I shal therefore passe over them Afterwards in the Second place he layes down a contradictory Assertion in these words The Oath of Allegiance may be Absolute or unconditional And he renders Reasons for it 1 He saith Were there no Oath the limitted obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutly whether they Rule well or no and that which is absolutly due may be absolutly sworn Reply This is only true while they acknowledge them to be their Princes and Magistrates and do continue them in those Offices and Places and it is as true of every Constable what misdemeanour soever he be guilty of yet he must have that observance of his Place from all while in his Place But the Question is When Princes and Magistrates Rule amisse not to the welfare but ruine of the people over whom they are Magistrates Whether the People be not in that case absolved from al Tye and Obligation to them as Magistrates if they will that is Whether the Representatives of the People which have the Peoples power for the Executive part of it may not if they wil yea and in many Cases are bound in faithfulnesse to the People and for their good to declare such Princes and Magistrates in reference to such miscariages to be no longer Governors and so therein to free the People from their Allegiance to them And it is asserted in the Position That they may if they wil. A Pastor of a Church miscarries in the execution of his Office and becomes a Wolf to devour rather then a Pastor to feed the Church of Christ Is not his Flock notwithstanding bound to obey him in the Lord and according to Rule whilest he remains a Pastor to them But the Question is Whether it be not the Duty of such where the Power is To Depose him from his Office and therein to absolve the People from such Duty as such an Office cals for And so it is in this Case of a Prince or Pastor to a Common-wealth But he Confirms this REASON by Seven other Reasons Reas 1. The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors is without any condition or reserve from a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governors miscarriage reade the 5th Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13. 1 2 c. T it 3. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 13. c. Reply It is to be understood whilest they are Governors and whilest they are Fathers and the same may be spoken of Pastors of Churches for they are Fathers and there is no reserve for a disingagement from duty towards such whilest the office of such lasts But the Question is Whether there be no Reserve for a disingagement from the Office it self and the Relation in reference to that Office as it respects such a person who hath miscarried in it If that be asserted the Fifth Commandement wil not prove it not those places quoted For there are Two sorts of Fathers included in that Commandement there is a Natural Father whose relations is indissolvable what ever the miscarrying be and there is an Instituted Father which originally the People both in Church and Common-wealth were wont to create for the Common good of them all And such a Father as the People make or their Elders or Patriots for them the People may lay aside or their Representatives on their behalf upon misdemeanors in Government the relation in this Fatherhood is not indissolvable and those Scriptures quoted contradict not this For it is known wel That in those times there were great Changing of the Chief Magistrate which took off the People and freed them from their duty when their relation ceased Reas 2. God coÌ„mands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive Tyrants that likely ever have been Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I speak not here oâ— Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose â—itles aâ—e just but their Government unjust and oppressive Reply 1 But did God ever Command the Heads of the people who had the power of al the people to continue such in their Places if they had power to remove them It is one thing what God Commands particular parsons to do that have no Power no manner of way and what the duty of the Chief of al the people who represent them is to do 2 Were not those very persons many of them â—yranâ—s in Title aswel as in Government concerning whom God Commands his People That they should be subject to them Did not the Emperors advance themselves by the power of their Armies that they commanded to whom the Senate was forced to yeeld and yet subjection is required whilst they were in Place What can be said of Nebuchadnezzar himself Was his Title good getting all by the Sword as he did and yet Subjection is commanded to him as his own quotation proves So that it is manifest That al the Scriptures which he produceth are as strong to prove that which he disapproves of as they are to prove that which he would prove by them Reas 3. Servants are to be subject to their Masters not only to them that are good and gentle but those that are froward and that do them wrong 1 Pet. 2. 18 19 20. and by Analogy Subjects are tyed in the same â—erms to their Governors Reply Servants in those dayes were such who were bought with their Moneis and were their Slaves as now many Christians are to the Turks therefore in subjection they must be both to the Good and Froward and could not help themselves and the Apostle exhorts them to be contented and patient in their condition for the Lords sake But yet elsewhere he exhorts them That if they could be free they would chuse it rather Now I hope this mans scope is not To put Common-wealthes into this Condition of Servility and Slavery to Princes Nor will he grant such an absoâ—ute Dominion to Princes as to Masters over such Servants Such Servants were for their Masters when their Masters had bought them But Common-wealths are not for Princes but Princes for Common-wealths therefore there is no parity betwixt the one and the other The subjection of Common-wealths must not be a bondage as the subjection of such Servants was unlesse it be that som people have forfeited their freedom by some Rebellion or wicked bloudy hostile acts as the Irish have done The yoke may be heaâ—ie on such justly and yet they have no cause to kick against it Reas 4. David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground for that he was his Master the King of Israel and the Lords Anointed though he was then in actual violent and unjust pursuit of his life 1 Sam. 24. 5 c. 26. â— c. Reply David at that time was but a private man and Saul was King unquestioned by the Heads of Israel and Sauls persecution was but of one private mans
extend but to the detriment of some particular persons rarely doth any Nero-like seek the destruction of the whole But on the other hand set the people free to shake off the reins of their present Government when they shall think it unequal and 1 You destroy the nature of Government as will afterwards be shewed 2 You expose the people to an immediate losse of the very use and enjoyment of any Government the power of mobility and change being sure to invite al ill-disposed persons immediatly to put that power in ure and hurry all if they may prevail into consusion In short a bad Government is better then none it is more tolerable for a people that one or few then that every man do that which is right in his own eyes To be bound to Allegiance may lay the people open to the former to be loose will precipitate them into the latter The former inconvenience cannot be so universally extensive speedily destructive and remediless or unresistible as the latter 2 The latter thing I premised is to give my Reasons for the contradictory to his Major Proposition in that first part It must be Conditional not Absolute Against which I say The oath of allegiance may be absolute or unconditional in the sense before given and for this Assertion I render these Reasons 1 Were there no Oath the limited obedience which is due to Princes and Magistrates is due to them absolutly that is Whether they Ruâ—e well or no and that which is absolutly due may be obsolutly sworn The former Proposition I ground thus 1 The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors is without any condition or reserve of a disingagement of the Subject in case of the Governors miscarriage reade the Fifth Commandement and those other Injunctions Rom. 13. 1 2 c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13 c. 2 God commands his people to be subject to Heathen Princes and the most absolute and oppressive Tyrants that likely ever have ben Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I speak not here of Tyrants in regard of Title or Right that is Usurpers but of Tyrants whose Title is just but their Government unjust and oppressive 3 Servants are to be subject to their Masters not only that are good and gentle but those that are froward and do them wrong and from whom they suffer for wel-doing 1 Pet. 2. 18 19 20. and by Analogy Subjects are tyed in the same terms to their Governors 4 David would not stretch out his hand against Saul upon this ground for that he was his Master the King of Israel and the Lords Anointed though he was then in actual violent and unjust pursuit of his life 1 Sam. 24. 5. c. 26. 9. c. 5 Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to pray for and patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing and your innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty ‡ Ames Medula Theol. l. 1. c. 17. p. 57. Vrsin Cat. p. 3. q. 104 6 Els you dissolve all Magistracy it will be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of Magistratical affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23. 3 5. 7 The Doctrin of orthodox Protestant Divines generally is That obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannical Princes ‡ Calvin Inst l 4 c. 20. §. 24 25 c. Pet. Mart. loc C cl 4. C. 2. §. 12. 18 19. Al 's Theol. C. 17. Reg. 8. Perk C. of Cons l. 3 c. 6. §. 1â— Buc. Insti Theol. loc 49. q. 21. Synop. puâ— Theol. dis 50. Thes 18. 27. Sharp sim Epoch 5. Q. 44. 45. 2 We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any Conditions inserted Judg. 11. 9 10. 2 King 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. Nehem. 10. 29. Their oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one 3 It is a thing within our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to service so whether his Master prove good or evil or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in Marriage whether the mate be observant of duty or no 4 A Conditional oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to Magistrates is no less arbitrary but commanded and that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullisie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant That which is due the latter way if the Covenant be conditional the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditional but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an oath a condition being put into your oath being a very probable medium to perswade the swearer that he is no otherwayes bound to the things sworn then upon that Condition which being broken by that party sworn to he will easily conceive himself altogether free Thus the absolute Rule will receive impeachment and not strength in its obligation by the conditional oath such an oath therefore is in its end inconsistent with it 2 I come to the latter part of his Major which exacteth That the Oath be mutual or taken both by Ruler and Ruled not single or taken only by the ruled Some explanation of his terms more then is here he might have used for lack whereof I shall as I go observe some difference of sense appliable to his words and so expresse how I deny this branch of his Position and why 1 His words sound as if he would have the same oath to be taken mutually both by Prince and Subject which if he remember that the oath spoken of is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance obedience or subjection to be yeelded to his Sovereign and that the King is the person sworn to he will noâ— cannot I suppose own to be his sense 2 But the apter sense and that which I suppose was in his intention is That the Ruler and Subject should each swear to his respective duty the Prince That he will Command and Govern lawfully the Subject That he will perform all lawful homage and obedience And to this I say Although it be true it in fact in our case that the King hath sworn his duty on his part as well
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
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
according to Laws and to obey according to Laws is necessary and admitts of no variation because it conduceth absolutly to the good of the Community but to govern and obey according to the same Laws is not necessary but variable according to places and times Unto this head of the goodnesse of means conducing to such an End viz. The happinesse of the Community he makes a firm Sanction by an absolute Oath that there may be a kind of immutability in States and Governments thereby to appertain And saith It is the wisdom of most States so to setle them to prevent the danger of Innovation and changes And â—e makes this to be a better means of the Communities happinesse then the other of Conditional parts and Covenants with the Prince For he speaks of the evil of swearing to a Prince absolutly to be but inconvenience disadvantagiousnesse prejudice outward incommodity impeachment of the Subjects good but the evils of a Conditional or unabsolute Engagement he speaks of them as Mischief and Misery and when the other is in his accompt but uncertain danger he makes this inevitable hurt Reply If all this be true then the Constitution of our State was not so prudently considered by our fore-Fathers when they Established a mixt Government as might have been and so much expence of Bloud to recover the Subjects Liberty and Propriety was a great sin For it had been better for the Subject if he have said truth to have yeelded themselves up to the Will of their Prince to have submitted quietly to an arbritrary power and to have borne an Iron yoke for ever then to have contended with him and our Brethren of Scotland did ill to give us such an Example as first to appear in Arms against him But rational men must first put out their eyes before they can beleeve such a Paradox For can there be a greater Mischief and Misery then thraldom and slavery then losse of Religion Liberty Propriety Life it self For all these will lie at stake and be hazarded by an absolute Oath firmly kept and observed War with all the effects of it that can follow such conditional Engagements is but a short Misery and not so ignominious as the other for persons live and die like men in it but in the other they live and die like beasts and all their life is but a long-lived death But many in these dayes are like the Israelites who when in bondage and under Pharoahs yoke cryed to God and sighed and groaned and then it was a condition intollerable but when they were delivered and saw War and found some evils they expected not then they judged it better to be in Egyptagain and then the state of cruel Servitude was but an inconvenience in comparison of the other Mischief But let the mischief of a Conditional Engagement be what it will it must be chosen and the absolute must be avoided because Liberty and Propriety c. are the happinesse of a Community and the end of Government and the birth-right of all the Subjects which have not forfeited it and ought not to be given away to the will of the Governor and a Conditional Engagement is the means to preserve it He saith Such things as may by reason of their changeable nature prove in the issue somewhat disadvantagious may yet if for the present good and probably hopeful so to continue be sworn to absolutly as in voluntary Promises Leagues and Contracts both publike and private among all Nations hath been the practise and by good Scripture-president it is justified ‡ Gen. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Josh 9. 15 14 9 Judg. 21. 5. 18. 15. 12. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 19. 6. 20. 12. 17 1 King 1. 13. 29. 2 Sam. 19 23. Reply 1 Allegiance which is the thing that he would have absolutly sworn unto may not only prove through the changable nature disadvantagious but also hath and doth often and will certainly at one time or other prove pernicious not to persons only but to Common-wealths 2 An absolute Contract of Allegiance sets up the Prince too high and puts down the Subject too low The one is made by such a Contract more then a man the other is rendered lesse then a man and more like unto a Beast And it is neither for the present good nor hopeful to continue so to put such a distance betwixt them For absolute Sovereignty is Gods Prerogative whose Will is perfectly holy and just and good and not to be attributed to the Creature so full of imperfection and corruption and it layes a temptation before him to miscarry in his Office 3 Some voluntary Promises and Contracts are dissimilia things unlike holding no proportion to the thing in Controversie viz. To the Oath of Allegiance the absolutnesse whereof is by him Asserted and the Instances or Examples in Scripture carry not any kind of Analogy Let them be peâ—used and rational men will wonder that ever they were produced 1 Some of them are not Oaths made to men at all but to God as that in Judg. 21. 5. 18. and some others 2 Others of them are Oathes the performanee whereof lies only on one Party the other is to receive advantage but to do nothing as that in Gen. 47 31. Exod. 13. 19. Josh 9. 15. 14. 9 3 Others of them were Oathes of things that were in their nature pernicious and sinful to be sworn to as that in 1 Sam. 14. 24. Ionathan speaks of it That his Father had troubled Israel and hindred the Lords Work by that Oath of not touching any food till evening And when Saul would have had Ionathan put to death in reference to his violation of that Oath the people rescued him and did well in it And there is none that comes so neer the case as Ionathans and Davids Oath which was not absolute but conditional so as that if the one had broken it the other would have been absolv'd upon it But this Oath of Allegiance is an Oath betwixt persons that owe respective duties to each other and the Obligation of the one hath a respect unto and a dependance on the performance of the other and so is an Oath of another kind then those mentioned in his Scriptures and cannot be absolute as he from these patterns would prove But he gives his Reasons why absolute Allegiance doth not so neerly and probably tend to the Subjects hurt as the Conditional doth 1 He saith The Prince may prove just and vertuous Reply 1 The Conditional Engagement is the best way to make him prove such when he Rules upon his good Behaviour he is more likely to Rule well 2 Most Princes prove not such but unjust and vitious 3 To be left to his own arbitrary Will in Governing is like to prove a temptation and snare to him A lawlesse Liberty to do what he listeth many times corrupteth the Prince 2 He saith If he degenerates the Subjects are bound to obey him actively but in
life it appears not that he was a Tyrant unto the Com-wealth However it iâ— eâ—ident that he was given of God immediatly without the interposition of the people and therefore it might be that he must be taken away by God though he had been a Tyrant But what is this to Princes in these times that have no such immediate Cals to Kingdoms Reas 5. Otherwise you leave no place for passive obedience to prayer for and patience towards Magistrates in case of their wrong doing and your own innocency which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty Reply There will be particular wrongs enough to exercise the patience of particular persons before it come to be miscarriage against the Common-wealth and there will be miscarries enough through weaknesse and invigilancy against the Common-wealth which will exercise the patience of all the people and yet at last if the mischief grow very high and threaten ruine subjection is not so absolute but that the Heads of the people may free themselves and the people from such a yoke Reas 6. Els you dissolve all Magistracy it wil be impossible in mans corrupt estate to retain or continue any in as much as no man or men can in the vast multitude and difficulty of Magistratical affairs avoid offending every day 2 Sam. 23. 3 5. Reply If the people themselves were such Ideots and Children as to expect a Government that should be perfect yet I hope it wil hardly be asserted of their chosen men whom they make their Representatives that they are such and therefore I wonder that ever such a Reason should be produced The High COURT where Wisdome should be seated if any where wil not run stark mad to displace the Supream Governor for infirmity and weaknesse which as a man he is incident unto every day and so therein overthrow al Government No no there hath been experience enough of their long suffering But when a Prince to maintain his Lust wil raise a War to endanger the destruction of al his Subjects then let the REPRESENTATIVES of a people know their Priviledg and Duty which is to serve the People however it goes with the Prince Reas â— The Doctrin of orthodox Protestant Divines generally is That obedience is due in lawful things to the most degenerate oppressing and tyrannical Princes Reply These orthodox Divines speak of subjection of particular persons to such Princes while they are in place and power but they speak not of States which are set up to be at least sharers in Government with the Prince Nor do they presse obedience upon them without any allowance to help themselves by calling him to an accompt in the peoples name 2 He saith We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture sworn to Princes without any Conditions inserted Judg. 11. 9 10. 2 King 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. Nehem. 10. 29. Their Oath was to observe all the Commandements of the Lord whereof the fifth Commandement with application to their present and future Magistrates was one Reply 1 If there be no Condition inserted it wil not follow That therefore there was no Condition but the justice and equity of the thing is to be considered whether iâ— doth not require a Condition and the Rules of general Equity are to be followed which is consonant to yea commanded in the Scripture viz. To do as one would be done unto 2 The places quoâ—ed prove not the thing That in Iudges of the peoples Oath to Iepthah may well be understood with this restriction According to the Laws of the Lord and of the Land for Iepthah was a Beleever and a Judge whom God raised up and it is probable that he would not desire Headship over them upon other terms They were also an unfree people when they Covenanted with Iepthah to advance him to Government and if their Oath were absolute they did not put themselves into a worse Condition thereby but might think it better to be servants to him then slaves to the Ammonites and if it were an absolute Rule which he had he must Merrit it before he had it and was to become their Saviour before their Ruler so that this Instance is not applicable to the thing in Controversie That place in 2 King 11. 14. must be interpreted by Vers 17. where it is said That Ieâ—oâ—ada made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People which implyes that he mutually engaged them and so it was not an absolute Oath That in 2 Chron. 36. 13. speaks of Zedekiahs breach of oath but nothing of any absolute Oath That in Ezek. may receive the same Answer with the former because it belongs to the same thing That in Nehemiah which respects the Observation of the Fifth Commandement hâ—th had its Answer before 3 He saith It is a thing within our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly as well as it is within a mans power to dispose of himself to service whether his Master prove good or evil or as it is in a man or womans power to bestow themselves in Marriage whether the Mate be observant of duty or no Reply The Question is not whether it be in our power to settle our Allegiance absolutly but whether it be in our lawful power to do it or no and the doubt is not the lesse in reference to these Instances which he produceth of a Servant his giving of himself up to his Master irrevokably whether good or bad and of a Man or Woman giving themselves up in Maâ—riage whether the Mate be observant of duty or no but the greaâ—er For it persons be bound to be wise and just and merciful to themselves then they cannot do such a thing without sin and it would be counted a desparate wicked part in a man to bind himself to another to be servant for ever whether he be kind or cruel whether he give him any thing or nothing yea though he take from him that which he hath And the unrighteousnesse of the thing is the same in the case of an absolute Oath to a Magistrate 4 He saith A conditional oath is not consistent with a necessary duty obedience to Magistrats is not left arbitrary but coÌ„manded that though they be bad but now the duty being necessary if you would have it sworn with a proviso of the Rulers performing his duty you nullifie the end of an Oath which is to confirm put out of doubt and give security of what is due A thing sworn may become due either by the rule of Equity or by a voluntary Covenant That which is due the latter way if the Covenant be conditional the Oath that is to ratifie it may be also so far conditional but what is due in the former kind to wit by absolute and unalterable rule or precept of Justice cannot be sworn to conditionally for that would be no ratification to it nay it would be a debilitating and rendering more insecure of that which was simply due without an
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