishing such Chief Commanders appertaineth to the Parliament But how comes it then saith he that there is such variety of kinds of Supream Government Reply This hath come to passe sometimes because the peoples Right hath been invaded by force and power and so the people hath not acted freely and sometimes by the interest of some persons in the people they have been wrought up to give consent to this or that kind of Supream Government or it may come from the variety of apprehensions in several Common-wealths affecting and chusing rather this then that kind of Government Notwithstanding in those Common-wealths where the people chuse their Representatives to act their power for them Common Reason saith that such Representatives are the Supream power 2 He saith In citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omitts the King and House of Lords who in the then Parliament Concurred in this Enacting and Imposition Reply Neither King nor House of Lords had power to make a Law that was the Prerogative of the peoples Representatives and the King must confirm what they did Herein was the Representative Supremacy above the other 3 He saith That although the King was then rightfully and actually Enthroned in the Regal Power and Dignitie and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the People to his Heirs yet he dares to say That no Law of God or Nature obliged them to except of such a Person and his Heirs Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God and Nature And those Precepts Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof Reply 1 I speak of things Originally as they were at first himself spake a little before That Government in the special forme of it and the persons holding it was Chosen and immediatly Constituted by men Where then is either Law of God or Nature determinatively binding to it Therefore what Right any such Family hath it was Originally by the Peoples receiving such a Family and therefore it was free and voluntary 2 The 5 Commandement Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. exalts not any Family to the Throne nor doth require the people to accept of such and such a Family to be over them but being accepted and while continued requires subjection but no further 3 The Kings Ancestors came by Conquest and if rightfully Enthroned in Regal Power then the Title by Conquest it seems is good by his Assertion which yet in the present change I beleeve he wil not acknowledge nor dare I grant it without the consent of the Representatives in Parliament Therâ—ore it is that Kings themselves when they have got the Crown by the Sword have desire to hold it by Consent of Parliament and their Acts for it 4 What Right came Originally by Parliament and the Acts thereof and not by any expresse Law of God or Nature cannot be an everlasting Right but may be with-drawn together with al the Confirmations of it if the Causes be just by the same power that set it up But for the Consequence he saith It hath no Truth in it or colour of Reason nor Inference from the Antecedent But what Reason shews he for blasting the Consequence and reproaching it in such sort 1 He saith The Act cannot for ought appears to me be Repealed but by the same power that made it Reply If he mean by the same power the Representatives in Parliament then the same power that made the Act hath Repealed it but if he mean by the same power the King and House of Lords together with the Representatives in Parliament I have shewed That the King and House of Lords have no Legislative power at al and that it is the Representative sole priviledge to make Laws and the King must Confirme therefore they could do it without him 2 He saith The Allegiance sworn was not founded upon that Act or Oath but due before Reply I have not Asserted That the Allegiance is founded upon that Act or Oath but I hold the contrary viz That the Oath is founded upon Allegiance that was due before But this I Assert That Allegiance was never absolutly but conditionally due 1 While the Prince keeps his Oath in the Coronation taken to administer Justice 2 While the Parliament have not declared him to have broken his Oath and so that relation cease betwixt him the people consequently the Allegiance to be at an end and consequently the Oath of it to be extinct This is cleerly my Tenant That while Allegiance is due to any Governor whatever the Oath that hath been taken of it is binding and that al persons and powers in the World are never able to absolve or acquit the persons that have taken it from it But yet withal this I hold That 1 Allegiance may expire 2 That it then expires when the Condition of it is not kept 3 That the Parliament is the Supream power and so the Judge oâ— this when the Condition is broken 4 When they declare that the Condition is broken unlesse there be a palpable unrighteousness in their Declaration and when they by their Acts do discharge the people of their Allegiance and do Repeal the Act for the Oath of Allegiance then the people are free first of their Allegiance and then of the Oath which they took of it And this is that which I further hold That the People or Common-wealth are firstly and principally subject to the Parliament their Representatives for they have put their whole power into their hand so far as concerns the exercise of it and have put themselves into subjection under them and therefore their Allegiance is firstly due to them and through them to any Governor or Governors Prince or other Magistrate or Magistrates whom they shal either set up and entrust with the exercise of Supream power when they Sit not or whom they shal confirm finding in that power when they came to Sit. Why else have persons who have come to the Throne by Conquest immediatly called Parliaments to ratifie and confirme their Title which they foresaw might be justly questioned without such ratification And in this sense it is That the Parliament it self hath taken the Oath of Allegiance to Princes not Collectively as an House sitting in power and authority of Parliament for in that sense themselves were Supream but as single persons and members of the Common-wealth they themselves are subject to the power that as a Parliament themselves erect and confirm And I also conceive That hereupon there is no Allegiance to any Magistrate against the Parliament but that the Parliament may make it void while they remain the Peoples Representatives and continue in that place and power As now in this Change of things the Councel of State is the Supream power of the Nation at al times when there shal be no Parliament sitting
Oath by an Act of Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no Law of God or Nature obliging them to accept of such a Person and his Heirs and to swear Allegiance to them If therfore the Representatives take away and repeal this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the Subjects at libertie from such Allegiance and from their Oath binding to it there remains no more Conscience of it to such as have taken it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it c. First For the Antecedent I shal only note 1 He sets up a Supream power over us by Reason not by Law or the Peoples Constitution and this Reason is not the Nations but 1 Either his own private judgement and if that may create a Supreâ—m power to him then every otâ—er private mans Reason is to set up one to him even where there is one already over the people he is of 2 Or it is the Common Reason that is in all men naturally and if so how comes it to passe That there is so much variety of Kinds of Supream Government and that Representatives have it not in all times and Nations yea that scarce they ever had it 2 That in citing the power that Enacted this Oath he omits the King and House or Lords who in the then Parliament concuâ—ed in this Enacting and Imposition 3 That although the King then was rightsully and actually Enthroned in the Regal power and Dignity and both the Law and the Oath of Supremacy obliged the people to him and his Heirs yet he dares to say No Law of God or Nature obliged them to accept of such a Person and his Heirs Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God and Nature and those Precepts Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repeâ—â—ions and divine Ratifications thereof And doth not that Law command every people and person Allegiance to their particular lawful Governors and was not the King in Being his Heirs in Capacity and designaton such Secondly But for the Consequent there is no Truth in it nor colour of Reason or inference from the Antecedenâ— for it Besides That the act cannot for ought appears to me be Repealed but by the same power that made it and the Allegiance sworn was not founded upon the Act or Oath but due and paid before them both The Oath in its own words terms it self a Recognition and Acknowledgement and the first words of it are I A. B. Do trulie and sincerelie acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World That King James is lawful King of this Realm c. Suppose the Representatives to be the Supream power that the Imposing of this Oath was their Sole Act and the Subjects in them and that they did it voluntarily or unobliged to it doth it thence follow The Representatives repealing that Act the Subjects that upon their Enacting swore it are now absolved from their Allegiance and from the Oath 1 They that have power to impose an Oath were never said many Divintty extant to have power eo ipso to absolve from it when the imposers are also the party sworn to there it is granted both by Protestant ‡ Doct. Sanders de juram oblig prael 7. §. 8. Theolos Syntag. juris l. 50. c. 12. and Papists ‡ they have power to release from the Oath not because they are the imposers but because they are the party sworn to for omnis qui promittit sacit jus alteri cui est facta promissio the right of the thing sworn is theirs to whom the Oath is made and therefore they may release from it and this is â—â—e true ground of that power he supposeth in Abraham to acquit his Servant not his being the imposer of his Oath but where the imposers are a Third party from the persons swearing and sworn to there they have no claim of power of Relaxation And thus the case is here The Representatives as he faith impose the Oath which is sworn to the King and bind in Allegiance to him If they that impose an Oath may Release from it then may any Court or Magistrate Release a Juror or Examinate from the Oath they have giâ—en him then it a man impose an Oath upon himself as in some cases he may he may absolve himself when he wil from it though he therein obliged himself to God or another man And this is truly the case here as he himself states it The Subjects by their own act in their Representatives impose this Oath and by their own personal act swear iâ— and after by their own â—ctin their Representatives absolve themselves iâ— 2 The Repeal of the act is no Repeal or dissolution of the Oath the Parliament that framed and by their act imposed the Oath did not thereby make it an Oath but it was the Subjects swearing which made it an Oath and an Obligation or Religion to him as the Ministers rehearsing and dictating the words of Marriage to the Couple Marrying each other makes not the Marriage but the parties themselves declaring in those words And as the Clerk in a Court reciting the words of a Jurors Oath to him makes not the Oath but the Jurors assent to it The Parliament can conjoyn or punish the refusal or manifest breach of an Oath But a promissory Oath being the act and Covenant of him that swears and a part of divine Worship the bond of Conscience upon the swearer and the validity of Gods Ordinance and the Obligation that is therein entred into unto God as the invocated witnesse and judge cannot be within the Parliaments authority to nullifie in al Subjects Oathes which may be made with or without their imposition There are cases indeed wherein a superior as a Husband Master Father Magistrate may make void the Oath of their respective inferior by ANALOGY or equity of that Rule Numb 30. but those are 1 In matters that are belonging to the Right or Power of the Superior to dispose of as the Representatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their owne Right ‡ Animadvertendum tamen est penes â—os non esse facultatem rescindendi quod libet jus jurandum subditorum sed illud duntaxat cujus materia est eorum potestati subjecta Alsted Theol. Cas Cap. 15. Reg. 2. But the Allegiance in this Oath sworn is none of theirs but the Kings and therefore sworn to him by the Subjects and in particular by them 2 By that Law Numb 30. the Superior may interpose to nullifie his Inferiors Oath made without his knowledge and consent and that must be done in the day that he hears of it but there is no further power given by that Law in the matter of Oathes Now in this our Case the Representatives have been so far from being ignorant of the making of this Oath and disalowing it as soon as it was know to them that
Ordinance the meaning is The King not King-ship where Kingly Government is on foot the person of the King the Man not the Power as it ought to be exercised according to Law is the Ordinance of God and must be obeyed After the Consequence by way of Illustration I expressed my self in some words concerning the heavie plague that hath been upon this Nation in Kingly Government and of the many blessings that have followed the Change of it among the United Provinces which he takes great offence at wherein I shal be justified by the Chronicles that record the Reigns of the Kings of this Nation and the plentiful experience which many thousands living have had of the truth thereof in some of them Notwithstanding lest I should move his patience further I shal forbear any further Reply It is enough what the Parliament when the House was ful and Voted NO more Addresses to be made hath published to the World concerning the late King In the last place in the Close of the first Argument he comes to consider of the Objection which I knowing many other would be ready to make it both framed and answered The Objection was Though the Oath might be unlawful to be taken yet being taken it ought to be kept The Answer was That if Herods Oath was unlawful to be taken and much more unlawful to be kept being only an Oath against the life of one man then this Oath of Allegianâ—e if absolute was not onlie unlawful to be taken but also to be kept because verie dangerous to the lives state and liberties of a Common-wealth of men His Answer hereto in substance is this He cannot paralel Herods Oath and ours in the mater wherein Herods was unlawful both in the taking and keeping What was the matter of that To shed innocent bloud To massacre a guiltless and holie Person Now what is the matter of ours To yeeld Obediance in lawful things to a lawful power Is it anie more And are not the matter of these two Oathes as far unlike as light and darkness Reply There 's only this difference That Oath was to kil directly This consequently That speedily and out of hand This surely and undoubtedly though uncertain in reference to the time when For if the Oath be of absolute obedience to the Father and Son and Sons Son and al after-Heirs then not only active but passive obedience must be yeelded and if the person be the power as he asserts from Rom. 13. 2. compared with vers 3 4. his words are these The Magistrate not the Government abstractlie are called Gods Ordinance then the person may not be resisted in any thing let him do what he wil let him become a Nero yet he may not be resisted no not in his Ministers For his name and his authority is in them and it is impossible to resist them but there wil be a resisting of him in them And if this be so then the Floud-gates are set open to al Iniquity and corrupt men which are chief in power and are secure from al opposition and resistance that know that they may have life and state and al at their demand without contradiction are invited to al unrighteousnesse and oppression Even as a gracelesse person that is in want and knoweth that the Judge wil neither hang him nor punish him is invited to rob and steal what an unrighteous Oath then is this in the very matter of it that tempts the Prince in such sort to al lewdnesse and wickednesse and that wil certainly either sooner or later be destructive And how unmeet is it to be kept It is as it a Judge should swear to al poor persons that are in want That whatever they do he wil not question them those who are good would be good still notwithstanding this Oath but yet it would invite naughty minded persons to al dishonesty and unrighteousnesse and it would expose the lives and estates of men that have any thing to extream danger though it would be uncertain who the persons are that would suffer or at what time they might suffer violence but they are not secure any moment such is the Oath of absolute Allegiance and such an Oath as this kept is more murtherous then the Oath of Herod In the Second place he comes to Consider of the Second Position viz. That the Representatives of the People which in reason are the Supream power imposed this Oath by an Act of Parliament this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives no Law of God or Nature obliging them to accept of such a person and his Heirs and to swear Allegiance to them if therefore the Representatives take away and Repeal this Act as this Parliament hath done they thereby set the Subject at liberty from such Allegiance and from their Oath binding to it there remains no more Conscience of it to such which have taken it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it He begins with the Antecedent of this Position and Notes Three things 1 He saith He sets up a Supream power over us by Reason not by Law or the Peoples Constitution Reply Though it be by Reason yet it is by Law and by the peoples Constitution also for the People appoint their Representatives and the persons whom they appoint are the Parliament and this is according to Law And this Parliament hath the power of making Laws and repealing them and the King by Oath is sworn to confirme what they conclude on and present unto him as at the beginning of the War was held out in those Declarations which they put forth for the Kingdoms satisfaction The Parliament then is above the King according to Law and the peoples Constitution For he is bound up to their Conclusions which they make for the good of the Kingdom and they are not bound up to his yet it is according to Reason also But he asketh What Reason Private or Common Reason Reply 1 Common Reason shewes that in the mixture of Families in one Common-wealth where there is no natural headship as in one Family there hath been there without consent there can be no headship or power or Government And those that must Consent are the Root of that power or Government that comes to be amongst them 2 Common Reason shews also That al the people that give this Consent unto a power or powers to be over them cannot act this power which is founded in their Consent 3 Common Reason shews That those whom they Substitute for the acting of their power in matters of Supream concernment are the Supream power 4 Common Reason shews That if these Substitutes or Trustees for the people do chuse one Statesman to Rule over al or a Councel of State to do it yet they that chuse and set up such persons are greater in power then they that are chosen 5 Common Reason shews That if such Princes who have gotten Possession of the Kingdom by the
Whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Propriety of the Subject or subverted it We know what their Education was Who then could take an oath in righteousness and judgment in reference to them It is good to know first and to swear afterward 3 Not to any one kind of Government Monarchical or any other to uphold it and continue it in a constant way without changing of it Reason Because though Civil Government in general be an Ordinance of God tending to mans good therefore to reject it would be sinful yet this or that kind of Government is not an Ordinance of God but an Ordinance of man 1 Pet. 2. 13. And if an Ordinance of man then man may change it for his own greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful Then to swear not to change it is sinful and in righteousness and judgment may not be done for all kinds of Government is not equallie good uor are they equallie suitable to all people and experience makes persons wise to discern what is better and what is worse for themselves Therefore an Oath to uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable is unlawful Consequence Then the oath of allegiance serving to uphold Kingly Government against all other was an unlawful oath for who knows not what a plague this kind of Government hath been to this Nation and who knows not that the most of our Kings have been Tyranâ—s and who knows not what a Blessing the change of Government hath brought to the United Provinces Objection But suppose there was some unlawfulness in the taking of such Oathes yet is there not a necessity of keeping them being taken Answer If that Oath taken against the life of one man by Herod because unrighteous and cruel was not only sinfully taken but more sinfully kept then such oaths of allegiance which are absolute and not conditional which are single and not mutual which are to Heirs whether wise-men or fools whether just men or Tyrants which are to uphold Monarchy the woful fruits whereof having been long tasted and felt by this Nation seeing they are dangerous and may proâ—e as often they have done destructive to the lives of many men they are not only unlawful to be taken but unlawful to be kept POSITION II. SUppose the Oath of Allegiance be a lawful Oath yet the Subject is now absolved from it by them that have Power to absolve from it Reason The Representatives of the People which in reason are the Supream Power of the Nation imposed this Oath upon the Subject by an Act for it made in Parliament by which they obliged the Subject to Allegiance to the King then in being and to his Heirs And this Act done by their Representatives was their own voluntarie Act to which they were not obliged by anie law of God or Nature for there is no rule requiring them to accept of such a Person to be their Prince and his Heirs after him and to swear Allegiance to him and them but this was the Subjects own free Act in their Representatives Therefore if the Represâ—ntatives take away this Act and repeal it they thereby set the Subjects at Libertie from such Allegiance and from that Oath by which they are bound to it Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his Servant might acquit him of it because not bound by anie rule from God but obliged by Abraham onlie Consequence This present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which was Enacted to be imposed there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it But then it will come unto this Whether the Parliament be the Supream Power Whether the Representatives of the People be the Parliament Whether the present Representatives that now Sit in Parliament be the Representatives of the People To the First I say 1 It is evident That the Norman Kings coming in by Conquest had never any true Right to the Crown of England but what the Parliament gave them Then the Power of the Parliament was greater then theirs because that Power that is the Cause of Power is greater then that Power that is the Effect of Power 2 The Power of Parliament is the Power of the People now in Reason the Power of the People is the Supream Power because thence as from the Root all Power first sprang and proceeded To the Second I say Iâ— the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power and the Supream Power then the Representatives of the People are the Parliament and none else for the Representatives of the People are the People in them and there is the Root of Power therefore they are a Parliament To the Third I say The present Representatives that now Sit in Parliament are 1 All of them Chosen by the People therefore of Right they Sit in Parliament 2 The present Representatives are all that are left to Sit in Parliament for the most of the rest have Deserted their Trust without any Force upon them for though some were Secluded and Secured yet the rest were not at all interrupted but have voluntarily Departed from the House 3 The Representatives that Remained and Continued to Sit in Parliament were alwayes when fewest and still are above the Number allowed of by Law and therefore they are a Parliament There is one Objection which may be urged against the Parliaments Absolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and against their Abolishing Kingly Government It may be said That Kings have the same Right to their Kingdoms Crowns and Revenues as others Quest have to their Mannors and Demesnes Such Right which Kings have had they never justly came by it but Answ by Force and Flattery have obtained it and have Usurped upon the Birth-right of the People to whom it belongs to Chuse them that must Rule over them and Kingdoms with the Appurtenances thereto were never intended for particular mens Advancements to lift up such Families in Glory and Greatness or that the Heraeditary Right of any should be in them but that Wisdom Righteousness and Vertue was to lift up men unto them and Crowns and Revenues were to encourage them in acting in such Places and men that were so Qualified were to be Heirs and Successors set up by the People after them And the People themselves nor their Representatives could neither Give nor Sell away this Priviledge from their Posterity in which the welfare of the People is so mainly concerned and without which a People are given up and sold to Ruine This cannot be said of Mannors and Demesnes which are things which fall under Commutative Justice and are things vendible and wherein particular men are concerned and not the Common-Wealth AN ANSVVER TO A PAPER Pretending to prove the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Void and non-Obliging Containing TWO POSITIONS The Substance whereof is Repeated in the Process of this ANSWER THE drift of
as the Subject doth in this oath swear his yet the Proposition is false in this and it cannot be said That thus it universally ought of necessity to be betwixt every Prince his Subjects much lesse can it hold that unlesse it be thus mutual the Subjects oath is not in righteousnesse according to Jer. 4. 2. but that for want of this mutuality it is null For 1 We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture undertaken in Covenant betwixâ—s man and man 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. 2 We find in Scripture Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers without the reciprocal swearing of the Rulers to them ‡ 2 King 11. 4. Judg. 11. 10. Ch. 36. 13 Ez. 17. 3. such was that engagement Josh 1. 16 17 18. 3 Oaths are never to be taken but necessarily that is When not only the matter is of great weight but it cannot otherwise be sufficiently confirmed or assured then by Oath ‡ Doctor Sanders de Juram ob prael 7. §. 12. Thol synt jur l. 50. c. 3. but in solemn humane Covenants it comes to passe that sometimes the performance lies only on one party the other is to receive advantage but not to do any thing Sometimes the danger of breach lies only or more on one part then on another Sometimes thâ—re is other satisfactory assurance given besides swearing and sometimes there is other remedy if there should be a breach then the forfeiture of an Oath In such and other cases an Oath on the one party may noâ— need and consequently is not to be exacted 4 But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King swear to the people as that they take an oath to him yet if through overmuch credulity or otherwise it be that the people do swear and not the Prince this cannot be the least colour for the nullifying of the peoples Oath For whether the King Swear or no that which makes the Oath obliging is That in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the promise 3 There is another sense of mutual swearing more strict then the former and that is when not only two parties swear to each other their respective parts but they both swear with a mutual respect that is The obligation of the one party hath a respct to and a dependance on the performance of the other party as when one man swears to another to give him so much Money for his Land that other swears to convey to him his Land for so much Money in this kind the breach of the one is a releasment to the other And here that Adage holds good Frangenti fidem fides frangatur eidem And also that Rule of the Law Frustra quâ— fidem postulat sibi servari ab eo cui fidem à se praestitam servare recusat But this sense of mutual swearing cannot come in to be meant in our case For 1 Such an oath is plainly conditional The one party swears not to give the other absolutly and cleerly so much Money but to give him so much for his Land the having of the Land then is an expresse condition of his oath but the oath of the Subjects Allegiance is granted to be absolute and is as such disputed against by him here and I have aboâ—e proved an oath of Allegiance cannot be Conditional 2 The Kings cath is also absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects loyalty no man wil say I think that the King is discharged from ruling justly and may become an absolute Tyrant if his Subjects exceed the bounds or fail of the bonds of their oath or duty nay if the Subject transgresse his duty the King is bound by his oath to cause Justice according to the Law and Tenor of his Oath to be done and cannot otherwise escape violation of his Oath 3 Such mutual oathes are entred into by both parties at the same time and have their mutual respects expressed but neither doth the King and Subjects swear to each other at the same time neither is there any such mutual respect mentioned or so much as implyed in either of their Oathes 4 Such mutually respective oathes have only place in matters arbitrary or that are in mens choice to do or not to do until they bind themselves by Covenant but such are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects there being a divine Law obliging each to the Duties of their Offices before they swear We see no sense imaginable of Mutual not Single wil fit this mans turn but it wil make his Proposition false either if predicated of the oath of Allegiance at al So doth the First and Third acception afore mentioned or if predicated with that modus of a necesse est so doth the Second But let us hear his Reason for this clause of his Major whatever be the sense of it It is saith he against Equitie and Reason and the good of the Subject that he should be further or longer bound to the Prince to submit to him then the Prince is bound to the Subject to Rule wel and administer justice rightlie Grant al this and it wil no way follow Therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous must be mutual in any sense for the Prince may be bound and that as long to his part as the Subject is to his and so he is and it is impossible to be otherwise for Prince and Subject his tye to Rule in Justice and his to Obey in just things are relatives and do infer necessarily each other to wit by the tye of Scripture Conscience and positive Laws and yet not be sworn at al. His Major being thus I hope fully Refuted I need not to take notice of his Consequences as he cals them but in a word I shal touch on them The First is nothing but a Hypothetical Repetition of some part of the Major Proposition which I have been so long in disproving If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteousnesse the King was as stronglie bound to the Subjects as any of them to him This therefore I passe by as the same that was said before and no Consequence from it The Second is Then if he break his Oath al the Subjects are absolved if they wil. This Consequence I deny I have I think fully made it cleer before That the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is absolute not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King whether sworn or not sworn and that it could not have been otherwise And though the King and People have each sworn their duties mutually yet not with See Doct. Sanders de Juram ob prael 4. §. 8. a mutual respect by vertue
whereof a breach on one side might be a discharge on the other and that neither the tenor of their Oaths hold forth any such thing neither is the matter of them capable thereof being necessary not arbitrary The Third is Then at what time the King Levied War against his Subjects they were discharged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance This is a Consequence of the former Consequence and stands or fals with it That therefore being Answered and Disproved this vanisheth The Fourth thing is no Consequence but a Reason of the two last Consequences and in method of arguing is therefore an antecedent to prove them it is thus Else the whole Parliament and their partie were perjured persons so manie of them as have taken this Oath and are Rebels in taking up Armes against the King First If their taking up of Arms against the King as he terms it were Rebellion their absolution from their Oathes were it so indeed by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no Rebellion for the debt of Obedience is existent in the Subject before any Oath taking and it is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the pretended dissolution of it and consequently makes that taking up of Armes which would have been if the Oath had not been as he supposeth nullified Rebellion neverthelesse Secondly We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved declared and in many Treatises in Print maintained al along the late Wars That the Armes of the Parliament were not against any brance of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed stil to persist in yea and in the act of their Armes bearing Covenanted to yeeld and maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and Dignity the Rights whereof and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience are prefixed by the Lawes of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Courts and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting What is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personal presence or command yet for the King his Crown and Dignity 2 His next Exception against the Oath of Allegiance is That it is an unlawful Oath in that it is sworn to the Kings Heirs His Reason for this Exception proceeds thus Who knoweth as Eccles 2. 19. whether he will be a wise man or a fool a just or a â—ricked man and Tyrant Now if no man know this then to swear to an Heir is not an Oath in judgment nor is it righteous for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine Consequence Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch that respected Heirs an unlawful Oath c. I admit of the Antecedent but utterly deny the Consequence 1 For the whole Consequence I Answer 1 This inference is directly contrary to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2. 19. makes from the words Solomons is Yet shall he have Rule over all my labours wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun This mans inference is in effect because no man knows whether he wil be a wise man or a fool therefore he shal not have Rule c. that is We must not Engage before-hand that he shal Rule while it is uncertain what he wil prove though Solomon saith Notwithstanding that is uncertain yet he shal have Rule 2 The same Reason if it held would lie against any Oath or Engagement to any Rulers in being whatsoever they are for say they be come to maturity and for the past and present time have given proof yet who knows what they that are now wise and just morally may hereafter come to be The Scripture supposeth That not only a just Father may have a wicked Son but a righteous man in profession and external carriage may turn from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity Ezek. 18. 24. Neroes Quinquâ—nnium of Reigning wel is generally known the good beginnings of â—eash and Vzziah 2 Chron. 23 24 and 26. and therefore degeneracies are sufficient instances of the lubricity of men in authority Yea it is wel known how fearfully Solomon himself with Asa 1 King 11. 2 Chron 16. and others fel in divers particulars of a grosse nature if we must first know and swear afterwards we must never swear to any promissorily 3 This Consequence were it of force would equally condemn in general al promissory Oathes and other Covenants and Engagements betwixt man and man for it cannot be fore-seen in any what the persons contracted with wil prove or whether the Covenant wil be beneficial ot hurtful and in particular the Laws and Sanctions of those Nations in al ages which have settled successive Regality or any other Government â—or longer then the present possessors of the power endure which yet is a way not only more generally approved and practised then any other of vicissitudinary Election but warranted by the word of God Israel offered a successive power to Gideon Judg. 8. 22. and God himself instituted and bound the People to a lineal Government in David and his seed 2 Sam. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 13. 5. The Patriarchal power which was political was successive and could not have been cast off at pleasure so was the Government of the Jewish Nation fâ—r about an hundred yeers in the lineage of the Maccaâ—ees 4 We have Scripture examples of an uncontroverted integrity of Oathes and Engagements to Princes and their Heirs and to Princes in their yong unripe and untryed yeers Take for instance that of Abrahams swearing to Abimelech King of Gerar his Son and Sons Son 1 Chr. 23. 29. 22. 29. 1. 22 5. that of Davids making Solomon King in his own life time and engaging the people to him when he was yet yong and tender and that of JEHOJADAHS and the Peoples making Ioash King and swearing to him when he was but seven yeers old 2 King 11. 4. 22. 2 For the two parts of the CONSEQUENCE in several 1 The Oath is not in judgment because no man knows what the Heir will prove I say 1 It may be in Judgment so far as a future contigency can be deliberated on and this may be concluded on advisedly as morally certain that it 's better to have the Crown settled in a line whereby sometimes a vicious person may be advanced then to have it under Election at every personal change This hath been the experimented maxime of the wisest States ‡ Minore discrimine sumi princip m quaÌ„ quaeri Tacit. H. lib. 2. 2 If
they were the Composers and Commanders of it yea and have taken it themselves Let any the least Warrant yea or President be brought for Releasing an Oath in this Case and I shal sit down Lastly For a Close of my Answer unto this Position I shal observe what the Tenor of this Oath hath in it I do beleeve and in Conscience am resolved That neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof And do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary This is not the Swearers Declaration only but the Parliaments in Compiling and Imposing this Oath and al Representatives have personally thus declared in taking it Shal we beleeve them concerning their power in this matter or this man That which follows is no proof of the Position nor any thing to the validity of the Oath FINIS A REPLY TO AN ANSVVER Pretending to Refute some POSITIONS Which tended to make the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Void and not Obliging THE Answerer begins with the Drift of the First Position which he saith is To shew the Oath to be unlawful in the taking of it Reply The Drift of the First Position is to shew the unlawfulness of the Oath upon a Supposition that the Oath was Absolute and not Conditional that it was Single and not Mutual c. and not otherwise He falls upon Premising something in these words An Oath may be unlawful 1 Either in regard of the matter or thing sworn as when it is some sinful act Or 2 In regard of the manner as when the thing is unadvisedly sworn The former way of unlawfulness makes the Oath Void in the taking of it but not the latter which appears by the validity of that unadvised Oath of the Princes to the Gibeonites Josh 9. 15. 18 19. 2 Sam. 21. 2. He erreth at the first dash That Oath of the Princes was a sinful Oath Reply in the matter of it because expresly against the command of God Deut. 7. 2. Exod. 23. 32. yet it was not void but was kept by them He falls upon Observing and speaks of A gross imputation that is laid upon very many Worthies of all sorts and kinds of men as if they had pressed taken and justified an Oath in the matter of it unjust and sinâ—ul If there be any Charge at all upon any it is upon those that make the Reply Oath to be Absolute and not Conditional c. But if any person hold otherwise that it was a Mutual Conditional Oath that was taken when Allegiance was sworn then there is no imputation at all upon one or other which the Author of the Position rather conceives then the contrary He mentioneth the general Exception against the lawfulnesse of the Oath and Objects against it in that branch of it that respects Judgment and saith That Defectivenesse in that will not invalidate the Oath It is but a fault saith he in the manner not in the matter in the Person not in the Oath If it be so Whence is it that the Law provides That no Vows Oaths Reply Deeds or Acts that are done by persons in their Nonage because it is supposed they are not done in Judgment shall stand but be all invalid unlesse ratified afterwards when they come to age This man whoever he be speaks against the Law herein which is more grosse then to speak against persons Notwithstanding it must not be conceived That the Author of the Positions doth intend That every oath that is defective in judgement is ipso facto void but he connects Judgement and Righteousnesse together as adding strength to each other and making such an oath so unlawful as not to be obligatory He descends to particulars and objects against that Conditionality which in the Position is made necessary unto an oath that it may agree with Jer. 4. 2. And he distinguisheth in these words 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 and so the Condition is it must be Honest Or 2 In reference to the Tye or Obligation of the Oath And of this latter he makes another distinction concerning Conditions in these words Some Conditions are general and such as no promisory Oath that is lawful can be without And he makes Honest this general Condition 2ly Others are special and proper Conditions He makes Honest and Iust to fall under the opposite members of his Reply own distinction and so confounds that which he would distinguish He comes to oppugn the Reason that is brought in the Position that the Oath must not be Absolute but Conditional viz. That 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 absolutly whether the Prince Rule for the Subjects good or not And his first Exception is That this Reason wants proof There was such cleernesse in the Reason that it needed not proof For Reply if an absolute Vassalage with first or last will infallibly be the Consequence of an absolute Oath be not for the good of the Subject and so not sutable to the Primitive Institution of Government then an absolute oath cannot be for the good of the Subject and so not sutable to the Primitive Institution of Government His Second Exception is The Reflection that this Argument in the Position would have upon the Parliament should it be granted to be true who Enacted the Oath of Allegiance and all subsequent Parliaments confirmed it which if it were not for the good of the Subject would call their wisdom and goodnesse into question There is something inserted in this that is not granted viz That the Reply Parliament intended this Oath to be Absolute without implying in it so much as this Condition While the Prince should rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom For 1 They never declared so much That they intended the oath to be absolute 2 The Oaths that Kings in this Nation have alwayes taken shew the contrary and their Oaths to him must be interpreted by his Oath to them Now his Oath to them is To Rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom therefore their Oath to him must have the same restriction and so cannot be absolute 3 The Parliament is sharer at least by this mans own confession pag 5. with the Prince in Government For he saith It is a mixed Government that is amongst us in this Nation and in a mixed Government the Prince hath his share and the People in their Representatives have their share therefore the Parliament would never make the Oath absolute least thereby they should give away to the Prince that part in Government which is theirs 4 It was to recover this share in Government and the Peoples Liberties thereby out of the hand of the Prince that this WAR was undertaken against him Which if they had
People And where wil it be found otherwise but stil in mutual Oathes of two persons to each other they are with mutual respect and the obligation of the one hath respect to and a dependence upon the performance of the other so as the breach of the one is the releasment of the other as in the Oath betwixt the Spies and Rahab is most cleerly manifest For there it is expressed in so many words and it is perpetually imply'd in al other such like Oathes which we reade of in the Scripture where it is not expressed Of this nature are Oathes betwixt Prince and People if they be mutual as by the grant of this man in Englands case they be then they be with respect for the Prince doth not swear to give himself up for the Peoples good to be shepheard of them and Captain over them for nought but for such homage obedience fear duty tribute custome revenue to be performed and given by the People uuto him So the People do not swear to give unto the Prince so much fear observance subjection revenue absolutly and cleerly but for such a work of faithful Ruling and Governing them And it is yet more cleer in the Relation betwixt Pastor and People the Covenant betwixt them is with respect and the obligation of the one party hath respect to and dependence upon the performance of the other The People do not promise or engage to give so much of their Estates for the maintenance of him absolutly and cleerly but with respect to his labouring in the Word and Doctrine among them neither doth the Pastor engage absolutly and cleerly so to labour amongst them and give out his strength in such sort for their good but with respect to such double honor as the Scripture obligeth them to give him And yet it cannot be denied but that notwithstanding this mutual respect that such an Engagement hath to each other and dependence which the one hath upon the performance of the other both of them are tyed and engaged to God and that the duties which they do performe are duties to God because God hath commanded them such duties but not without but upon such mutual respect to each other and it is no duty to God without this respect for a people to give this double honor to him that wil not Rule wel and labour in the Word and Doctrine among them but they ought rather in discharge of their duty to God to remove or cause to be removed such a person from his office and so to with-draw their double honor from him and so it is in these relative duties betwixt Prince and people And so let this man if he can or any other shew by divine Rule a more absolute engagement betwixt Prince and people then betwixt Pastor and people But he saith This sense of swearing cannot come in to be meant in the point of Controversie But why so 1 Saith he Such an Oath is plainlie Conditional as when one gives so much Monie for so much Land he gives it not cleerlie and absolutlie but for so much Land Reply So it is in this case plainly Conditional perhaps not alwayes expresly Conditional If a people should say nothing to him that is to be their Pastor of any duty that he is to perform to them but only promise such maintainance to him the Condition of Preaching to them is plainly enough imply'd though not expressed It cannot rationally be conceived that they would give so much to him as being their Pastor for doing nothing so of the People it may be said in reference to their Allegiance to their Prince that there is no absolute necessity that the Condition should be expressed especially in the case of the Subjects of this Kingdom because the King was sworn to Rule according to the Laws and that was the Condition of al after Oathes taken by the people to him 2 He saith The Oath of Allegiance is granted to be absolute by the Author of the POSITIONS and disputed against by him as such Reply It is a mistake to say so The Dispute was to prove That either the Oath was Conditional or ought to be was Mutual or ought to be if lawful And therefore if broken on the Kings party then the people are absolved And though he himself was satisfied that it was Conditional and Mutual and with Respect yet because others did deny it therefore he expressed himself in a disjunctive either was mutual or ought to have been 3 But saith he The Kings Oath is absolute and binds without dependence on the Subjects Loyaltie no man will say That the King is discharged from Ruling justlie and may turn Tyrant if the People fail in their Oath towards him Reply It is denyed That the Kings or Peoples Oathes bind without dependence any more then Pastors and Peoples Engagements do and though no man wil say That the King is discharged from Ruling justly and may turn Tyrant yet rational men wil say That he may cease his Ruling and lay down his Office of Government if the People generally with-hold their Subjection and his Revenue from him Nor can any one rationally think That the Governor should stil carry the weight of such a Trust over such a People who do with-draw their fear and reverence and obedience from him and wil pay him no tribute and withhold his Reâ—enue and abuse his person but that he may in such a case be absolved from all engagement in reference to such a Function over such a People and so the case is with the Subject There is difference betwixt non adjuration and male adjuration the latter is in no case warrantable but the former is justifiable upon the breach of the people in disloyalty to him 4 But saith he such mutual Oathes are entred into by both Parties at the same time but neither doth the King nor Subjects swear to each other at the same time Reply This is not necessary in mutual Oathes betwixt two parties which are with respect such mutual Oaths may be betwixt two Princes of divers Nations and so depending the one upon the performance of the other that if there be a breach on either side the other is free upon it from such obligation and yet these Princes not meet together nor swear at one time 5 Such mutual respective Oathes have onlie place in matters arbitrarie which are in mens choice to do or not to do before they swear but not so in these relative duties betwixt Kings and Subjects Reply It is arbitrary though not in reference to Government it self yet in reference to the disignation of the person or persons that are to be put in place of Government before there be a Pact or Covenant betwixt such person or persons and such a people whom they are to Govern And though there be a necessity after such Pact and Covenant yet such necessity is bottom'd on such a Pact or Covenant and so it is not an absolute necessity
but a necessity upon such a Condition The duties of Masters and Servants are necessary in the general but particularly considered in reference to this or that person giving up themselves to be Servants unto such and such Masters it is meerly arbitrary before the Pact and there is place for such respective Oathes betwixt them and that the one breaking the other is free upon it But he goes on to consider of the Reason of the Position viz. That it is against Equitie and Reason that the one should be further or longer bound to the other then the other is bound to him And he saith That if that be granted yet there is no necessitie that the Oath be mutual for the Prince may be bound and is bound and it cannot he otherwise but that he should be bound to his dutie as long as the Subject is to his by Scripture Conscience and positive Laws and yet not sworn at al. Reply If al be granted that he saith let the Reader judge whether if the Subject be bound to the Prince by Scripture Conscience and positive Lawes and by an Oath to the Prince over and above al the other and the Prince be bound to the Subject by Scripture Conscience and positive Laws but not by an Oath Whether the Subject be not further bound to the Prince then the Prince to him But in this particle further he meddles not which yet was in the Reason of the Position but saith The Prince is bound and that as long but he saith not and that as far and yet he would seem to grant the whole Reason and notwithstanding deny the mutual Oath but it is without Reason The Proposition remaining stil in strength as I suppose and the Reason of it also notwithstanding al that hath been endeavoured by him against it the Consequence remains firm also And as he disables them not so need not I to confirm them Only in the end of the Consequences there was for further illustration rather then confirmation the Parliaments Fact in taking up Arms produced as sutable to those inferences and serving to cleer the Oath of Allegiance to be Conditional and not Absolute to be Mutual and not Single in the very accompt of the Parliament it self who best understood it For had not they in that Oath of Allegiance sworn with this limitation in their own understandings viz. According to the Laws of the Kingdom as the Condition whether expressed or not and had they not known that the King was sworn to them to Govern according to the Laws and that these two Oathes had mutual respect to each other this Oath of Allegiance in an absolute sense Considered had they not renounced it as unjust and wicked would have made them guilty of disloyalty and Rebellion in taking up of Arms which I am sure my Antagonist whoever he might be would not charge them with Now unto this he Answereth two things 1 He saith If their taking up of Arms against the King were Rebellion their absolution from their Oathes by the Kings breach of his could not unmake or make it no Rebellion for the debt of Obedience is existent in the Subject before any Oath taking and it is not founded on swearing but only confirmed by it and therefore survives after the Oath should be dissolved Reply But in this argumentation he builds upon that which I have oft destroyed and takes that for granted which I have oft denyed viz. That there is an absolute debt of Obedience to this or that Magistrate which is not so save only upon mutual Covenant which comes afterwards to be confirmed by Oath and from which by the breach of Covenant and Oath upon the Magistrates side the Subject is acquitted viz. From his Oath and Covenant together so that the one doth not survive the other as in al mutual Oathes it is there is an absolution from the oath and from the thing of which the oath is together as in Josh 2. 20. appears they would be quit of the oath and not only so but of the thing also if she kept not within or should discover 2 He saith We must therefore say as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved declared and in many Treatises in Print maintained al along the late Wars That the Armes of the Parliament were not against any brance of the Subjects Allegiance or the Oath for it which they professed stil to persist in yea and in the act of their Armes bearing Covenanted to yeeld and maintain but concordant with the same In as much as they enterprized not against the Kings Person his State or Government they went not against his Majesty his Heirs or Successors they joyned not against his Crown and Dignity the Rights whereof and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience are perfixed by the Lawes of the Realm the ultimate interpretation whereof is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws The King as King acts only by his Courts and Laws what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting What is done by Order of the Courts of Justice and by vertue of the Laws is done though against his personal presence or command yet for the King his Crown and Dignity Reply In this sense that he puts upon the taking up of Arms there is enough to ratifie and confirm that which al along I have been contending for and there is nothing that contradicts me but what contradicts it self I shall take up some passages in the Relation which he makes 1 He saith The King as King acts onlie by his Courts and Laws and what he doth besides or against these is the mans not the Kings acting It is as much as if he should say The King fals under a double consideration as a man and so when he departs from Laws and from Justice he is only to be lookt upon as such and as a King and so only when he keeps to his Laws and to his Courts of Justice Now we know that the oath of Allegiance was made to the King as King and so the Subject hath nothing to do with him in point of obedience or Allegiance save only as King that is When he Rules according to Law Again The oath of Allegiance being to a legal King when the person of the King is a Tyrant and breaks al Laws and overthrowes al Courts of Justice where is then this legal King and if there be none the subject is then discharged from their oath of Allegiance This distinction betwixt the man and the King is but a notional conceit for take away the man and where is then the King and sure I am that God wil make no such distinction when he shal come to judg Princes but al their miscarriages in Government irregularities in the managing of their Offices shal be charged upon them as Princes set over the People then it wil not be said What he doth besides or against the Laws and
Courts of Justice is the mans not the Kings acting it wil appear then That Kings as Kings have offended and been unjust and tyrannous 2 He saith That the Parliament hath declared their Arms to be for and agreeable to the Laws that is for the King ruling by Laws and against the King that is the person that carrieth that name which is indeed but the man when he violates al Laws in Ruling for they were only sworn to the King acting by his Courts and Lawes and what is this but the same that I have asserted in the Positions viz. That if the Subject were absolutly engaged by oath to the person of the King whether he Rule wel or il and that this oath were lawful the PARLIAMENT must needs be disloyal in taking up Armes against the person of the King 3 He saith That which is against the Kings personal Presence or Command is not against the King that is is not against the King in Law or against such a one as the King ought to be according to Law So that he grants That Allegiance is not to a personal King or his Commands unlesse he be a legal King and a King according to Law for things may be done against his personal Presence and Commands wherein he concurs with the Positions but contradicts himself For where is any place for passive obedience if that be true which yet is one of his Reasons of unconditional or absolute Allegience 4 Now whereas he saith The Parliamentarie Partie enterprized nothing against his Person c. There seems to be a contradiction in it For he saith They declared their Arms to be for the Laws and so against al that opposed them which his Person personal Presence and Commands often did And indeed did they not make his Person flye from place to place And was not his Person often in danger as the persons of those that fought under him were And was not his Person secured in Holmesby-House And had their Allegiance been to his Person as distinct from the Laws they had violated it And whereas there is mention made of the Covenant which they entred into to preserve his Person and that in the very times of their Arms bearing It is manifest That they bind themselves first to maintain Religion and the Liberties of the Kingdom and then in Religion and Liberties to preserve his Person and Honor and no further but as might stand with them which shews that they were bound to them firstly by Law and not to any Allegiance to his Person against them but so far as they might preserve them and therefore in the very time of this Covenant they are found in wayes of chastizing him though with a scope of preserving him if possibly Religion and the Subjects Liberty may subsist with it And first they correct him in his Instruments and then in Person in securing him which was not very honourable unto him but the preservation of Religion and Liberty of the Subject forced them to it At last their Counsels were to make no more Addresses to him but to lay him aside and to settle Religion and Liberty without him and this was more dishonarable to him but their Covenant which bound them first to Religion c. compelled them to it and there was yet further liberty in the Covenant left for them to cut him off and his also if the necessity of the preservation of Religion and Liberty of the Subject should require it And indeed it is not rational to think That they could have a lawful power without contradicting the oath of allegiance or the Covenant of inflicting lesser Censures and Penalties upon him and yet want power to inflict higher and greater punishments if the nature of the Crime deserved them and the necessity of conserving Religion and Liberty required them But he comes to consider of the Second Exception against the Oath of Allegiance which the Position mentions viz. as there is in it A swearing to the Kings Heirs he mentions my words in the Reason that I lay down of my Exception against it viz. Who knows whether he will be a wise man or a foole c. And he mentions my Consequence viz. The Oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it an unlawful Oath And he makes this Answer First I allow of the Antecedent but utterlie denie the Consequence of it Reply But it must be understood that I mean it as it is now made use of and insisted upon and urged by many who have taken it of an absolute Oath to them whatsoever they prove to be For the strength of the Reason which I bring against it lies in these words They may bind themselves therebie to their own hurt and ruine which if it be not absolute they cannot do therefore I dispute against it as absolute as I did against the other branch of it But let his Reason of the whole CONSEQUENCE be weighed 1 Saith he This Inference is directlie contrarie to that which Solomon in the place cited Eccles 2. 19. makes from the words Solomons is Yet shall he have Rule over all my labour wherein I have laboured and wherein I have shewed my self wise under the Sun This mans is in effect because no man knows whether he will be a wise man or a foole therefore he shall not have Rule Reply 1 Let the text be weighed and truly examined and it wil appear that Solomon speaks not of the kingdom which he was to leave to his Son whether a wise man or a fool but he speaks of his labour wherein he had laboured in getting Riches in gathering Wealth in building Houses in planting Vineyards in improving of his earthly Estate in the World He shewes there is a vanity in it His Son shal have Rule over al. In Vers 18. he saith He hated all his labour because of this which cannot be meant of his labor in the Kingdom in Government and it is sutable to that in Job 14. 21. Psal 49. 10. 2 If Solomon should mean it of the Rule of the Kingdom yet he speaks not of it as a thing that he did approve of but of it as that which he counted vanity 2 He saith The same Reason if it hold would be against anie Oath or Engagement to anie Rulers in being whatsoever they are for say they become to maturitie and for the past and present time have given proof yet who knows what they that are now wise and just morallie may hereafter come to be The Scripture supposeth That not onlie a just Father may have a wicked Son but a righteous man in Profession and External carriage may turn from his carriage c. Reply 1 This Reason of his wherewith he disputes against the Exception that I make viz. Of Oathes to Heirs is very strong against himself in reference to absolute Oathes which he would maintain and shews how dangerous absolute oathes to Princes or other Governors are and how destructive they may become if not
them As the late King gave out He would never have anie more Parliaments And if the Scots had not frighted and forced him probably he would have made his saying good What are al these if the People be absolutly bound to Allegâ—ance whether the Prince Rule wel or il and must obey in lawful things and be passive in al the rest And suppose they may oppose Wil it not engender a War and how that War may issue who can foretel It may be a Kingdoms Ruine here is then but a poor Remedy such an oath then as endangers al this cannot be lawful nor is it fit to be kept But he comes to examine my Third Exception against the Oath of Allegiance Which is against swearing to anie one kind of Government absolutlie wiihout admitting of a change for a greater good and benefit and to prevent inconvenience and hurtfulness which hath been observed to come through such a Government And 1 He blames the form of arguing in these words I observe saith he there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument as somewhat transgressing the Rules of Arguing 1 In the Consequent there is something of the Error called Ignoratio Elenthi for we swear not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitlie or indeterminatlie to uphold one Government continuallie and not to change 1 We swear onlie to his Majestie his Heirs and Successors so that when ever they are extinct which may be sooner or later as divine Providence disposeth the Oath of it self ceaseth and determineth Replâ— â—n swearing to Heirs we swear to al that are of the blood for the â—â— Heirs in Law and while any of them are alive the oath never ceaseâ—â— and the blood hath lasted neer 600 yeers already and may last probably enough til Doomes Day 2 Swearing to Successors though not of bloud though al the bloud should be extinct is a swearing that there shal be Successors and that we wil obey them And is not this to swear indefinitly to uphold one kind of Government where is then that fault viz. Ignoratio Elenchi 2. Notwithstanding the Allegiance sworn to the said persons there is power of change in the Government left to the mutual Consent of both parties to wit those sworn to and them swearing as it is in al humane Contracts and Oathes of this nature Reply 1 But this man hath sure forgotten that which he hath often asserted viz. That the Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors was without anie Condition or reserve of a disingagement or that it was due by absolute and unalterable Rule and without dependance upon another and not with mutual respect Which if he have spoken the truth wil be an impediment to this power of change by mutual consent However it be it s very palpable that he hath contradicted himself in his Assertions 2 If the Oath be to Heirs and Successors and binding how can he say They may be discharged through mutual consent from that part of it which concerns Heirs without Contradiction again to himself in reference to what he asserts afterwards in pag 8. His words are these Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God And those Precepts Rom. 13. 4. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof And dotlâ— not that Law Command everie People and Person Allegiance to their lawful Governors And was not the King in Being and his Heirs in Capacitie and Designation such Thus he Disputes against absolution from the Oath of Allegiance not only in reference to the King in Being but also in reference to his Heirs in Capacity and Designation as a breach of the Law of God and yet it seems by mutual Consent the King in Being and the People may dispence with this Law of God and may cut off the Heirs from Regnancy and change the Government and not be guilty of breaking this Law of God 3 This grant that he makes of a power of change through consent is as good as nothing for how unreasonable wil it be to conceive That a Person in Possession of a Kingdom wil consent to loose it and alter the Government The Second fault he finds in the form of Arguing is in the Minor There is saith he somewhat of the fallacie called Petitio principii namelie That anie kind of Government granted to be lawful can prove inconvenient and hurtful to the Subjects The Governors indeed may prove bad and so indeed a change in the persons or a regulating of them is the apt remedie for that hurt but the Government is the Ordinance of God and hath a political goodness seated in its being Reply But he forgets himself again and makes that to be Petitio Principii which he had before granted and doth afterwards grant in that comparison which he makes betwixt several kinds of Governments and several Callings He had said pag. 2. in that distinction of the goodnesse of means tending to the happinesse of a Community That it was variable in relation to times and people and that that may be good in the nature of a means for one people or time that is not so for another And he cites out of Aristotle Pol. Lib. 3. these words Est enim genus hominum naturâ varia comparatum atque affectum aliud servile aliud colendis Regibus accommodatum aliud timo craticum populare atque horum generum suum cuique est ac distinctum commodum And more there is exserted by him out of Aristotle to this purpose And then afterwards in comparing diversity of Governments to diversity of Callings he doth by Consequence speak the same thing again viz. That though al Governments be according to God warranted in the Scriptures and in that sense Gods Ordinance as al lawful Callings are for there is no difference but what may be said of the one in this respect may be said of the other yet al Governments are not alike good and profitable alike congruous and agreeable alike safe and sutable to al people nay there may be a comparative evilnesse and hurtfulnesse in some Governments to some Common-wealths some Common-wealths know how to put a bridle upon Kings better then others can and so it is in Callings which is his own Comparison some Callings though good in themselves and Gods Ordinance in the sense before expressed yet hurtful to some persons and pernicious also and therefore to bind up to one Calling is unlawful especially when by experience it hath been found hurtful through the unsutablenesse thereof and so it is of Governments and so he cavils against that as not granted which yet is granted by himself more then once Having done with the form of Arguing he comes to consider of the Argument it self which is That man may change Government for his greatest good and must change it upon experience of the hurtfulnesse of it And he flatly denyes it and saith No Position is more Anarchical then this is Reply 1 But it was necessary that
first he should have done me right and taken up my words in a right sense and then have shewed the Anarchie in them but he puts a false sense upon my words and then disputes against them It is said in the Argument That man may change Government he takes it up for every particular man and then cryes out of Anarchie but without al reason for this word man is frequently in common phrase of Speech and in Scripture acception the same with men Let not man prevail is the same with Let not men prevail Vain is the help of man is al one with Vain is the help of â—en and so here man is put for men And man is sometimes in Scripture put for Rulers and the great ones amongst men Who art thou that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that is a man in power and authority who is wont to be a terror unto other men and so here man is put for the principal Men amongst the People and my inference which I make from 1 Pet. 2. 13. shews the sense in which I understood it as he might easily have conceived if he had pleased It is this If an Ordinance of man then man may change it that is If it be not expresly commanded of God but left to the liberty of man at the first to establish what form of Government he liketh best then man that is such men which at first Erected it may change it Now these are chief men chosen out of al the People because al the people cannot meet together conveniently nor without confusion act and which have the peoples power if these set up Kingly Government they may upon experience of the hurtfulnesse of it change it and establish another which they apprehend more safe and profitable And where is the Anarchie in this Position or Assertion And what is become of al his Disproofs which he offers Are they not Shafts shot against the wal and break themselves 2 He himself confesseth man may change it For doth he not say That the persons swearing and the persons sworn to may by mutual consent change it And are not these man And is not he become Anarchical now in his own Position But let the strength of his Disproofs be weighed His First Disproof is from Prov. 24. 21. His words are these 1 He saith man may change the Government c. but the holie Ghost Prov. 24. 21. saith My Son fear thou the Lord and the King meddle not with them that are given to change He alloweth a change to be for greater good but the holie Ghost tels us in the next words vers 22. For their Calamitie shal rise suddenlie and who knoweth the ruine of them both Reply The sense that he puts upon this Scripture is abusive to the place and a wronging of the holy Ghost therein For the first words Fear the Lord and the King serve to give light to al the rest and the sense of the after words must carry respect unto those former words Meddle not with those that are given to change It is as if he should say Meddle not with those that wil change the Decrees and Precepts of God and the King and so neither fear God nor the King The wife man admonisheth that we would abstain from the fellowship of those which detract from the Commands of God and the King speaking evil of them and bringing others to the contempt of them So Iansenius upon the place And Wilcock Such as varie viz. from the Command of God and the King agreeing together are the persons that are given to change And Tremelius upon the place understands it of persons violating the Commands of God and of the King and departing from the reverence of God and of the King in the disobedience of their Life and Conversation the Calamity of such shal rise suddenly and who knoweth the Ruine of them both that is of such who do so contemn God and the King and others who are associated with them And what is this against changing the Government when it is by the Governors breaking of Gods Laws and the Laws of the Land become hurtful and ruinous 2 He saith If men may change for the better and must change then are all Oathes Engagements Promises of Obedience to Magistrates unlawful to be undertaken for all such Bonds are in relation to a present and particular Government the Engagers are under and they are not for the time present or for an instant but for a future Continuance And there is in all such Engagements a making over the right which the Engagers have in the matter Covenanted to the persons engaged to either then such a change may not must not be or such Engagements may not must not be by them undertaken But the Scripture is cleer enough for such Engagements Eccles 8. 2. 2 King 11. 4. Iosh 1. 16 17 18. Iudg. 8. 9 10. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Reply 1 All such Oathes should be Conditional and then they cannot be unlawful as hath often been shewed and as for the persons where the chief Power resides viz. The Representatives of the people they should never absolutly bind their own hands in Engaging to any Governors or Magistrates whatever for they sel away the peoples Liberties and betray their trust in so doing But they are to be the Eyes of the People to spie out the wayes of the Peoples safety and â—elicity No more then the present Parliament ought to make any absolute Engagement to any Councel of State but with Limitation of the good of the Subject of which they must be Judges and yet it will not follow thaâ— such an Engagement would be only for an instant but it may be for long Continuance if the good of the Subject wil permit it And as for the People their swearing ought to be with Subordination to their Trustees which Represent them There is therefore no strength in the Consequence viz. If there be a libertie to Change there must be no Engagement There may be liberty of Change in Servants that live with such Masters yet there may be an Engagement to them There may be liberty of Change in people in reference to Pastors amongst them and yet there may be Engaging also And as for the Scriptures that are brought to prove the lawfulnesse of Engaging they might have been spared for the lawfulnesse of it is not denyed Provided That such Engaging be Conditional and therefore they need no Answer 3 This his Position not onlie disaloweth all such Engagement but dissolves the Natural and Moral Bond it self of Dutie and Subjection to Magistrates For to be free to Change when a man judgeth it best is to be free when he wil and that is Not to be tyed at all c. and then a man may disobey Commands and take up Arms and be exempt from the Sword of the Magistrate because such an Oath to continue anie Government longer then he thinks it safe saith this Doctor
him and his Vicegerents Rom. 13. 24. 2 Chr. 19. 6. and therefore cannot stand at the meer will of the People God must have a hand in their removal as he hath in their admission or else it is injurious he râ—moves and admits now not by immediate revelation as sometime in Israel but by the rule of his Word executed by man He hath given a rule for the setting up of Magistrats but where hath he given anie for their deposing Reply As Magistrates are Gods Ordinance so they are Mans Ordinance because man determines both of the kind of Government and doth also design the men but alwayes according to Gods Word And as they are Judges for him and his Vicegerents so they are Judges for the Common-wealth and their Substitutes They Judge for God viz. His Glory and for the People viz. Their Good Rom. 13. 4. And it being confessed That their admission and removal is not immediatly from God but by men according to Gods Word it wil follow That in that way by which Regularly they enter into Power and Office by that way they may be put forth and removed from Office For Eorum est deponere quorum est ponere And let me see that Rule that God hath given for setting up and I doubt not but I shal make the same Rule serve for putting down Indeed That Scripture wherein it is said That Kings c. are the Ordinances of Man doth impower man both to set-up and to pul down 6 If it were in the Peoples power to change their Magistrates at pleasure then how could it be such a heinous sin as it is challenged to be for the People to reject Samuels Government desire move for a King 1 Sam. 8. 6 7. 12. 17 Reply Samuels Government was Gods Government for there were Elders of the People and Princes of the Tribes by whom the People were ordinarily Governed and there were Judges raised up by God immediatly at certain times when they were molested by the Nations round about them of which Samuel was one Now that which God had Constituted That they might not Change especially not for a worse as they did when they chose Kingly Government after the manner of the Nations After al his own Reasons against change of Government he comes to weigh my Reason for the lawfulnesse of Change which was this That though Civil Government in general be the Ordinance of God for mans good therefore to reject it would be sin yet this or that kind of Government is not the Ordinance of God but an Ordinance of man and therefore man may change it And against these words is not the Ordinance of God but an Ordinance of man he bends himself by several Arguments to overthrow it and yet in the issue he establisheth it And because my words in point of cleernesse were not so ful he takes advantage but yet opening that text of Peter which I aleadge for the proof of my Assertion he gives my sense wherein I made use of it but I shal set down his Exception in his own words Civil Government in the general cannot be said to be Gods Ordinance and therfore unrejectable but this or that kind of Government that is a legitimate and true species of it must necessarilie be yeelded to be Gods Ordinance and unrejectable Reply When I expresse my self in these words This or that kind of Government is not the Ordinance of God but the Ordinance of man my meaning was This or that kind of Government is not in such sort or sense the Ordinance of God as Government in general is that is Is not by special Institution imposed upon al or any people as Government in general is is not by Commandement laid upon any people to necessitate the receiving of it as Government in general is So that it cannot be said of any special Government That if a Nation or People receive it not admit it not it sins in not doing it as it may be said of Government in general That if any People receives it not that People sins in not receiving it And because I speak of sinning in the not-admitting of the one and not of sinning in the not-admitting of the other it is plain That I meant it in the sense that I have now expressed it And in this sense he concurs with me his words are Government in its special nature is Warranted for anie People but not Commanded or Imposed as Government in general is upon everie Nation and he saith afterwards That Peter terms Government Mans Ordinance because both the special form of Government and the persons holding it are chosen and so immediatly Constituted by man And this is that which I assert So that when I said That Government in specie was not an Ordinance of God my meaning was It was not an Ordinance by any special Commandment as government in general was it was not immediatly Constituted by God but by men God doth not so Institute the kinds of Officers in Common-wealths as he doth the kinds of Officers in Churches And in this lay the strength of my Reason Therefore if the special kinds of Government be not Commanded by God but chosen and immediatlie Constituted by men then they may be changed by men Provided That their grounds be sufficient to bear such a Change And to this he replyeth nothing nor disables it at al so that the Reason stands in strength and the Consequence is firm and unshaken viz. That such an Oath that tends absolutlie to uphold anie one forme of Government is unlawful But he urgeth this Argument against my words in the sense that he took them as if I had asserted That they were not the Ordinance of God at al and saith thus Whatever is predicated of the genus or general nature is predicated of the species or special nature Reply I appeal to the Reader Whether he doth not herein Contradict himself afterwards when he saith That of the general nature of Government it may be said That it is the Commandment of God but of the special kind of Government he saith that it cannot be said That it is the Commandment of God but warranted onlie by God There is also a Second Contradiction in his words whilst he prosecutes against my Expression so earnestly if my understanding fail me not he saith in one place That Government is Instituted in its special nature by God and afterwards he saith It is not Commanded by God and that both the special forme of Government and the persons holding it are immediatlie Constituted by men There is also a Third Contradiction which in this bad Cause which he manageth he runneth into He had said in pag. 5. The King as King Acts onlie by his Courts and Laws and what he doth besides these is the Man 's not the Kings and that things may be done against his personal Commands Yet in this place he saith The Magistrates not the Government abstractlie are called Gods
is sinful Reply It is not my Position but his own Fiction that dissolves al Government For I have not asserted but he hath imagined so much That any man may be free to Change when he judgeth it best but I place the power of erecting and plucking up and changing for the Common-wealths Good where it ought to be of right in the Representatives of the People As for that Title which in scorn he puts upon me I passe it over knowing That it is more his shame to do it then mine to suffer it But saith he I would fain have him declare what thing Magistracie and Subjection is Reply The Apostle hath declared Rom. 13. 1 c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. to which I adhere Magistracy is a Principallity or higher Power ordained of God and yet in reference to the special form of Government and the persons holding it chosen and immediatly constituted by men for their good And Subjection is the Peoples acknowledging and obeying for their own good this Principallity to ordained of God 2 Sam. 15 20. 1 Kim 11. 26. 1. 12. c. Act. 5. 36. and so constituted by men 4 He saith This Doctrine wil acquit and justifie all the Conspiracies and Treasons that ever were enterprised against the power of the Magistrate since the World was for all will be pretended to be for the great good of the Common-wealth Reply This is a great slander that is cast upon this Doctrine so far as it is mine for seeing that it only reserves a liberty in Common-wealths to change upon weighty Causes which their Representatives are Judges of and Agents in it justifies no particular persons noâ— particular parties Risings but it may be truly said That this Doctrine cuts the comb of al Tyranny and wil force and constrain Goâ—ernors to a good behaviour But after he had so greatly aspersed and vilified this Doctrine as he cals it which indeed was formed in his own heart he approacheth somewhat neerer to the truth of my Assertion by way of Objection but reacheth not fully the sense in which I intended it His words are these But it may be said Not particular men or a lesser partie are to judge of the expediâ—ncie or take in hand the change but the whole People And he argues against it thus 1 He saith Seldoâ—e or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Government of themselves affect or move to a Change it is the flatterers and dâ—ceivers of the people that lead the people to it Reply If they do not affect and move to a Change yet if their Representatives do it who are not I hope in this mans accompt the flatterers and deceivers of the People but the Trusâ—â—es or tâ—e people for their good the people do it in them unlesse they do in their Petitions generally appear against it 2 How the judgement and will of the whole Bodie of the people saith he should be known and declared unto execution before particular men Act to a Change of their own private judgement is to me a thing unimaginable Reply When the whole Body of a people have entrusted certain Selected ones with their Power their Trustees meeting together and holding Corespondence with the several Counties and Places that Chose them and sent them out in their Name mav act for a Change for the peoples good And is this unimaginable Besides If this were not yet the Common-wealth consists of rational sociable Creatures which meet at Church and Market as the saying is that is have occasions of the Communication of Councels and so it comes to passe That the apprehensions of some men comes to be the Spirit of the most of the People nor is there any indirectnesse or unlawfulnesse in this 5 He saith This necessitie of retaining a power in Subjects to Change and of using it for a greater good or removing of a temporal hurt in opposition to an Oath sworn against that Change is directlie against these Scriptures tying men that swear to their own â—urt not to Change Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 18 19. and condemning those that for such ends have receded from their Oathes Ezek. 17. 13. c. Iosh 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam. 21. 2. Reply 1 These Scriptures have been oft made use of and often Answered That in Psal 15. 4. speaks of particular mens swearing for the adâ—anâ—age and good of another and their own disadvantage but speaks not of things that have been and may be pernicious not to single persons alone but to Common-wealths and not profitable to any unlesse to saitsfie the lusts of some parricular persons And I would ask Whether if a Common-wealth should swear Succession of Judges in al the Courts within it self should such an Oath stand or not Or whether would not such an Oath rather fal under his own Exception That the thing sworn to must be just and honest else it is not obliging And I would know a Reason wherefore it should not much rather be asserted of the supream Judge 2 If there hath been such a perpetuating Oath to any Family yet it is Conditional while that Family carrieth it justly and according to the Laws of the Kingdom and so it is That as a Family advanceth it self sometimes by vertue over the people meriting their favour as Gideon did and gaining their Promise yea oath that they shal Rule and their Son and their Sons Son So a Family may by vice dishonour it self and lose that favour and be adjudged worthy to be sleighted and Cashiered yea Censured and Punished as Sauls house came to reproach and ignominie And an Oath or many Oathes would not have supported it or confirmed it 3 That Oath of Josh 9. 18 19. to the Gibeonites was ratified after they knew that they were their neighbors and after they knew that they had transgressed the Commandement of the Lord though unwillingly by making peace with them and therefore if they had not had some special warrant from the Lord for it it would have been in them double iniquity to have confirmed it But it s more then probable That being it was in Ioshua's dayes to whom God did much reveal himself and seeing they had mist it by rashnesse before in not enquiring at Gods mouth they went to God about it and had his direction in it therefore the offence of Saul became so heinous as 2 Sam. 21. 2. shews 4 That in Ezek. 17. 13. c. is not for his turn but rather against him For 1 Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah King who was not King til he made him and so he was of Nebuchadnezzar's setting up 2 Nebuohadnezzar took of him an Oath to be faithful and he brake this Oath 3 Therefore Nebuchadnezzar justly came against him and deposed him and put out his eyes and carried him to Babylon and so indeed originally it was the Common-wealth in their Representatives make the King for their best Title was from Parliament and they take him sworn to Rule according
to the Laws and he breaks his oath and they declare the Common-wealth disingaged from him and they not not only remove him but suffer not any of his Seed to Reign Thus it appears he strengthens that by Scripture which he would invalidate Other Answers have been given besides this when this Text hath been urged to which I refer the Reader 6 That Position so much insisted upon now a-dayes of the Peoples tower to depose abolish and alter the power of their Governors at pleasure which is actuallie setled and both in it self lawful and lawfully set over them I hold is a grosse error Reply I know no such Position insisted on in Terminis as he layes down nay I know That al wise godly men do abhor such a Position of deposing abolishing their lawful Governors at pleasure But that Parliaments may do it in the Peoples Name upon just and weighty Causes is asserted and wil be maintained But saith he Some of my Reasons in short are Reply His Reasons might be over-passed with out any answer because they be Reasons of a Position of his own Invention and will not be owned by them at whom he strikes at in it yet they shal be considered of 1 He saith Such a course supposing the Governors dissent is no other then that resistance of the Ordinance of God condemned Rom. 13. 2. Reply 1 This Reason suits not with the Position which he undertakes to Confute in the limitations that he gives it For he saith That the Governors must be lawfully set over but the Governors Rom. 13. 2. were set over the People by the Souldery by the power of the Sword And yet he saith To remove such when their continuance is for the peoples hurt without their own consent is a resisting of an Ordinance of God which I beleeve when he considereth more seriously of wil not appear truth in his own eyes 2 The Text of Rom. 13. hath nothing at al to do with neither meddleth it with a States Changing his Governors and altering for the better but he requires obedience to received Governors in lawful things while they remain Governors and are in their Offices I suppose he wil not deny but that the Senate of Rome while the power was theirs though they obeyed Dictators and Emperors whilst they continued them might yet upon just cause remove them without falling under the guilt of resisting the Ordinance of God condemned in Rom. 13. 2. 2 It is directlie opposue to that Subjection commanded every soul that is in relation of a Subject Rom 13. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Reply This may receive the like Answer with the former and in the instance of Pastors in reference to their flocks may be morefully cleered Is it required in Heb. 13. 17. That the People obey them that have the Rule over them in the Lord and to submit unto them but this doth not take away their power of removing them from their Offices upon their unworthy and un-Pastor-like carriages Suppose to prevent controversies it be in a place where there is no Classis 3 It the People may do it then it must needs be that they have a Civil Power over their Magistrates which is contrarie to those Scripâ—ures which make the King Supream 1 Pet. 2. 13. and call the Powers that the People are to be Subject to Higher Powers Rom. 13. 1. higher in relation to them c. And if the Magistrates be over the People how are they under them to be removed or changed by them c If the Magistrate be under the People whom are they over If the People be above the Magistrate whom are they under c Reply The People may be considered either in Themselves or in their Substitutes and Representatives in Themselves and so they may be taken as they are a Community or Common-wealth collectively Or distributively as individual persons and members of the Community or Common-wealth If they be considered as a Community the Root of al Civil power is in them and they are Supream and greater then all the individual members of them so far as concerns right but not so far as concerns the exercise of power for that is in their Substitutes and Trustees who have the power of the Community for the exercise of it The Representatives also may be considered in a two-fold Respect as a Parliament and Court Collectively and so they set up Judges and Officers and Magistrates both the Superiour and the Inferiour and are greater then they Or they are considered singly and personally and as out of Courts and as priâ—ate men and so they are lesser and inferior to the very Officers which they themselves in Court do make So any Parliament-man is subject to inferiour Courts and the Judges thereof as other men are And a King or any other Chief-Magistrate or Magistrates by what Title soever you wil cal them may be considered in reference to the People as they are a Common-wealth Collectively and so he is not Superiour or greater then they in the right of Power though in the exercise he is But consider him in reference to any of the members singly whether in Office or Office he is greater both in power and in the exercise of it then any other either person or party So of the Representatives they are al Subjects singly and a part considered and he is supream over them al but Collectively considered they having the power of the Common-wealth and he set up by the Common-wealth or by them in the Common-wealths name they are greater then he and he himself in that sense is but a Subject though the principal in reference to that great authority wherwith he is entrusted Thus a Prince is Major singulis Minor universis greater then any part but lesse then the whole And indeed there is sound Reason for it Kings are for Common-wealths and not Common-wealths for them and therefore Common-wealths are greater They are Ministers saith the Apostle as to God so in a sense to Common-wealths for their good Common-wealths create them and impower them therefore they are lesse then them The Representatives also may be considered as Sitting and then no Magistrate is supream to them or as not Sitting and then the Magistrate King or other chief Governor may be called supream in the exercise of Power though not in the right of it 4 The holie Ghost commands the People To render Tribute Custome Fear Honor not at random to the Magistrate leaving them at libertie to what they please but to whom they are due which respects a determinate object the present Magistrate Reply The whole of this may be granted for it serves only to prove subjection to the present Magistrate but it hinders not a Change but that if Reason and the good of the Community require one may be removed and another set up in his stead and he who is impowered is to have the tribute 5 Magistrates are of God his Ordinance and Ministers and Iudges for