it were not in Judgment this defect makes not an oath Unlawful as to the nullifying of it A rash oath if of a lawful thing binds Judg. 21. 7. 15. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Josh 9. 14. 15. as before was proved 2 Nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine 1 Though the Subject may not bind himself to what is necessarily or at the time of his swearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt or ruine yet he may swear intending the publick good to that which is of a mutual nature and may in the event turn to his own hurt and ruine and might he not so swear yet having so sworn he is bound to stand to his Oath Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. Judg. 21. 5. 15. 18. which is contradictory to what this man here saith 2 If the Heir should misprove his power is bounded by the Law and commixed with the Parliaments If he vary the power of Parliament the Laws and Liberties of the Subject are the same The late King confessed and declared a remedy against Tyranny to reside in the Parliament there may be a prevention then of the Subjects ruine whatever the Heir prove if the KINGDOME be faithful to it self 3 His Third Exception against the Oath as unlawful and void is That it is to uphold one kind of Government for continuance and in a constant way without changing His Argument to make good this Exception proceeds thus If of the several kinds of Government all are not equally good nor sutable to all People And man may change the Government he is under for his own greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable then to swear to uphold any one Government continually and constantly and not to change it is sinful and in Righteousness and Judgment may not be done But of the several kinds of Government all are not equally good nor sutable to all people and man may change the Government he is under for his own greatest good and benefit and must change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable Ergo For Answer hereunto First I observe there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument as somewhat transgressing the rules of arguing 1 In the Consequence there is something of the error called Ignoratio Elenchi for we swear not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitly or indeterminatly as his words import to uphold one Government continually and not to change First We swear only to His Majesty his Heirs and Successors so that when ever they are al extinct which may be sooner or later as divine Providence disposeth the Oath of it self ceaseth and determines Secondly Notwithstanding the Allegiance sworn to the said persons their Crown and Dignity 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 Oaths Al 's Theol. Cas C. 15. Reg. 2. of this nature ‡ 2 In the Minor there is somewhat of the fallacy called petitio principii namely That any kind of Government granted to be lawful can prove inconvenient and hurtful to the Subjects The Governors indeed may prove bad and noxious and so the Government comes to be abused but a perniciousnesse cannot therefore be charged upon the Government it self nor can that be a necessary ground for the change of Government if so you wil bring in a ground for endlesse Mutations a change in the persons or a regulating of them is the apt remedy for that hurt but the Government the abstract or essence of the thing never can prove hurtful because it is an Ordinance of God for mans good Rom. 13. 12. 4. and that in specie as afterwards wil be shewed and as a Goâ—ernment it hath a political goodnesse seated in its being by the unchangable Law of Nature Secondly But admit the Argument were not peccant in form yet the Assumption in the main of it which is That man may change the Government he is under for his own greatest good and must change it when he hath proved anie Government inconvenient and hurtful and must not uphold anie one Government longer then it continues most safe and profitable I must flatly deny What Position more Anarchical could be delivered For the disproof I offer thus 1 He saith Man may change the Government c. but the holy Ghost saith Prov. 24. 21. My Son fear thou the Lord and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change He alloweth a change to be for greater good but the holy Ghost tels us in the next words Vers 22. For their Calamitie shall rise suddenlie and who knoweth the Ruine of them â—oth 2 If men may change for the better and must change upon a supposed hurt then all Oathes Engagements or Promises of Obedience Allegiance or Fidelity to Magistrates are unlawful to be undertaken for al 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 al such Engagements a making over of the Right which the Engagers have in the matter Covenanted to the persons Engaged to according to that known Rule Omne promissum cadit in debitum either then such a change to be made by the persons under Authority may not must not be or such Engagements may not must not be by them undertaken The former imports a power and duty inherent in the Subjects to reserve in themselves a liberty to alter and to practise it when they judge it convenient The latter speaks a binding out from any such deed and an abandoning of any such Right but the Scripture is cleer enough for such Engagements Eccles 8. 2. 2 King 11. 4. Josh 1. 16 17 18 Judg. 8. 9 10. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Thirdly This Position not only disalows all such Engagements but dissolves the natural or moral bond it self of duty 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 al by this means any man is disingaged from subjection both in foro interno externo when he wil say He thinks the present Government not safe or profitable or another to be better and having so resolved he is absolved He may now disobey the Commands stand our against the Judgements take up Arms against the Person and Authority and be exempt from the Sword of the Magistrate yea although he
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
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
deliberated upon and this may be concluded on advisedlie as morallie certain that it is better to have the Crown setled in a Line wherebie sometimes a vitious person may be advanced then to have it under Election at everie personal change This hath been the experimented Maxime of the wisest States Reply The true sense of this Answer is That there is no place for deliberation in swearing to Heirs of whom we can know nothing how they wil prove save only how to prevent a greater mischief which is supposed wil come by new Elections upon every change which wise States do decline but what evil there is at al in a wel Governed State by new Elections at every change I am not able to reach but experience wil instruct That the greatest and longest lasting Wars have been where Competitors in point of Title have contended for the Crown And how frequently one hath supplanted another to obtain the Kingdom Stories do plentifully shew 2 If it were not in judgment saith he this defect makes not an Oath unlawful as to the nullifying of it a rash Oath if of a lawful thing binds as before was proved Judg. 21. 2. 7. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Josh 9. 14 15. Reply 1 Nor did I ever assert That an Error in Judgment when the Oath is righteous in the nature of it might be broken though there are cases which are very dubious 2 The Scriptures which he cites are none of them in a righteous thing nor did they al of them bind nor ought they to have done therefore he mentioneth them improperly For First That Oath which the Tribes did make of not giving their Daughters to the Benjamites after they had cruelly cut off al the Women appertaining to that Tribe was an unrighteous and cruel Oath and should not have bound them Secondly That Saul should lay a Cuâ—se upon the People that tasted any thing til evening was also not only a rash but an unmerciful and unjust Oath and Ionathan said as much of it when he heard of it so far was he from being troubled that he had broken it and he thought not himself guilty of death Shall I die saith he for this And the People rescued him and the Oath stood not in that branch of it And that of Josh 9. respecting the Gibeonites was a sinful Oath in the matter of it as it proved though they knew it not as wel as a rash Oath and there was Error personae in it also which is enough to break any Oath and therefore there was special reason why it held and it reacheth not to us And it is against this mans own Position That an unrighteous oath in the matter of it should hold now this oath to Heirs is of this nature not only rash and not in judgment but unrighteous and therefore ought not to hold 2 He denies that part of the Consequence which concerns righteousnesse in an oath which I lay down in the Position thus Nor is it a righteous Oath for the Subject may bind himself to his own hurt yea ruine His words are these Though the Subject may not bind himself to what is necessarilie or at the time of his swearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt or ruine yet he may swear intending the publick good to that which is of a mutual nature and may in the event turn to his own hurt and ruine And might he not so swear yet having so sworn he is bound to stand to his Oath Psal 15. 4. Iosh 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. Iudg. 21. 5. 15. 18. which is contradictorie to what this man here saith Reply He states the Question amisse and puts the case so as that it is not the case for to swear to Heirs from generation to generation though it be uncertain which Heirs and at whattime such Heirs wil prove corrupt and unjust in adjuration yet it is more then probable even as certain as that there wil be change of weather when yet for the present it is fair and pleasant that such Heirs wil stand up in ensuing generations 2 Though there may possibly be cases in which oathes that were taken with a good intent but proving accidentally pernicious to the takers must be kept yet if this be asserted by the Answerer That meer voluntary arbitrary oathes made without any Condition and at the best if not forced in favour of such a Family and intended for mutual good but proving ruinous to the makers and serving only to strengthen cruelty and unrighteousnesse in the persons to whom made that such oathes ought to be kept hath neither the colour of Reason nor Scripture for it and this is the case directly in such absolute oathes to Heirs Nay in the case which himself makes it wil not hold that such an oath should be kept For suppose a man should swear to another to go to such a City for him at such a time to effect such a businesse but he afterwards comes to understand That at his return there are persons that wil be in ambuscado to take away his life â—â— this man bound to keep his oath if the other wil hold him to it 3 As for the Scriptures they are not pertinent and some of them have been oft Answered That in Psal 15. 4. is meant of an oath that is made to another by which that other may be profited and the person himself that sweirs comes at unawares to be thereby damified such an oath ougâ—â— to be kept though it be to a mans losse but the oath 〈◊〉 we are discussing is of another nature an oath by which not one 〈◊〉 but a Nation not disadvantaged somewhat but even sold as it is 〈◊〉 times to ruine or what is worse even vassalage by which not the person to whom the oath is made is profited but his base lusts satisfied to his own ruine at the last That in Josh 9. 15. is not exemplary as I have often said before For I would ask Whether if a Counterfeit Prince as stories make mention of many had under pretence of being such a one viz. The right Heir to the Crown gained an oath of Allegiance would that oath have stood against the right Heir I am sure this man wil not assert it The other Scriptures have been answered already therefore I passe them over If the Heir saith he should misprove his power is bounded by the Law and commixed with Parliaments if he vary the power of Parliament the Lawes and Libertie of the Subject are the same The late King confessed and declared a remedie against Tirannie to reside in the Parliament there may be prevention then of the Kingdoms ruine whatever the Heir prove if the Kingdom be faithful to it self Reply But what are Parliaments if the Prince wil not cal them or may speedily dissolve them Or what are Laws if the Prince wil not keep them Or what are the Liberties of the Subject if the Prince wil overthrow
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-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
but in the time of Parliament the Parliament it self is Supream and not they And though the persons of al Parliament men and al the Nation with them should swear Allegiance to that Councel yet it is in and not against the authority of Parliament that they so swear and if the Councel of State should miscarry in point of Government and the Parliament should declare them to be no Councel of State both themselves who in their persons were sworn and al the people who have taken that Oath with them are acquitted from it For the Allegiance it self and the Oath to confirme it are first due to the higher power who hath power over both the Councel of State and for maleadjuration may cal them to accompt and the people also and so may discharge the one of Government and the other of duty to them And so I look upon the Parliament as the principal party in the Oath of Allegiance to any Prince and the Oath to the Prince is through them and in them and not against them and so the Parliament the Causes being just and weighty have power to acquit from it And in that sense it was that I produced the instance of Abraham So if a Magistrate should 〈…〉 a Constable to obey 〈◊〉 is lawful Commands according to his place a superior power to the Magistrate who hath power over them both by removing the Magistrate from his Trust absolves the Constable from the Allegiance and from his Oath also And this is so cleer that none can rationally deny it Yea he himself grants it in his first Argument against my Consequence only he denies that this is the Case in Controversie but it is but a bare denial for he saith Where the imposers are also the partie sworn to there it is granted that there may be absolving from the Oath or a dispencing with it And this is the Case because an Oath to an inferior power is made in and not against the superior power in and through whom Duty and Allegiance is due to the inferior power I hope then there is both Truth and colour of Reason and good inference in the Consequence He grants further and saith There are Cases wherein a superiour as a Husband Master Father Magistrate may make void the Oath of their respective inferior by an Analogie or equitie of that Rule but these are saith he in matters belonging to the right and power of the Superiour to dispose of as the Representatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their own right Reply This is the very Case it is the right of the Representatives to be Supream therefore any Oath of the Subject to any Magistrate suppose a Prince is not against them bnt in them and they are the principal party it is to the other in them they may therefore absolve from it by taking Rule from the one and Duty from the other because both are subordinate unto them and they are principally concerned in the Oath that passeth betwixt them Thus I have endeavoured to maintain the Truth of the Positions Let the Reader judge betwixtus There is one thing more which I think good to annex to what I have held forth in this Reply viz. My Answer to a Querie or Conclusion rather which is drawn from my Positions and is lately come to my hands viz. Querie WHAT may Conscientiously be resolved upon in relation to the late Enacted Engagement from the Principles and Premises laid down by me in the prosecution of my first Position And whether I have not damned it as to my self and to all those who are of my mind and perswaded fo far as my Position may prevail all others not to take it For thus he Argues from my Positions If an Oath or Promise or Engagement failing in any of those Rules which in the Position are laid down be unlawful then the Enacted Engagement must needs be unlawful because first it is absolute without any Proviso of their Ruling wel that are or may be in power 2 It is single or without the Rulers Engaging to the Subject to Rule wel and justly 3 It is to those of whom we may be as much unsatisfied how they wil prove hereafter as we can be of an Heir 4 It is to one kind of Government called The Common-wealth as it is now Established and that described with contradistinction from and Exclusion of King and Lords It is also to continue in a constant way for the words run I will be true and faithful Answer If I should look upon the Engagement under such apprehensions as he hath looked upon the Oath of Allegiance and pleaded for it I should not think it tolerable to be taken by any Consciencious man But I have other Conceptions of it 1 I deny That the Engagement is Absolute or that any such Engagement can be absolute but that at least there wil be a tacite Condition therein for the Equity and Justice of the thing wil require it perpetually and that however it would be more satisfactory if the Condition were expressed yet it is palpable enough that the Condition is implyed though not one word should be spoken I have given Instance in Pastor and People If the people should not indent with their Pastor to Preach the Gospel but should accept of him to be their Pastor and promise so much Maintenance unto him yet it is implyed that it is upon the Condition of his Preaching to them for no rational man wil conceive that they promised such Maintenance in reference to such an Office without performing the work of the Office So it is betwixt Magistrate and Subject 2 I deny That the Engagement is single for long since there came forth a Declaration from the Parliament wherein they Engaged to Govern the Nation according to known Laws of the Land And this Narrative was purposely set forth to satisfie the Nation in reference to Jealousies that the people lay under And it makes the Engagement mutual betwixt the Magistrate and the People And if it be mutual then it cannot be absolute as he asserted For I have shewed That in a mutual Engagement the Obligation of the one hath respect unto and dependence upon the performance of the other so that if the one violate the Engagement in his part the other is discharged upon it 3 I deny That it is to those of whom we may be as much unsatisfied how they wil prove hereafter as we can be of an Heir for the Engagement is to the Representatives of the Nation of whom we were satisfied when we Chose them and we exercised our judgement when we Chose them and if otherwise it was the Common-wealths fault And we know what they have been they have sought the Nations welfare and time wil declare what they wil be and let them not be prejudged However they are but temporarie Rulers and not so much as for term of life much lesse are their Heirs to be chief Rulers after them 4 I deny That the Engagement is to one kind of Government absolutly whether hurtful or profitable for the Representatives of the people have power to change it when they see cause for the good of the Nation and they neither have nor intend to tye their own hands absolutly but that if they should prove it to be pernicious they might change it So that it is apparent by what I have presented That he hath totally mistaken the business of the Engagement FINIS