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
have sworn or subscribed Allegiance because such an Oath or Promise saith this Doctor was sinful not in righteousnesse But I would fain have him declare What thing Magistracy and what Subjection is Fourthly This Doctrine wil acquit and justifie al the Conspiracies and Treasons that ever were enterprized against the power of the Magistrate since the World was Was not the Conspiracy of Absolem 2 Sam. 1â— 1 Kin. 11 2â— 12. 1. c. Act. 5. 36. and that of Sheba against David Was not the Rebellion of Ieroboam against Solomon and Rehoboam Were not the Seditions of Thendas and Iudas the Gaulonite against Caesar Were not al the Treasons against MAGISTRACY that ever have been attempted for the pâ—rties yea for the Publique greater good as the Conspirators judged If it be said That not particular men or a lesse party are to judge the expediency and take in hand the change but the whole people Besides that the people under Authority collectively taken have no such power as I intend presently to shew it may be said 1 Seldome or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Government of themselves affect or move to a change it is the flatterers and deceivers of the people ‡ ordinarily that desire and mislead the people to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist poli lib. 5. c. 5. it 2 How the Judgement and Will of the whole Body of a People should be known and declared unto Execution before particular men act to a change of their own private judgement to me is a thing unimaginable Fifthly This necessity of retaining a power in Subjects to change and of using it for a greater good or removal of a temporal hurt in opposition to an Oath sworn against that change is directly against the Scriptures tying men that swear to their own hurt not to change Psal 15. 4. Josh 9. 18 19. and condemning those that for such ends have receded from their Oathes Ezek. 17. 13 c. Josh 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam. 21. 2. Sixthly That Position so much now adayes insisted on of the Peoples Power to depose abolish and alter the power of their Governors at pleasure which is actually setled and both in it self lawful and lawfully set over them I hold is a grosse error Some of my Reasons in short are First Such a course supposing the Governors Dissent to it al along is no other then that resistance of the Ordinance of God condemned Rom. 13. 2. Secondly It is directly opposite to that Subjection commanded every Soul that is in the relation of a Subject Rom. 13. 1. and that 2 Pet. 2. 13. Thirdly If the People may do it then it must needs be that they have a Civil power and authority over their Magistrates which is contrary to those Scriptures which make the King Supream and cal the power which the people are subject to The higher Powers higher in relation to them who are below and put in subjection to them 1 Pet. 2. 13. Rom. 13. 1. And indeed if the People have a power over their Magistrates to judge or displace them How are the Magistrates their Superiors and Rulers The same persons cannot be under and over others in the same kind of order or power If the Magistrates be under the People whom are they over If the People be above the Magistrates whom are they under Fourthly The holy Ghost commands the People to render Tribute Custome Fear Honor not at random to a Magistracy leaving them at liberty to what they please but to whom they are due they are a debt then which respecteth a determinate object the present Magistrate No Debtor can pay a Debt by transfering it from one to another or giving what he oweth to another besides the proprietor Fifthly Magistrares are of God his Ordinance and Ministers and they are Judges for him as his Vicegerents Rom. 13. 1 2. 4. 2 Chr. 19. 6. and therefore cannot stand at the meer wil of the People God must have a hand in their removal as he hath in their admission or else it is injurious he removes and admits now but not by immediate revelation as sometimes in Israel but by the rule of his Word executed by man He hath given a Rule for the setting up of Magistrates but where hath he given any for their deposing Sixthly If it were in the Peoples power to change at pleasure their Magistracy then how could it be such a heinous sin as it is challenged to be for the people to reject Samuels Government and desire and moâ—e for a King 1 Sam. â— 6 7 8. 12. 17 But let us next â—ear what he alledgeth for this his Assertion of Mutability He saith Though Civil Government in general be an Ordinâ—nce 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 c. 1 Civil Government in the general cannot be said to be Gods Ordinance and therefore unrejectable but this or that kind of Government that is a legitimate true species of it must necessarily be yeelded to be also Gods Ordinance and unrejectable for it is a sure rule whatsoever is directly and per se said of the genus or general nature must be also said of the species or particular kind And again the whole nature of the genus or general is conteined in every Species or kind ‡ Quicquid predicatur de praedicato praedicetur de subjecto Reg. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tota natura generis continetur in una quaque specie 2 The Apostle cannot be taken to speak of power in general only and abstractly but must be understoâ—d distributively of al lawful powers in their special kinds When he saith There is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. 1 2. He that shal say of this or that kind of lawful Government as of Monarchy it is not of God it is not the Ordinance of God speaks direct contradictories to the holy Ghost here No Subjects obedience to this or that Government he is under could be urged upon him by vertue of this reason There is no power but of God c if this or that kind of Government were not of God and were not his Ordinances 3 And for his discretive but an Ordinance of man it is no inference of the former therefore not the Ordinance of God For this or that Government is both an ordinance of God in Pauls stile and an ordinance of man in Peters and you cannot say these two Apostles speak of Government in two different wayes the former in general the latter in particular for as I have proved Paul must be taken of particular kinds So it is cleer Peter speaks first in general Submit your selves to everie Ordinance
or because in a necessitous condition yet the equity and justice of the thing viz. That the Oath ought to be reciprocal is nothing lesse by such examples 2 That in Josh 1. 16 17 18. which he seems to lay most weight upon is rather against him then for him for it was conditional as the last words in Vers 18. shew Only say they be strong and of good courage It is as if they should have said Upon this Condition we wil harken unto thee as unto Moses before if thou be such as Moses was if thou be strong and of a good courage to do the work of the Lord in thy Place and Office they require as much from him in his Place as they promised to him in their places for there is not any thing spoken of an Oath on either side 3 He saith Oathes are never to be taken but necessarily 1 When the matter is of great weight Reply Is there not as much necessity for the Prince to swear as the People Is not Ruling wel as weighty if not much more weighty then Obeying Hath not faithfulnesse in Ruling begotten Loyalty Hath not a wise just PRINCE made an obedient upright People 2 When it cannot otherwise be sufficientlie confirmed Reply This Reason of an Oath is much more strong in reference to the Prince then to the People For when once the Prince hath the Power of the Kingdom in his hand What can be better security of his faithfulnesse then his Oath As for the people if they swear not yet if they be disloyal their lives and al they have are in the Princes hands But it is nor so with the Prince til there hath been a Contestation first and his power is broken 3 It comes to passe sometimes That the Performance is onlie on one Partie Reply But that is not the case betwixt Prince and People for the performance must be on both sides else the Common-wealth is miserable 4 Sometimes there is other Satisfactorie Assurances given besides an Oath Reply But what is that the Prince can give to satisfie the People besides swearing and yet the People cannot give the same but they must needs swear 5 Sometimes the danger of the breach lies onlie or more on one Partie then another Reply So much more need hath the Prince to swear then the People because the danger of the breach lies most on his part For for one Instance that can be given of the Peoples disloyalty to a just Prince there may be twenty given of the Princes unjust oppressive carriage to an obedient People 6 Sometimes there is other remedies if there should be a breach then the forfeiture of an Oath Reply I hope the Remedy whatever it be besides an Oath may be applicable to the People if they break as to the Prince if he break 4 He saith But suppose the case that it be as necessary for security that the King swear to the people as the people to the King yet if through overmuch credulity or otherwise it be that the people do swear and not the Prince this cannot be the least colour of the nullifying of the peoples Oath For that which makes the Oath obliging is That in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the promise Reply Grant it be as necessary that the King swear as the People and that through the credulity of the people the King swear not or that through fear of incensing him they dare not demand an Oath from him and yet through his power and wrath they are forced to swear to him and this is the case many times and suppose that the King after this Oath of the People to him turn Tyrant and prey upon them Is this Oath of the people obligatory or is it not I have Asserted that it is not and for this Reason Because whether the King swear or swear not he ought to do the thing that he should swear or else not expect that which he makes the People swear to because the justice of the thing in the peoples Oath depends upon a Condition that the King perform his duty For its impious and wicked for a people to promise much more for a people to swear that though it should come to passe that the King should turn all his power and force against them to destroy them yet he shal be their King and they will obey him still while any of them are leâ—t alive And this man himself saith nothing in his Reason which he renders Contradictory to this but what rather serves to confirm it For he saith That which makes the Oath obliging is that in a just and possible matter promised God is invocated as a witnesse of the Promise He saith The matter must be just that is promised and sworn to or the Oath is not obliging now the justnesse of such a promise and oath is the Condition upon which it is made viz. That the Prince Rule for their welfare and not for their Ruine otherwise the Subject is most inhumanly unjust against himself and God is invocated to such wickednesse which is high presumption in those persons that do it and the thing is not ratified thereby but repentance ought rather to be shewed But indeed it is to be supposed that the people swear not at any time but that at least this Condition is tacite in the Oath and that the King is engaged unto his part with the people in the same oath And if any man argue otherwise and say it is not so I say then Such an Oath is unlawful and holds not longer then in the true scope and extent of it it ought to hold After that apter sense of Mutual which he saith is my sense he comes to give another sense of Mutual swearing which he saith is stricter then the former and that is saith he When not onlie two persons swear to each other their respective parts but both swear with a mutual respect that is The Obligation of the one partie hath a respect to and a dependence upon the performance on the other partie as when one man swears to give another so much for his Land the other swears to convey to him his Land for so much Money in this kind the breach of the one is the releasment of the other Reply This is not another sense but the same with the former for this is in al mutual Oathes that are made by two persons to each other reciprocally they are Oathes made with mutual respect that is The obligation of the one party hath respect to and dependence upon the performance of the other partie as in Gen. 21. 31 32. betwixt Abimelâ—ch and Abraham Gen. 31. 52 53. betwixt Iacob and Laban Josh 2. 12. 17. to 21 betwixt Rahab and the Spies 1 Sam. 30. 15. betwixt David and the Amalekite 1 Sam. 20. 16. 17. betwixt David and Ionathan 1 King 2. 42 43. betwixt Solomon and Shimei 2 King 11. 17. betwixt Ioash and the
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
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
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
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
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
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-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