Sirs when these words Abhor and Traiterous are so harsh in the Composure and when such Cases as above mentioned may be put as to the position in the matter of it wherein it seems justifiable and without offence We offer it in the next place to consideration whether this middle part of the Oath and Subscription be according to Truth For the first part We have a large Assertion roundly sworn The Oath and Subscription runs not only that it is not lawful to take Arms against the King or that it is not lawful on any pretence but on any pretence or cause what soever The Grammatical literal construction of that word seems to intimate no less than that this Proposition must be held without restraint or limitation Amongst the most emment of Authors which have wrote of the Power of Princes and establish'd it against Resistance in their writings on this Subject we suppose there are sew or none to be valued above these Three Bareley Grotius Arnisaeus And we shall und that they have all their restrictions or cases of Exceptions in the maintenance of this Tenet And how shall any be over earnest here in punishing the Refuser when if the matter be well scan'd the reason perhaps why he refuses will be sound only because he hath read more then some others that yield their submission We begin with Barcley that is William Barcley a Scot and Counceller to the French King who writes against Buchanan Boucher and other Monarchomachists as he calls them This learned Man endeavours to make his Prince to be above the whole People that consequently no Arms can be taken against him Nevertheless when he comes to put some pressing Cases he thus limits himself Quid ergo nulli ne Casus incidere possunt quibus populo in Rigem arma capere jure suo liceat nulli certe quanidiu Rex manet What then Can there no Cafes happen wherein it is lawful for the people to take Arms against the King by Right None certainly so long as he remains a King There are Cases indeed he accounts in which a King doth Exuere personam Regis or Dominatu se exuere Put off the Person of a King And particularly l. 3. c. 16. he mentions Two Si regnum alienet si Rempublicam evertere conatur If he go to alienate his Kingdom if he go to overthrew the Common-wealth We cannot tell how to approve this Doctrine the Papists use the same we know in another Case we may not fight against our King but if the Pope Excommunicate him he shall be no King with them Let us come to Grotius and first quote him in his Judgment of Barcley lest you may think else we mistake him Barclaius says he Regii impariilicet assertor fortissimus huc tamen descendit ut populo insigni ejus parti jus concedit se tuendi adversus immanem saevitiam Barcley though the most assertor of Kingly Government does come to this that he grants a Right to the People or the most eminent part of them of defending themselves against intollerable oppression For himself then after he hath asserted this Tenet Summum impurium tenentibus jure resisti non posse That the higher Powers may not lawfully be resisted from Scripture Antiquity Authority and Example to as much purpose perhaps as any he descends to put seven Cases wherein he does Lectorem monere ne putet in bane legem delinquere eos qui revera non delinquunt Warn his Reader lest he mistake some for delinquents that are not For Arnisaeus he hath wrote Three learned Books of Politicks De Jure Majestatis De Doctrina Politica De Authoritate principum in populum semper Inviolabile seu quod nulla ex causa subditis fas sit contra legitimum principem arma sumere That the Authority of Princes over the People ought to be inviolable or that it is lawful for no cause to take up Arms against our lawful Prince Here then we have our Tenet in the state whereof he comes in the issue to dinguish between Rex and Tyrannus a King and a Tyrant Tyrannus in Titulo Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Title and in Practise And Tyrannus in Exercitio A Tyrant in Practise he accounts does Excidere de Jure etsi Haereditario Fall from his Right though Hereditary Traditur Respublica Principi in eum finem says he ut illi praesit in salutem omnium a quo si prorsus desciverit etiam de potestate cadit quum non alto fine sibi commissum habebat The Common-wealth is delivered to the Prince that he should rule over it for the common safety from which if he depart altogether he falls even from the Power it self which was committed to him only for this end We do not give our consent to not pass our censure upon the words we cite but by such Testimonies as these without naming others we would convince those persons who were the Compilers of these Declarations to be subscribed or sworn with some resentment and shame that when the temperate sense and meaning of them is such as we were not like to boggle at they should be yet composed so in terminis as to be obnoxious to so grand Exception For the form then yet of the Words I A. B. do swear that it is not lawful c. Here is an Oath to the matter of a Proposition questioned to the determination of a Point of Conscience and that diversly decided An Oath should be to a matter of fact and cannot be taken but to that whereof we are certain To require of Men therefore to swear to the verity of a Doctrinal Proposition is not according to Judgment being a thing impossible because no Man is insellible Now then Sirs When here is such an Erratum in the Composure as the want of the words I believe or the like I swear that I held or believe that it is not lawful c. and so material an Exception as the Judgment of the most learned in general comes to against the Substance in Terminis of the first part of this Oath which yet gods down ordinarily without chewing we humbly oder it in the third place to be considered how this Oath can be taken either in Truth or Judgment An Oath must be taken in Judgment in Truth and in Righteousness The first part we argue is not according to Judgment The second not according to Truth The third not according to Righteousness We speak it humbly by way only of Argumentation as we have said craving pardon if it offend for the manner of the Expression We proceed to the Subscription conjoyned which hath we count Two Parts The one is the purport wholly of the Oath whereof therefore we shall adde no more but this That when the matter of the one and the other in the former part is such as enters the foundation of Politicks in general and the Laws and State of the Land in particular
up the dull mind of Man to remembrance of his duty by some edifying signification But the Cross being a Ceremony applied to Children who are uncapable of having their minds stirred up by any thing signified thereby it is manifestly retained without their profit We will enforce the Argument By the same reason as we retain the Cross in Baptism the other Ceremonies in Popery which are left may be readmitted As we use the Cross to signifie that the Child must fight manfully under Christs Banner we may use the Chrism wherein the Cross was used to be made to signifie the Christians anointing to the Combate and so forward There is nothing can be replyed hereto in good earnest but that it is true if the Church pleased to enjoyn it so we might We urge consequently By the same reason as the Church hath relinquisht the Chrism in Baptism it may leave the Cross also that is only if it please so to vote in a needful Convocation And that it should do so there is cause enough if there were nothing else to be said but this only that as for all other Ceremonies enjoyned the Conformists may plead that they are but Circumstances of Worship wherein the Church hath proper Authority to appoint what is decent and orderly But for any solemn intire Rite which is no Circumstance of the Ordinance unto which it is appended or any ways in genere necessary thereunto if this also be enjoyned we shall have no bottom or banks set to the appointment of Ceremonies how far this Sea shall go and no farther than so We will heap no more matters of this kind for they are infinite And it is some relief to our thoughts that the Parliament we thank God did come to be a little sensible of it in so much as they were near content one Session to Cashier this Declaration quite There does remain now therefore the Subscription and this question which will arise upon it Whether there be not as good reason in regard to the most sober Consciences to take away this subscripttion in the Act of uniformity and the Oath in the Oxford Ast as well as the Declaration of Assent and Consent and here making first our humble Protestation that we intend nothing hereby but loyally to the Government we must present the Sheet before mentioned to their renewed consideration The Subscription is this I A. B. do declare That it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I do abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority or those Commissionated by him And that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law establish'd And I do declare That I do hold there lyes no Obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State And that the same was in it self an unlawfull Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of the Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom The Oath this I A. B. do swear That it is not lawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King And that I abhor that Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissionated by him in pursuance of such Commissions And that I will not at any time endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State In this Oath and Subscription we have the matter and the form of words that is the Substance and the Composure The one whereof and the other in both are lyable to the ensuing Exceptions Which we desire may be taken with Candor in respect only to our design that is as argumentative for the removal of these Injunctions Not as peremptorily definitive of our own judgments and much less of others above our Sphear in all the Cases contained in them To begin with the Oath Here are three parts of it The first part appears not for we speak it humbly only and argumentatively consistent with Judgment the second with Truth nor the third with Righteousness We will take up the last part first And I will not endeavour any alteration of Goverment There is no Government on Earth so perfect that it hath need of Laws like the Medes and Persians Government may be considered in the Administration or the Constitution The word Government here is set down indefinitely without distinction Alteration of Laws and so Government in the Administration is as necessary many times upon emergent occasions to the Body politick as the fresh Air is to the natural This Oath was brought into the House to have been made Common It were not a thing righteous to have had that engagement laid on persons in such a capacity It is not righteous to have it laid on any that are Free-holders and free Subjects as we are The Constitution of our Nation as Parliamentary is such that no Law can be establish'd or repealed but it must pass the House of Commons and so the whole Body doth concur in their representatives to every alteration of Government or in the Government that is made if it be legal And no house of Commons are chosen but by the people Every Englishman is inteâ—â—â—â—d to be there present either in person or by procuration and the consent of the people is taken to be every mans consent says Sir Thomas Smith de Rep. Angl. l. 2. c. 2. Nay while the King consilio assensu Baronum leges olim imposuit universo Regno by the counsel and assent of his Barons did give Laws to his whole Realm consentire inferior quisque visus est in persona Domini sui Capitalis prout hodie per procuratores Comitatus every Inferior seemed to consent in the person of his chief Lord as now they do by their Burgesses and Knights of the Shires says Sir Henry Spelman This is so true that in this sensâ—â—â—â— is that the Laws that pass are said to 〈◊〉 Quas vulgus elegerit Which the people sâ—â—ll choose Now then if every free Subjâ—â—t hath a fundamental liberty to choose Kâ—ights and Burgesses and accordingly to inform them of their Grievances and petition them for Redress and in them as their Representatives do consent to the alteration of Government and Laws if there be any as profitable to the Nation How can such an Oath be imposed on him That he will not endeavour any alteration as this is Is not choosing Burgesses informing them petitioning them acting and legalâ—y consenting in them to that end an endeavour and that as much as can be in their Place and Calling And no more than an Endeavour in their Place and Calling was challenged by any It is true the new Laws may be made and old repealed without alteration of the Constitution But not without alteration of Government because Government takes in both the Administration and
the Constitution Let us suppose therefore the word Government confined only to the Constitution There is the Constitution of the Government in the State which is a Legal Monarchy and this indeed we are so far bound from endeavouring to alter as that we think it is not alterable by the King himself and Parliament because that Supream Power for the Administration must be supposed in all Communities to be derived from and held by the Constitution But as for Government in the Church we are to know and acknowledge that the Constitution hereof it self is but a Law of the Administration in reference to the State And consequently when all Laws for the Administration are liable to the Regulation of Parliaments the great question will remain how those Men who are Presbyterian or Independent in their Judgment and think Episcopacy against the Scripture can be abridged the Endeavour only afore-mentioned which consists but in choosing Representatives and doing no more than the Consitution allows in order to the prosecution of what they think themselves obliged to in Conscience both by Oath and the Word of God Is not the foundation Liberty of the whole People and our selves with them here in danger Judg ye that are wise And what an anointed Plot have we had here on the Nation that Allegiance in effect should be sworn to the Bishops as well as to the King For the Words then or Form we wonder at this Rigour in the Compiler that a Man must swear not to endeavour any Alteration Had it not been enough to be engaged not to endeavour the Alteration of the Substance of our Government Episcopacy in the Church and Monarchy in the State but must it be not any Alteration It were well we were so absolutely perfect And again must they not at any time endeavour any alteration What if times should turn and we be in as great a confusion as we were or any the like chance or change come Must these Men be bound up that they cannot endeavour to reduce back this Government that we have No not the King and Bishops if the Iniquity of the times should put them out for they have sworn they will not at any time endeavour any alteration in Church or State Sirs The matter of this obligation being against the fundamental Freedom of the Subject and Parliament and the words you see so ensnaring and that against the duty all owe to the publick good We offer it you to consider in the first place whether this last part be according to Righteousness For the middle part of the Oath Here is a position of taking Arms by the Kings authority against any Commissionated by him which must be sworn to as abhord and traiterous There is now a Case in the mouths of all the understanding Refusers of the Oath and Subscription Suppose some Writ sued out and comes to the Sheriffs hands and suppose some to oppose the Execution by the Kings Personal Command or Commission and he thereupon raises the posse Comitatus upon them We will ask here whether the Sheriff acts not herein by the Kings Authority We think it cannot be denyed By the Kings Authority is all one as by the Law or in the Name of the King according to Law And when he can act so against any for all their Commission and the Law will bear him out how is this position in this Case traiterus and to be abhord for our parts we do resolutely believe that it was not ever the intent of the Parliament in this Oath or the Subscription as to the Major part we may be bold to advance the personal Will or Commission of the King above Law which were to make his power despotical and not Royal. Non est Rex says Bracton ubi dominatur voluntas non Lex He is no King that governs by his will and not by the Law And how this position indefinitely without exception of this Case at least must be sworn to as altogether traiterous we are to learn What if any should come with a Commission under the Seal to raise Money without an Act of Parliament and by vertue of such Commission shall seize our Goods rifle our Houses and ravish our Wives May not the People or our inferiour Magistrates or the Sheriff for the County withstand such violence May not the Constable alone by a Warrant from the Justice to keep the Peace raise the Neighbourhood and do it If he may or the Sheriff may it must be in the Name of the King or by Authority of the Law and then is there some Case or Cases where Arms or Force may be raised by the Authority of the King against such as are Commissionated by him though never against his own Sacred Person Suppose again that Papists or Fanaticks should either by Power or Surprize at any time get the King into their hands as the Duke of Guise once dealt with the French King and prevail with him for fear of his life to grant Commissions under His Hand and Seal destructive to the Church and State must the Nation be remediless in this Case and so the King and Kingdom ruin'd by these Commissions Nay what security hath the Nation that a Lord Keeper may not prove Traytor to his King and Countrey If we may suppose such a thing possible what if such a Lord Keeper should under the Broad Seal grant Commissions to disband His Majesties Life Guard deliver up the Navy or Sea-port Towns seize the Tower or places of strength in what a Condition were the King and Kingdom brought if the Subjects hands be bound up by an Oath not to resist or take Arms against the execution of such Commissions Suppose but so long as till they understand his design for by that time the whole Nation may be past recovery We are offended at the sense and stand amazed at the horrour of those sad Consequences into which the Imposition of such like Tests or Injunctions as these if not timely retrenched may lead our Posterity The Courts of Law can avoid the Kings Charters or Commissions which are passed against Law for the King is subject to the Law and Sworn to maintain it says Judg Jenkins in his Works p. 48. As for the form then of the words I abhor this Traiterous Position they are harsh the word abhor especially is a word of interest and passion a cooler word as I disown or disallow might have served Some of the more Grave as Calamy particularly were much offended at that word A Man may say a thing is unlawful in his Conscience when he cannot say according to truth I abhor it There is never a Gentleman in the Land but may swear truly that he believes it unlawful to company with any other Woman as his own Wife but if each one was put to swear he abhors it we suppose some very good Sons of the Church as well as our Brethren would be found willing to be Non-conformists to such an Oath Well