<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-09-14</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, &abque;s, ABBRs, LETTERs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A82549">
<STC T="W">E124</STC>
<STC T="T">E606_2</STC>
<STC T="T">E613_18</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99865101</BIBNO>
<VID>165675</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>The OATH of ALLEGIANCE AND THE NATIONAL COVENANT PROVED To be NON-OBLIGING: <HI>OR,</HI> THREE SEVERAL PAPERS ON THAT SUBJECT; <HI>VIZ.</HI></P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. Two POSITIONS, with &s;everal <HI>REASONS</HI> of them, and <HI>CONSEQ&V;ENCES</HI> flowing from thence.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. An ANSWER to the &s;aid <HI>POSITIONS.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>A REPLY to the &s;aid <HI>ANSWER,</HI> wherein the Truth of the <HI>Po&s;itions</HI> is Vindicated, and the <HI>Oath of Allegiance,</HI> and the <HI>National Covenant</HI> are made Non-Obliging.</P>
<P>By SAMUEL EATON, Teacher of the Church of Chri&s;t at DARKEN|FIELD in CHESSHIRE.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON:</HI> Printed by <HI>Peter Cole,</HI> at the &s;ign of the Printing-Pre&s;s in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange, 1650.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Good READER,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>IT is not many daies &s;in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> I was informed, that &s;ome <HI>Po&s;itions</HI> of mine, re&s;pecting <HI>the Oath of Allegiance,</HI> were made publick to the world, and that an <HI>An&s;wer</HI> thereto was annexed, and to|gether with the <HI>Po&s;itions</HI> was printed, which at fir&s;t I could hardly receive for truth: but for further &s;atisfaction, the book was &s;ent me, and in the Title Leaf, I read, <HI>An An&s;wer to &s;ome Po&s;iti|ons of Mr.</HI> Samuel Eaton <HI>(di&s;per&s;ed by him.)</HI> I am nece&s;&s;itated for the Vindication of my &s;elf, to publi&s;h the bad dealings that I have met with in this bu&s;ine&s;s from Brethren, I will not call them fal&s;e|brethren, though their proceedings do hold forth too much fal&s;ene&s;s and ba&s;ene&s;s.</P>
<P>I had occa&s;ion in the latter end of the la&s;t yeer, to be often times at a Gentlemans hou&s;e of honorable note in <HI>Lanca&s;hire;</HI> he declared him&s;elf un&s;atisfied how the Oath of Allegiance could be Non-Obli|ging, which was &s;o ab&s;olutely taken by many of the Subjects, and by him&s;elf: I gave him &s;uch An&s;wers as were &s;uitable to my pre&s;ent ap|prehen&s;ions: his reque&s;t was, That I would put down in writings what I had pre&s;ented in words, or any other conceptions of the like na|ture, about that &s;ubject, and &s;end them to him: I conde&s;cended, and in a free friendly way pre&s;ented him with my &s;udden thoughts, and inclo&s;ed them in a letter to him, having had his promi&s;e not to communicate the &s;ame to any, &s;ave to one friend of his, who&s;e private conceptions of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m he would entreat, and would &s;hew them to me. But thus it fell out, there waas a piece of di&s;hone&s;tly (I might put a wor&s;e term upon it) acted by &s;ome, that would be better thought of. The letter &s;ent to this Gentleman was opened, a Copy was taken of the Po&s;itions conteined therein, and many Copies written out of that Co|py and di&s;per&s;ed abroad, all <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ver two Counties, before ever the Gen|tleman
<PB REF="3"> (to whom I writ, and &s;ent the &s;aid Po&s;itions) received his Letter. I wondred much at it, knowing that I had not given any Copy to any Creature, and had not &s;o much as &s;hewed it to any at that time, &s;ave to three per&s;ons. The Gentleman di&s;cerning that the Let|ter had been opened, and hearing that Copies were got abroad, thought him&s;elf bound to &s;earch it out, &s;ome pains was taken to di&s;cover it, at la&s;t it came to light. I could both name the place where, and the per&s;on by whom it was done, but for &s;ome &s;pecial rea&s;ons I forbear. The Gentleman when he had peru&s;ed the Writing &s;ent it to his friend, and his friend in&s;tead of An&s;wering it him&s;elf, (as I expected) pro|cures an elaborate An&s;wer unto it; which after the &s;pace of &s;ix weeks or two months was &s;ent unto me, and therein my two Po&s;itions were &s;poken to, but nothing el&s;e that was contained in my Paper was med|led with. And the Author of this An&s;wer, at that time, thought to have proceeded no further in his An&s;wer, but about &s;ix weeks after the receipt of the other, the &s;econd part of his An&s;wer was given to me, both which are now printed to the view of the world by means of &s;ome Brethren about <HI>Manche&s;ter,</HI> to whom a Copy of the An&s;wer was &s;ent, without the knowledg, and unto the offence of the Author thereof, as I am credibly informed. I had &s;ent my Reply to that part of the An|&s;wer which fir&s;t came to my hands, to be peru&s;ed in a private way, before I knew that any thing was extent in print, but am now forced to expo&s;e it to Publick view. By all this it may appear that I inten|ded not to engage in this Controver&s;ie, but could not decline the giving of an An&s;wer to a Que&s;tion propounded. If any &s;atisfaction &s;hall a|ri&s;e to any by any thing which I repre&s;ent, I &s;hall be thankful to God. However I &s;hall not repine, becau&s;e it was Gods Will, that my private conceptions mu&s;t thus come to light. Notwith&s;tanding, wrong doers mu&s;t give an account. I remain,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thy friend in the Truth, SAM. EATON.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="positions">
<PB N="1" REF="3">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="position">
<HEAD>POSITION I.</HEAD>
<P>EVERY Oath to make it warran<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">able, and lawful, ought to be taken in Judgment and Righteou&s;ne&s;s. <HI>Ier.</HI> 4. 2.</P>
<P>The Oath then of Allegience, that it may be in Righteou&s;|ne&s;s and Judment mu&s;t be,</P>
<P>1 <HI>Conditional, not Ab&s;olute; mutual, not &s;ingle: taken by both Parties, not by one onlie: by the Ruler or Governor, not alone by the Ruled; by the Prince, as well as by the Subject.</HI></P>
<P>Rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>It is again&s;t the ground and rea&s;on of the Primitive In&s;titution of Government, which is the good of the Subject, That there &s;hould be any Oath to hind the Sub|ject ab&s;olutelie to Allegiance and Dutie, whether the Prince or Governour rule for the Subjects good or not; therefore &s;uch an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in judgment, or in righteou&s;ne&s;s; therefore &s;uch an Oath is not lawful.</HI></P>
<P>So again it is again&s;t Equity, and Rea&s;on, and again&s;t the good of the Subject, that he &s;hould be further or longer bound to the Prince, or Ruler, to &s;ubmit to him, then the Prince or Ruler is bound to the Subject, to rule well, and admini&s;ter ju|&s;tice rightlie, if therefore the Obligation be not mutual, but &s;ingle, it is not law|ful.</P>
<P><HI>Con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P>Then (if the Oath of Allegiance taken to the late King, were in judg|ment and righteou&s;ne&s;s, and &s;o lawful) the King was, or ought to have been, as &s;trongly bound to all his Subjects by Oath, as any of them to him; then if he break his oath, all the Subjects are ab&s;olved, if they will. Then at what time the King levyed War again&s;t his Subjects, they were di&s;charged by that breach of oath in him, of their Allegiance, el&s;e the whole Parliament, and Parliamentary party were both perjured per|&s;ons (as many of them as ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e take<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> that Oath) and are Rebels, that have taken up Arms again&s;t the King.</P>
<P>2 <HI>Not to Heires.</HI></P>
<P>Rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>Becau&s;e who knoweth (as</HI> Solomon <HI>&s;aith</HI> Eccle&s;. 2. 19.) <HI>whether the Heir will be a Wi&s;e man, or a Fool: a ju&s;t and righteous man, or a wicked man, and tyrant. Now if no man know this, then it is not an Oath in judgment, if any man &s;wear Allegiance to an Heir, nor is it a righteous Oath, for the Subject may hind him&s;elf to his own hurt, yea ruin and de&s;truction.</HI></P>
<PB N="2" REF="4">
<P><HI>Con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P>Then the oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it that re&s;pect|ed Heirs, an unlawful oath; for who knows what any of the late Kings Po&s;terity might have proved? Whether they would have upheld Reli|gion, or have changed it? Whether they would have upheld the Liber|ty and Propriety of the Subject, or &s;ubverted it? We know what their Education was, Who then could take an oath in righteou&s;ne&s;s and judg|ment in reference to them? It is good to know fir&s;t, and to &s;wear after|ward.</P>
<P>3 <HI>Not to any one kind of Government, Monarchical, or any other, to uphold it, and continue it, in a con&s;tant way, without changing of it.</HI></P>
<P>Rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>Becau&s;e, though Civil Government in general be an Ordinance of God, ten|ding to mans good, therefore to reject it would be &s;inful; yet this or that kind of Government is not an Ordinance of God, but an Ordinance of man,</HI> 1 Pet. 2. 13. <HI>And if an Ordinance of man, then man may change it, for his own greate&s;t good, and benefit, and mu&s;t change it, when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient, and hurtful. Then to &s;wear not to change it, is &s;inful, and in righ|teou&s;ne&s;s and judgment may not be done, for all kinds of Government is not equal|lie good, uor are they equallie &s;uitable to all people; and experience makes per&s;ons wi&s;e to di&s;cern what is better, and what is wor&s;e for them&s;elves: Therefore an Oath to uphold any one kind of Government, longer then it continues to be mo&s;t &s;afe and profitable, is unlawful.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P>Then the oath of allegiance &s;erving to uphold Kingly. Government again&s;t 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 mo&s;t of our Kings have been Tyran<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s? and who knows not what a Ble&s;&s;ing the change of Government hath brought to the United Provinces&punc;</P>
<P>Objection.</P>
<P><HI>But &s;uppo&s;e there was &s;ome unlawfulne&s;s in the taking of &s;uch Oathes, yet is there not a nece&s;&s;ity of keeping them being taken?</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer.</HI></P>
<P>If that Oath taken again&s;t the life of one man, by <HI>Herod,</HI> becau&s;e un|righteous, and cruel, was not only &s;infully taken, but more &s;infully kept; then &s;uch oaths of allegiance which are ab&s;olute, and not conditional, which are &s;ingle, and not mutual, which are to Heirs, whether wi&s;e-men or fools, whether ju&s;t men or Tyrants, which are to uphold Monarchy, (the woful fruits whereof having been long ta&s;ted, and felt by this Nation) &s;eeing they are dangerous, and may pro<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e (as often they have done) de&s;tructive to the lives of many men, they are not only unlawful to be taken, but unlawful to be kept.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="position">
<PB N="3" REF="4">
<HEAD>POSITION II.</HEAD>
<P>SUppo&s;e the Oath of Allegiance be a lawful Oath, yet the Subject is now ab&s;olved from it, by them that have Power to ab&s;olve from it.</P>
<P>Rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>The Repre&s;entatives of the People, which in rea&s;on are the Supream Power of the Nation, impo&s;ed this Oath upon the Subject, by an Act for it, made in Par|liament, by which they obliged the Subject to Allegiance to the King, then in being, and to his Heirs. And this Act done by their Repre&s;entatives was their own vo|luntarie Act, to which they were not obliged by anie law of God, or Nature; for there is no rule requiring them to accept of &s;uch a Per&s;on to be their Prince, and his Heirs after him, and to &s;wear Allegiance to him and them; but this was the Sub|jects own free Act, in their Repre&s;entatives: Therefore if the Repre&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ntatives take away this Act and repeal it, they thereby &s;et the Subjects at Libertie from &s;uch Allegiance, and from that Oath by which they are bound to it.</HI> Abraham <HI>that impo&s;ed the Oath upon his Servant, might acquit him of it, becau&s;e not bound by anie rule from God, but obliged by</HI> Abraham <HI>onlie.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Con&s;equence.</HI></P>
<P>This pre&s;ent Parliament, having taken away that Oath of Allegiance, which was Enacted to be impo&s;ed; there remains no more Con&s;cience of it, to &s;uch who have taken it.</P>
<P>But then it will come unto this,</P>
<P><HI>Whether the Parliament be the Supream Power?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Whether the Repre&s;entatives of the People, be the Parliament?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Whether the pre&s;ent Repre&s;entatives that now Sit in Parliament, be the Re|pre&s;entatives of the People?</HI></P>
<P>To the <HI>Fir&s;t</HI> I &s;ay, 1 It is evident, That the Norman Kings coming in by Conque&s;t had never any true Right to the Crown of <HI>England,</HI> but what the Parliament gave them: Then the Power of the Parliament was greater then theirs; becau&s;e that Power, that is the Cau&s;e of Po|wer, is greater then that Power, that is the Effect of Power: 2 The Power of Parliament, is the Power of the People; now in Rea&s;on the Power of the People is the Supream Power, becau&s;e thence (as from the Root) all Power fir&s;t &s;prang, and proceeded.</P>
<P>To the <HI>Second</HI> I &s;ay, I<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Po|wer, and the Supream Power, then the Repre&s;entatives of the People, are the Parliament, and none el&s;e: for the Repre&s;entatives of the Peo|ple are the People in them, and there is the Root of Power, therefore they are a Parliament.</P>
<PB N="4" REF="5">
<P>To the <HI>Third</HI> I &s;ay, The pre&s;ent Repre&s;entatives that now Sit in Par|liament, are, 1 All of them Cho&s;en by the People, therefore of Right they Sit in Parliament. 2 The pre&s;ent Repre&s;entatives are all that are left to Sit in Parliament; for the mo&s;t of the re&s;t have De&s;erted their Tru&s;t, without any Force upon them; for though &s;ome were Secluded and Secured, yet the re&s;t were not at all interrupted, but have voluntarily Departed from the Hou&s;e. 3 The Repre&s;entatives that Remained, and Continued to Sit in Parliament, were alwayes, when fewe&s;t, and &s;till are above the Number allowed of by Law; and therefore they are a Par|liament.</P>
<P>There is one Objection, which may be urged again&s;t the Parliaments Ab&s;olving men from their Allegiance to the Kings Heirs, and again&s;t their Aboli&s;hing Kingly Government. It may be &s;aid, That</P>
<P><HI>Kings have the &s;ame Right to their Kingdoms, Crowns, and Revenues, as others</HI> <MILESTONE UNIT="Que&s;t."> <HI>have to their Mannors, and Deme&s;nes?</HI></P>
<P>Such Right which Kings have had, they never ju&s;tly came by it, but <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> by Force and Flattery have obtained it, and have U&s;urped upon the Birth-right of the People, to whom it belongs to Chu&s;e them that mu&s;t Rule over them: and Kingdoms with the Appurtenances thereto, were never intended for particular mens Advancements; to lift up &s;uch Fa|milies in Glory and Greatne&s;s; or that the Heraeditary Right of any &s;hould be in them; but that Wi&s;dom, Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and Vertue was to lift up men unto them; and Crowns and Revenues were to encou|rage them in acting in &s;uch Places; and men that were &s;o Qualified, were to be Heirs, and Succe&s;&s;ors, &s;et up by the People, after them. And the People them&s;elves, nor their Repre&s;entatives, could neither Give, nor Sell away this Priviledge from their Po&s;terity, in which the welfare of the People is &s;o mainly concerned, and without which a People are gi|ven up, and &s;old to Ruine. This cannot be &s;aid of Mannors and De|me&s;nes which are things which fall under Commutative Ju&s;tice, and are things vendible, and wherein particular men are concerned, and not the Common-Wealth.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="answer">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>AN ANSVVER <HI>TO A</HI> PAPER Pretending to prove the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Void, and non-Obliging: <HI>Containing</HI> TWO POSITIONS, <HI>The Sub&s;tance whereof is Repeated in the Proce&s;s of this ANSWER.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THE drift of the Fir&s;t Po&s;ition, and the pro&s;ecution thereof, (with which I begin) is to &s;hew the &s;aid Oath to have been unlawful and unwarrantable in the taking of it, and &s;o void in the fact, or making.</P>
<P>1 I &s;hall premi&s;e for the cleering partly of what follows, That an<NOTE PLACE="marg">D. Sand. de Iuram. obl. pr. 2. &sect;. 14</NOTE> Oath may be unlawful, 1 Either in regard of the matter, or thing &s;worn, as if a m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n &s;wear to do any impo&s;&s;ible, or &s;inful act. 2 Or in the Man|ner, or Circum&s;tances of &s;wearing; as if a man &s;wear unadvi&s;edly, or with a fal&s;e intention or other-wayes unduly for manner. The former way of unlawfulne&s;s makes an Oath void in the taking, but not the Lat|ter: So that though a man &s;wear an Oath (in &s;ome &s;ort) not in Truth, that is, not intending to be tyed to, or to keep it; or not in Judgment,
<PB N="2" REF="6"> that is, not con&s;ideratly enough; yet if the Oath be in Righteou&s;ne&s;s, that is, of a ju&s;t, and lawful matter, or thing, it is of Force; otherwi&s;e no Oath could bind in <HI>foro externo,</HI> or be of any u&s;e for Confirmation, for who can di&s;cern with what mind another man Swears? Again, This evi|dently appears by the validity of that unadvi&s;ed Oath of the Princes to the Gibe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nites, Jo&s;hu. 9. 15. 18, 19. 2 Sam. 21. 2. And of that Oath of <HI>Z<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">kiah,</HI> and his people to <HI>Nebuchadnezzar,</HI> 2 Cron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13 21. 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. which they entred into treacherou&s;ly, Ho&s;. 104. <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Annotat of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">mes &amp; Diodat. on Ho&s;. 10 4.</NOTE></P>
<P>2 I ob&s;erve what a gro&s;s Imputation the fir&s;t Po&s;ition layeth upon the King, and Parliament that framed and Ordained the Oath of Alle|giance, and all other Parliaments &s;ince that have Continued, and the Succe&s;&s;ive Hou&s;es of Commons that have Sworn it, with tho&s;e multi|tudes of Magi&s;trates, Mini&s;ters, and of other Profe&s;&s;ions in the Kingdom that have taken, and &s;till hold them&s;elves bound by it (having had all the while &s;o much Divine and Go&s;pel&punc; light &s;hining forth to and in them) as if they had publi&s;hed, pre&s;&s;ed, taken, and ju&s;tified (as again&s;t the Papi&s;ts by writing) an Oath the matter of it unju&s;t and &s;inful. This man had need bring cleer Rea&s;ons for what he here thus chargeth upon &s;o many Worthyes, for place, piety, and judgment; and declare them<NOTE PLACE="marg">A Lye a|gain&s;t the Title, or the Title a Lye again&s;t this.</NOTE> more publickly then by a <HI>Private Paper,</HI> that he may call to Repentance the whole Nation, that is (as he &s;uppo&s;eth) involved in this impiety of an unlawful Oath. But let us fir&s;t by the Tryal of his Rea&s;ons, &s;ee whe|ther he hath not more need to repent of this his Charge.</P>
<P>His general exception again&s;t the lawfulne&s;s of the Oath is, <HI>That it is not according to the rule</HI> Jer. 4. 2. <HI>in Iudgment and in Righteou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> Were it defective [in judgment] that is (in deliberatne&s;s of taking) that would not be (as I have &s;aid) a ground to invalidate its obligation <HI>ip&s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">acto:</HI> &s;eeing it were but a failing in the manner, not a corruptne&s;s in the mat|ter: a fault in the Per&s;on &s;wearing, not in the Oath &s;worn: and in the per&s;on a defect internal, or of the mind, not externally vi&s;ible in the act: and to be pre&s;umed to be found only in &s;ome per&s;ons &s;wearing, not in all. That part therefore of the Allegation, were it true, might have been left out, and as often as it is brought in to prove the Oath unlawful &s;o as not to bind, it addes no &s;trength to the Conclu&s;ion. But to de&s;cend to his particulars, 1 To manife&s;t the Oath's di&s;agreement with the &s;aid rule of <HI>Ieremiah.</HI> His fir&s;t particular Exception is, <HI>That it ought to have been Conditional, not Ab&s;olute; Mutual, not Single.</HI> His Argument in effect runs thus, <HI>That it may be in Iudgment and Righteou&s;ne&s;s, it mu&s;t be Conditional not Ab&s;olute; Mutual, or taken both by Ruler, and Rulled; not Single, or taken onlie by one Partie. But this Oath is not &s;o Ergo, &amp;c.</HI> That the Rea|der may under&s;tand us both, and I may more cleerly pa&s;s on in my An|&s;wer, I mu&s;t interpo&s;e a di&s;tinction or two upon the Terms.</P>
<P>1 Saith he, <HI>The Oath mu&s;t be Conditional, not Ab&s;olute.</HI> 1 I conceive
<PB N="3" REF="6"> the words [Conditional, and Ab&s;olute] may be taken, 1 Either in re|ference to the thing &s;worn, which is Obedience, or Allegiance to the KING; thus the Oath mu&s;t be Conditional, not Ab&s;olute; that is, the obedience which we bind our &s;elves to, mu&s;t be with limitation, and c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ndition, re&s;training it (as all obedience to men in any relation is to be, to ju&s;t, hone&s;t, lawful things, or &s;o as to Con&s;i&s;t with our obedience to God; not ab&s;olute or illimited in that &s;en&s;e. 2 Or in reference to the tye, or obligation of the oath, as the qualification thereof; and &s;o I &s;ay it may be Ab&s;olute, and mu&s;t not of nece&s;&s;ity be Conditional, that is, The &s;ubordinate and limited obedience which is due to the Prince or Magi&s;trate, I may &s;wear unto ab&s;olutely, or withour any &s;pecial Condi|tion annexed to my Engagement. <HI>Special Condition</HI> I &s;ay, for I mu&s;t once again di&s;tingui&s;h, to wit, of Conditions. 1 Some are general, and &s;uch as no promi&s;ary oath that is lawful can be without, tho&s;e are (I think) all of them reduced to the&s;e two heads, namely that the thing &s;worn be <HI>Ho|ne&s;t</HI> and <HI>Po&s;&s;ible.</HI> The&s;e Conditions are pre&s;uppo&s;ed, and not wont to be expre&s;t, and notwith&s;tanding the including of them an oath may be &s;aid to be Ab&s;olute. 2 Others are <HI>Special,</HI> and <HI>Proper</HI> Conditions, which are ingredients in &s;ome oaths, the which are (by rea&s;on of them) termed Conditional. They are u&s;ually either &s;omewhat that is Contingent, as when a Merchant Covenants and Swears to give an hundred pounds to another man, or to a publick U&s;e, if his Ship (that is gone to Sea) re|turn home &s;afe with her Merchandize; or, that which is Arbitrary, or in the choice of mans Will, his (commonly) to whom the oath is En|gaged; as if a Ma&s;ter Covenant and Swear to maintain his Servant with Meat, Drink, and &s;uch Wages, if he be a true and diligent Servant to him. It is not the Former, but this Latter Conditionality which he re|quires in the oath of Allegiance, to wit, That the Subject be only bound to his Duty of Allegiance if, and &s;o long as the Prince ob&s;erveth his du|ty of Government inviolate: and this in truth is not in that oath, nor is it nece&s;&s;ary to make the oath lawful. The Major therefore of this <HI>Oath-impugners Syllogi&s;me</HI> I deny in that fir&s;t part of it, viz. <HI>It mu&s;t be Conditio|nal, not Ab&s;olute:</HI> To make good my Denial, 1 I will An&s;wer what he &s;aith to prove it. 2 Bring in my Rea&s;ons again&s;t it: and leave the Rea|der to judge betwixt us.</P>
<P>1 All that he &s;aith for proof of that A&s;&s;ertion is this, <HI>It is again&s;t the ground, and rea&s;on of the Primitive In&s;titution of Government, which is the good of the Subject, that there &s;hould be any Oath to bind him Ab&s;olutlie, whether the Prince Rule for the Subjects good, or not.</HI> This were &s;omething if it were proved, but the Reader is left either to take it upon his word, or to re|main un&s;atisfied both of it, and the conclu&s;ion which depends upon it, if he like to do neither, let him try whether I can &s;atisfie him to the con|trary.</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="4" REF="7">1 The Parliament that Enacted this Oath, and all &s;ub&s;equent Parlia|ments who were intru&s;ted with, and mo&s;t able (in all probability) to judge what would be for the Subjects good, and who (without all con|trover&s;ie) were more &s;ufficient and competent Judges thereof then this man, have adjudged it not again&s;t, but for the Subjects good.</P>
<P N="2">2 It hath con&s;i&s;ted with the publick good (yea contributed to it, or els the Papi&s;ts would not have &s;o oppo&s;ed it) from the time it was fir&s;t &s;et forth, until now, in impartial mens judgments, and no complaint hath been at all heard again&s;t it from the Kingdom, nor &s;carcely, if at all, from particular men, till within the&s;e few dayes, what the &s;uppre&s;&s;ing of it on the other hand will tend to, a little time may fully enough manife&s;t.</P>
<P N="3">3 A thing may be &s;aid to be again&s;t the peoples good in two very far different &s;en&s;es: 1 Either in it &s;elf of its own nature, or &s;imply con&s;ide|red: of this &s;ort are inju&s;tice, impunity of offences, &s;edition, con&s;piracy, ho&s;tile inva&s;ion, and the like; &s;uch things are in their own nature op|po&s;ed to the publick good. 2 Or accidentally and contigently, thus any thing almo&s;t that fals under a political con&s;ideration, and comes under the dehberation of the Law-givers, though lawful in it &s;elf, and for the pre&s;ent probably, yea, or nece&s;&s;arily good for a Common-wealth, may prove in the event &s;omewhat incommodious and hurtful. There is a goodne&s;s of the end, which is one and the &s;ame in all States and Go|vernments, <HI>viz.</HI> The happine&s;s of the Community, and this is intended, not deliberated on, or cho&s;en by the Law-givers: <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ac deliberamus quidem non de fini|bus &s;ed de iis quae referuntur ad fines. <HI>Ari&s;tot.</HI> Eth. l. 3. c. 3.</NOTE> And there is a goodne&s;s of the means tending to that end, and this is variable in re|lation to times and people; that may be good in the nature of a means for one people, or time, that is not &s;o for another. <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">E&s;t enim genus hominum natura va|ri&egrave; comparatum atque affectum, aliud &s;ervile, aliud colendis regthus accommo|datum; aliud Democraticum &amp; Popu|lare; at que horum generum &s;uum cui|que e&s;t ac di&s;tinctum commodum. <HI>Ari|&s;tot. Polit.</HI> l. 3. c. 12. num. 112. Ita|que manife&s;tum e&s;t eju&s;dem di&s;ciplinae e&s;&s;e con&s;iderare, non &s;olum quae &s;it, &amp; qualis optima Re&s;publica, cujus &s;tatus &s;i nulla vis ob&s;titerit, maxim&egrave; de&s;idere|tur, &amp; optetur; &s;ed etiam, quae cuique congrua &amp; con&s;entanea e&s;t, permulti enim optimam con&s;equi nequeunt, qua|re neque Legi&s;lator, neque is qui ver&egrave; civilis habeatur, ignorare debet quae re|&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ub tam ab&s;olut&egrave; perfecta &s;it, tum pro &s;tatu rerum pre&s;aentium maxim&egrave; lau|danda, tum denique quae pro conditione aliqua non &s;it improbanda. <HI>Idem</HI> l. 4. c. 1. num. 2. Itaque cogno&s;cendae erant rerum publicarum &s;pecies, ac differen|tiae, &amp; quot modis u<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ter &s;e commi&s;cean|tur, cumque haec eadem prudentia opti|marum legum &s;cientia &amp; unicuique Reipub. convenientium conjungenda e&s;t, ad re&s;publicas enim leges &s;un<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> ac|commodandae non autem ad leges res ip&s;ae publicae. <HI>Idem eodem</HI> Nu. 6. 27</NOTE> It is the means and its goodne&s;s which fals under the con&s;ulation of the Le|gi&s;lators, and becau&s;e of the uncer|tainty thereof, they are occa&s;ioned often to change their advi&s;ements and laws: But by rea&s;on that in things which approach neer the foundation, or do con&s;titute it, changes are very perillous in a State, and in tho&s;e things it is bet|ter to bear an inconvemency, then to run the hazard of an in~ovation; therefore it hath been the hone&s;t
<PB N="5" REF="7"> and nece&s;&s;ary wi&s;dome of mo&s;t States, to &s;ettle them by a firmer Sanction then they u&s;e in other things, and to ordain a kind of im|mutability in them, and con&s;e|quently to ratifie them by Oaths, fore-&s;eeing that no inconvenience in the Con&s;titution of a Govern|ment, in it &s;elf lawful and eligible, can match the mi&s;chief of an-alte|ration; and therefore that the un|certain danger of that is rather to be cho&s;en, then the inevitable mi|&s;eries of this: Such things as may by rea&s;on of their changeable nature prove in the i&s;&s;ue &s;ome what di&s;advantagious, may yet, if for the pre&s;ent good, and probably hopeful &s;o to continue, be &s;worn to ab&s;olutly, as in voluntary Promi&s;es, Leagues, and Contracts, both publike and private, among all Nations hath been the practi&s;e, and by good Scripture-pre&s;i|dents it is ju&s;tified, <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Gen. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Jo&s;h. 9. 15 14 9. Judg. 21. 5. 18. 15. 12. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 19. 6. 20. 12. 17 1 King. 1. 13. 29. 2 Sam. 29. 23.</NOTE> and the rea&s;on is, Becau&s;e if any future prejudice do redound, it can be (the Obligation of the Oath remaining) at the wor&s;t, but an outward incommodity, the which is compen&s;ated by the avoiding of a greater evil, which the leaving of the matter free and un|&s;ecured would more certainly breed and bring. To apply all this to the ca&s;e in hand: If any impeachment of the Subjects good can be &s;uppo|&s;ed to re&s;ult out of his &s;weating to his Prince ab&s;olutly, whether he Rule well or no, it is but accidental, and &s;uch as it is, it is over-ballanced with a greater mi&s;chief which would accrue by leaving the Subjects un-inga|ged: for the &s;huning of which, the le&s;&s;er evil, to wit, the being bound to a King, though he &s;hould prove a bad Governor, is to be cho&s;en; for that, in compari&s;on of a greater evil, hath the con&s;ideration of good, and is &s;o eligible: It is a le&s;s evil for a people to be bound to a Prince that po&s;&s;ibly may prove bad, then to be &s;o loo&s;e, as to be at liberty to ca&s;t him off when they &s;hall judge him to Rule ill, that is, when they plea&s;e; the former doth not &s;o neerly and probably tend to the &s;ubjects hurt as doth the latter: For, fir&s;t, The Prince may prove ju&s;t and vertuous. Second|ly, If he degenerates, the Subject is bound to obey him actively, but in lawful things. Thirdly, In his lawle&s;s Acts there may be a remedy (as the puni&s;hment or re&s;i&s;tance of his bad in&s;truments by the Parliament, without whom, though he may Will unju&s;t things, yet he cannot Exe|cute them) and yet his Government be continued. Fourthly, And &s;up|po&s;e the ca&s;e that there be no remedy, as when he hath got a party &s;tron|ger then can be re&s;i&s;ted, or &s;ubjected to puni&s;hment, then to ca&s;t off his power and depo&s;e him (&s;uppo&s;e it lawful to do) will be no relief, his
<PB N="6" REF="8"> &s;trength will command &s;ubjection. Fifthly, The mi&s;carriages of a Prince ordinarily (unle&s;&s;e it come to publick conte&s;tation, wherein the Subjects &s;worn and un&s;worn, if their cau&s;e be ju&s;t, and the Parliameot authorize their &s;tanding up, are in the &s;ame capacity of re&s;i&s;tence) extend but to the detriment of &s;ome particular per&s;ons, rarely doth any <HI>Nero</HI>-like, &s;eek the de&s;truction of the whole. But on the other hand, &s;et the people free to &s;hake off the reins of their pre&s;ent Government, when they &s;hall think it unequal, and, 1 You de&s;troy the nature of Government, as will after|wards be &s;hewed. 2 You expo&s;e the people to an immediate lo&s;&s;e of the very u&s;e and enjoyment of any Government, the power of mobility and change being &s;ure to invite al ill-di&s;po&s;ed per&s;ons immediatly to put that power in ure, and hurry all (if they may prevail) into con&s;u&s;ion. In &s;hort, a bad Government is better then none; it is more tolerable for a people that one, or few, then that every man do that which is right in his own eyes. To be bound to Allegiance, may lay the people open to the for|mer; to be loo&s;e, will precipitate them into the latter: The former in|convenience cannot be &s;o univer&s;ally exten&s;ive, &s;peedily de&s;tructive, and remedile&s;s, or unre&s;i&s;tible, as the latter.</P>
<P>2 The latter thing I premi&s;ed, is to give my Rea&s;ons for the contra|dictory to his Major Propo&s;ition in that fir&s;t part, <HI>It mu&s;t be Conditional, not Ab&s;olute:</HI> Again&s;t which I &s;ay, The oath of allegiance may be ab&s;o|lute, or unconditional, in the &s;en&s;e before given; and for this A&s;&s;ertion, I render the&s;e Rea&s;ons:</P>
<P>1 Were there no Oath, the limited obedience which is due to Princes and Magi&s;trates, is due to them ab&s;olutly; that is, Whether they Ru<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e well or no; and that which is ab&s;olutly due, may be ob&s;olutly &s;worn; The former Propo&s;ition I ground thus;</P>
<P N="1">1 The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors, is without any condition or re&s;erve of a di&s;ingagement of the Subject in ca&s;e of the Go|vernors mi&s;carriage; reade the Fifth Commandement, and tho&s;e other Injunctions, Rom. 13. 1, 2, &amp;c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13, &amp;c.</P>
<P N="2">2 God commands his people to be &s;ubject to Heathen Princes, and the mo&s;t ab&s;olute and oppre&s;&s;ive Tyrants that likely ever have ben, Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I &s;peak not here of Tyrants, in regard of Title, or Right; that is, U&s;urpers: but of Tyrants who&s;e Title is ju&s;t, but their Government unju&s;t, and oppre&s;&s;ive.</P>
<P N="3">3 Servants are to be &s;ubject to their Ma&s;ters, not only that are good and gentle, but tho&s;e that are froward, and do them wrong, and from whom they &s;uffer for wel-doing, 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19, 20. and by Analogy. Subjects are tyed in the &s;ame terms to their Governors.</P>
<P N="4">4 <HI>David</HI> would not &s;tretch out his hand again&s;t <HI>Saul</HI> upon this ground, for that he was his Ma&s;ter the King of I&s;rael, and the Lords A|nointed, though he was then in actual, violent, and unju&s;t pur&s;uit of his life, 1 Sam. 24. 5. &amp;c. 26. 9. &amp;c.</P>
<P N="5"><PB N="7" REF="8">5 Otherwi&s;e you leave no place for pa&s;&s;ive obedience to pray for, and patience towards Magi&s;trates in ca&s;e of their wrong doing, and your innocency, which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Ame&s;. Medula Theol. l. 1. c. 17. p. 57. Vr&s;in. Cat. p. 3. q. 104</NOTE></P>
<P N="6">6 Els you di&s;&s;olve all Magi&s;tracy, it will be impo&s;&s;ible in mans cor|rupt e&s;tate to retain or continue any, in as much as no man, or men, can in the va&s;t multitude, and difficulty of Magi&s;tratical affairs avoid offen|ding every day, 2 Sam. 23. 3, 5.</P>
<P N="7">7 The Doctrin of orthodox Prote&s;tant Divines generally is, That obedience is due (in lawful things) to the mo&s;t degenerate, oppre&s;&s;ing, and tyrannical Princes <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Calvin. In&s;t. l 4 c. 20. &sect;. 24, 25, &amp;c. Pet. Mart. loc. C cl. 4. C. 2. &sect;. 12. 18, 19. Al&s;. Theol. C. 17. Reg. 8. Perk C. of Con&s;. l. 3 c. 6. &sect;. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Buc. In&s;ti. Theol. loc. 49. q. 21. Synop. pu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. Theol. di&s;. 50. The&s;. 18. 27. Sharp. &s;im. Epoch. 5. Q. 44. 45.</NOTE></P>
<P>2 We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture, &s;worn to Princes without any Conditions in&s;erted, Judg. 11. 9, 10. 2 King. 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. &amp; Nehem. 10. 29. Their oath was to ob&s;erve all the Com|mandements of the Lord, whereof the fifth Commandement, with ap|plication to their pre&s;ent and future Magi&s;trates, was one.</P>
<P>3 It is a thing within our power to &s;ettle our Allegiance ab&s;olutly, as well as it is within a mans power to di&s;po&s;e of him&s;elf to &s;ervice &s;o, whe|ther his Ma&s;ter prove good, or evil, or as it is in a man or womans pow|er to be&s;tow them&s;elves in Marriage, whether the mate be ob&s;ervant of duty, or no?</P>
<P>4 A Conditional oath is not con&s;i&s;tent with a nece&s;&s;ary duty; obedi|ence to Magi&s;trates is no le&s;s arbitrary, but commanded, and that though they be bad; but now the duty being nece&s;&s;ary, if you would have it &s;worn with a provi&s;o of the Rulers performing his duty, you nulli&s;ie the end of an Oath, which is to confirm, put out of doubt, and give &s;ecurity of what is due. A thing &s;worn may become due, either by the rule of Equity, or by a voluntary Covenant: That which is due the latter way, if the Covenant be conditional; the Oath that is to ratifie it, may be al|&s;o &s;o far conditional, but what is due in the former kind, to wit, by ab&s;o|lute and unalterable rule, or precept of Ju&s;tice, cannot be &s;worn to con|ditionally; for that would be no ratification to it, nay it would be a de|bilitating, and rendering more in&s;ecure of that which was &s;imply due without an oath, a condition being put into your oath, being a very pro|bable <HI>medium</HI> to per&s;wade the &s;wearer that he is no otherwayes bound to the things &s;worn, then upon that Condition; which being broken by that party &s;worn to, he will ea&s;ily conceive him&s;elf altogether free: Thus the ab&s;olute Rule will receive impeachment, and not &s;trength in its obliga|tion by the conditional oath: &s;uch an oath therefore is in its end incon&s;i|&s;tent with it.</P>
<P>2 I come to the latter part of his Major which exacteth, <HI>That the Oath be mutual, or taken both by Ruler, and Ruled; not &s;ingle, or taken only by the ru|led.</HI> Some explanation of his terms, more then is here he might have u&s;ed; for lack whereof I &s;hall as I go ob&s;erve &s;ome difference of &s;en&s;e
<PB N="8" REF="9"> appliable to his words, and &s;o expre&s;&s;e how I deny this branch of his Po&s;ition, and why.</P>
<P>1 His words &s;ound, as if he would have the &s;ame oath to be taken mu|tually both by Prince and Subject, which (if he remember that the oath &s;poken of, is the oath of a Subjects Allegiance, obedience, or &s;ubjection to be yeelded to his Sovereign, and that the King is the per&s;on &s;worn to) he will no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, cannot I &s;uppo&s;e, own to be his &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P>2 But the apter &s;en&s;e, and that which I &s;uppo&s;e was in his intention, is, That the Ruler and Subject &s;hould each &s;wear to his re&s;pective duty; the Prince, That he will Command and Govern lawfully: the Subject, That he will perform all lawful homage, and obedience: And to this I &s;ay, Although it be true, it in fact, in our ca&s;e, that the King hath &s;worn his duty on his part, as well as the Subject doth in this oath &s;wear his, yet the Propo&s;ition is fal&s;e in this, and it cannot be &s;aid, That thus it univer|&s;ally ought of nece&s;&s;ity to be betwixt every Prince &amp; his Subjects, much le&s;&s;e can it hold that, unle&s;&s;e it be thus mutual, the Subjects oath is not in righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e according to Jer. 4. 2. but that for want of this mutua|lity it is null. For,</P>
<P>1 We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scripture, under|taken in Covenant betwix<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s man and man, wherein one party only &s;wea|reth, and not both mutually, Gen 24. 2. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Jo&s;h. 2. 12. 9. 15. 14. 9 Judg. 15. 12. 1 Sam. 19. 6. 1 King. 1. 13. 29. 51. 2 Sam. 19. 23. Neh. 5. 12. Jer. 38. 16.</P>
<P>2 We find in Scripture, Oaths of Allegiance taken by Subjects to their Rulers, without the reciprocal &s;wearing of the Rulers to them <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">2 King. 11. 4. Judg. 11. 10. Ch. 36. 13 Ez. 17. 3.</NOTE>; &s;uch was that engagement, Jo&s;h. 1. 16, 17, 18.</P>
<P>3 Oaths are never to be taken but nece&s;&s;arily, that is, When not only the matter is of great weight, but it cannot otherwi&s;e be &s;ufficiently con|firmed or a&s;&s;ured then by Oath <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Doctor</HI> Sander&s;. <HI>de</HI> Juram. <HI>ob. prael. 7. &sect;. 12. Thol. &s;ynt. jur. l. 50. c. 3.</HI></NOTE>, but in &s;olemn humane Covenants it comes to pa&s;&s;e that &s;ometimes the performance lies only on one party, the other is to receive advantage, but not to do any thing: Sometimes the danger of breach lies only, or more on one part then on another: Sometimes th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re is other &s;atisfactory a&s;&s;urance given be&s;ides &s;wearing: and &s;ometimes there is other remedy, if there &s;hould be a breach, then the forfeiture of an Oath: In &s;uch, and other ca&s;es, an Oath on the one party may no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> need, and con&s;equently is not to be exacted.</P>
<P>4 But &s;uppo&s;e the ca&s;e, that it be as nece&s;&s;ary for &s;ecurity that the King &s;wear to the people, as that they take an oath to him, yet if through over|much credulity, or otherwi&s;e it be that the people do &s;wear, and not the Prince, this cannot be the lea&s;t colour for the nullifying of the peoples Oath: For whether the King Swear or no, that which makes the Oath obliging, is, That in a ju&s;t and po&s;&s;ible matter promi&s;ed, God is invo|cated as a witne&s;&s;e of the promi&s;e.</P>
<PB N="9" REF="9">
<P>3 There is another &s;en&s;e of mutual &s;wearing more &s;trict then the for|mer, and that is, when not only two parties &s;wear to each other their re|&s;pective parts, but they both &s;wear with a mutual re&s;pect; that is, The obligation of the one party, hath a re&s;pct to, and a dependance on the per|formance of the other party: as when one man &s;wears to another to give him &s;o much Money for his Land; that other &s;wears to convey to him his Land for &s;o much Money; in this kind, the breach of the one is a relea&s;ment to the other. And here that Adage holds good,</P>
<P><Q>Frangenti fidem, fides frangatur eidem;</Q> And al&s;o that Rule of the Law, <Q>Fru&s;tra qu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> fidem po&s;tulat &s;ibi &s;ervari ab eo, cui fidem &agrave; &s;e prae&s;titam &s;ervare recu&s;at.</Q></P>
<P>But this &s;en&s;e of mutual &s;wearing cannot come in to be meant in our ca&s;e: For, 1 Such an oath is plainly conditional; The one party &s;wears not to give the other ab&s;olutly, and cleerly &s;o much Money, but to give him &s;o much for his Land; the having of the Land then is an expre&s;&s;e condition of his oath: but the oath of the Subjects Allegiance is granted to be ab&s;olute, and is as &s;uch di&s;puted again&s;t by him here; and I have a|bo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e proved an oath of Allegiance cannot be Conditional. 2 The Kings cath is al&s;o ab&s;olute, and binds without dependence on the Subjects loy|alty; no man wil &s;ay (I think) that the King is di&s;charged from ruling ju&s;tly, and may become an ab&s;olute Tyrant, if his Subjects exceed the bounds, or fail of the bonds of their oath, or duty: nay, if the Subject tran&s;gre&s;&s;e his duty, the King is bound by his oath to cau&s;e Ju&s;tice accor|ding to the Law and Tenor of his Oath, to be done; and cannot other|wi&s;e e&s;cape violation of his Oath. 3 Such mutual oathes are entred in|to by both parties at the &s;ame time, and have their mutual re&s;pects ex|pre&s;&s;ed, but neither doth the King and Subjects &s;wear to each other at the &s;ame time; neither is there any &s;uch mutual re&s;pect mentioned, or &s;o much as implyed in either of their Oathes. 4 Such mutually re|&s;pective oathes have only place in matters arbitrary, or that are in mens choice to do, or not to do until they bind them&s;elves by Covenant, but &s;uch are not the relative duties of Kings and Subjects, there being a divine Law obliging each to the Duties of their Offices before they &s;wear.</P>
<P>We &s;ee no &s;en&s;e imaginable of <HI>Mutual not Single</HI> wil fit this mans turn, but it wil make his Propo&s;ition fal&s;e, either if predicated of the oath of Allegiance at al; So doth the Fir&s;t, and Third acception afore mentio|ned; or if predicated with that <HI>modus</HI> of a <HI>nece&s;&s;e e&s;t,</HI> &s;o doth the Second. But let us hear his Rea&s;on for this clau&s;e of his Major whatever be the &s;en&s;e of it.</P>
<P><HI>It is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>again&s;t Equitie and Rea&s;on, and the good of the Subject, that he &s;hould be further, or longer bound to the Prince to &s;ubmit to him, then the
<PB N="10" REF="10"> Prince is bound to the Subject to Rule wel, and admini&s;ter ju&s;tice rightlie.</HI> Grant al this, and it wil no way follow; <HI>Therefore the Oath of Allegiance to make it righteous mu&s;t be mutual,</HI> in any &s;en&s;e: for the Prince may be bound, and that as long to his part, as the Subject is to his, (and &s;o he is, and it is impo&s;&s;ible to be otherwi&s;e for Prince and Subject; his tye to Rule in Ju&s;tice, and his to Obey in ju&s;t things are relatives, and do infer nece&s;&s;a|rily each other) to wit, by the tye of Scripture, Con&s;cience, and po&s;itive Laws, and yet not be &s;worn at al.</P>
<P>His Major being thus (I hope) fully Refuted, I need not to take no|tice of his Con&s;equences, as he cals them, but in a word I &s;hal touch on them.</P>
<P>The Fir&s;t is nothing but a Hypothetical Repetition of &s;ome part of the Major Propo&s;ition, which I have been &s;o long in di&s;proving: <HI>If the Oath of Allegiance were in judgement and righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, the King was as &s;tronglie bound to the Subjects, as any of them to him:</HI> This therefore I pa&s;&s;e by, as the &s;ame that was &s;aid before, and no Con&s;equence from it.</P>
<P>The Second is, <HI>Then if he break his Oath, al the Subjects are ab&s;olved if they wil.</HI> This Con&s;equence I deny: I have I think, fully made it cleer be|fore, That the Oath of Allegiance taken by the Subject is ab&s;olute, not depending upon any thing to be performed by the King, whether &s;worn, or not &s;worn; and that it could not have been otherwi&s;e. And though the King and People have each &s;worn their duties mutually, yet not with<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>See Doct.</HI> Sander&s;. <HI>de</HI> Juram. <HI>ob. prael.</HI> 4. &sect;. 8.</NOTE> a mutual re&s;pect, by vertue whereof a breach on one &s;ide might be a di&s;|charge on the other, and that neither the tenor of their Oaths hold forth any &s;uch thing, neither is the matter of them capable thereof, being ne|ce&s;&s;ary, not arbitrary.</P>
<P>The Third is, <HI>Then at what time the King Levied War again&s;t his Sub|jects, they were di&s;charged by that breach of Oath in him of their Allegiance.</HI> This is a Con&s;equence of the former Con&s;equence, and &s;tands or fals with it: That therefore being An&s;wered and Di&s;proved, this vani|&s;heth.</P>
<P>The Fourth thing is no Con&s;equence, but a Rea&s;on of the two la&s;t Con&s;equences, and in method of arguing is therefore an antecedent to prove them, it is thus, <HI>El&s;e the whole Parliament and their partie were perjured per&s;ons, &s;o manie of them as have taken this Oath, and are Rebels in taking up Armes again&s;t the King.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> If their taking up of Arms again&s;t the King (as he terms it) were Rebellion, their ab&s;olution from their Oathes (were it &s;o indeed) by the Kings breach of his, could not unmake, or make it no Rebellion; for the debt of Obedience is exi&s;tent in the Subject before any Oath ta|king, and it is not founded on &s;wearing, but only confirmed by it, and therefore &s;urvives after the pretended di&s;&s;olution of it; and con&s;equently makes that taking up of Armes which would have been (if the Oath
<PB N="11" REF="10"> had not been (as he &s;uppo&s;eth) nullified) Rebellion neverthe|le&s;&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> We mu&s;t therefore &s;ay, as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved, declared, and in many Treati&s;es in Print, maintained al along the late Wars, That the Armes of the Parliament were not again&s;t any brance of the Subjects Allegiance, or the Oath for it (which they pro|fe&s;&s;ed &s;til to per&s;i&s;t in, yea, and in the act of their Armes bearing, Cove|nanted to yeeld and maintain) but concordant with the &s;ame. In as much as they enterprized not again&s;t the Kings Per&s;on, his State, or Govern|ment, they went not again&s;t his Maje&s;ty, his Heirs, or Succe&s;&s;ors, they joyned not again&s;t his Crown and Dignity, the Rights whereof, and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience, are prefixed by the Lawes of the Realm, the ultimate interpretation whereof, is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for, and agreeable to the Laws. The King, as King, acts only by his Courts and Laws, what he doth be&s;ides, or a|gain&s;t the&s;e, is the mans, not the Kings acting. What is done by Order of the Courts of Ju&s;tice, and by vertue of the Laws, is done (though a|gain&s;t his per&s;onal pre&s;ence or command, yet) for the King, his Crown, and Dignity.</P>
<P>2 His next Exception again&s;t the Oath of Allegiance is, That it is an unlawful Oath, in that it is &s;worn to the Kings Heirs: His Rea&s;on for this Exception proceeds thus,</P>
<P><HI>Who knoweth</HI> (as Eccle&s;. 2. 19.) <HI>whether he will be a wi&s;e man, or a fool; a ju&s;t, or a <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ricked man, and Tyrant? Now if no man know this, then to &s;wear to an Heir, is not an Oath in judgment, nor is it righteous: for the Subject may bind him&s;elf to his own hurt, yea ruine.</HI></P>
<P>Con&s;equence. <HI>Then the Oath of Allegiance was in that branch, that re&s;pected Heirs, an unlawful Oath, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<Q>I admit of the Antecedent, but utterly deny the Con&s;e|quence.</Q>
<P>1 For the whole Con&s;equence, I An&s;wer;</P>
<P>1 This inference is directly contrary to that which <HI>Solomon</HI> in the place cited, Eccle&s;. 2. 19. makes from the words. <HI>Solomons</HI> is, <HI>Yet &s;hall he have Rule over all my labours wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have &s;hewed my &s;elf wi&s;e under the Sun.</HI> This mans inference is (in effect) be|cau&s;e no man knows whether he wil be a wi&s;e man, or a fool; there|fore he &s;hal not have Rule, &amp;c. that is, We mu&s;t not Engage before|hand that he &s;hal Rule, while it is uncertain what he wil prove: though <HI>Solomon</HI> &s;aith, Notwith&s;tanding that is uncertain, yet he &s;hal have Rule.</P>
<P>2 The &s;ame Rea&s;on (if it held) would lie again&s;t any Oath, or En|gagement to any Rulers in being what&s;oever they are; for &s;ay they be come to maturity, and for the pa&s;t and pre&s;ent time have given proof;
<PB N="12" REF="11"> yet who knows what they that are now wi&s;e, and ju&s;t (morally) may hereafter come to be? The Scripture &s;uppo&s;eth, That not only a ju&s;t Father may have a wicked Son, but a righteous man (in profe&s;&s;ion and external carriage) may turn from his righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and commit ini|quity, Ezek. 18. 24. <HI>Neroes Quinqu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nnium</HI> of Reigning wel is generally known, the good beginnings of <HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ea&s;h,</HI> and <HI>Vzziah,</HI> 2 Chron. 23, 24, and 26. and therefore degeneracies are &s;ufficient in&s;tances of the lubricity of men in authority. Yea it is wel known how fearfully <HI>Solomon</HI> him&s;elf with <HI>A&s;a,</HI> 1 King. 11. 2 Chron 16. and others, fel in divers particulars of a gro&s;&s;e nature; if we mu&s;t fir&s;t know, and &s;wear afterwards, we mu&s;t never &s;wear to any promi&s;&s;orily.</P>
<P>3 This Con&s;equence (were it of force) would equally condemn in general al promi&s;&s;ory Oathes, and other Covenants, and Engagements, betwixt man, and man; for it cannot be fore-&s;een in any, what the per|&s;ons contracted with wil prove; or whether the Covenant wil be bene|ficial, ot hurtful; and in particular, the Laws and Sanctions of tho&s;e Na|tions in al ages, which have &s;ettled &s;ucce&s;&s;ive Regality, or any other Go|vernment, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">or longer then the pre&s;ent po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors of the power endure, which yet is a way, not only more generally approved, and practi&s;ed, then any other of vici&s;&s;itudinary Election, but warranted by the word of God. <HI>I&s;rael</HI> offered a &s;ucce&s;&s;ive power to <HI>Gideon,</HI> Judg. 8. 22. and God him&s;elf in&s;tituted, and bound the People to a lineal Government in <HI>David</HI> and his &s;eed, 2 Sam. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 13. 5. The Patriarchal power (which was political) was &s;ucce&s;&s;ive, and could not have been ca&s;t off at plea&s;ure: &s;o was the Government of the Jewi&s;h Nation, f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r about an hundred yeers in the lineage of the <HI>Macca<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ees.</HI></P>
<P>4 We have Scripture examples (of an uncontroverted integrity) of Oathes, and Engagements to Princes and their Heirs; and to Princes in their yong, unripe, and untryed yeers: Take for in&s;tance that of <HI>Abra|hams</HI> &s;wearing to <HI>Abimelech</HI> King of Gerar, his Son, and Sons Son, 1 <HI>Chr.</HI> 23. 29. 22. 29. 1. 22 5. &amp; that of <HI>Davids</HI> making <HI>Solomon</HI> King in his own life time, and engaging the people to him when he was yet yong and ten|der; and that of JEHOJADAHS, and the Peoples making <HI>Ioa&s;h</HI> King, and &s;wearing to him when he was but &s;even yeers old, 2 King. 11. 4. 22.</P>
<P>2 For the two parts of the CONSEQUENCE in &s;eve|ral.</P>
<P>1 <HI>The Oath is not in judgment, becau&s;e no man knows what the Heir will prove.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay, 1 It may be in Judgment &s;o far as a future contigency can be de|liberated on: and this may be concluded on advi&s;edly (as morally cer|tain) that it's better to have the Crown &s;ettled in a line, whereby &s;ome|times a vicious per&s;on may be advanced, then to have it under Election
<PB N="13" REF="11"> at every per&s;onal change. This hath been the experimented maxime of the wi&s;e&s;t States <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Minore di&s;crimine &s;umi prin|cip. m qua~ quaeri.</HI> Tacit. <HI>H. lib. 2.</HI></NOTE>. 2 If it were not in Judgment, this defect makes not an oath Unlawful, as to the nullifying of it. A ra&s;h oath, if of a lawful thing binds (Judg. 21. 7. 15. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Jo&s;h. 9. 14. 15. as before was proved.</P>
<P>2 <HI>Nor is it a righteous Oath, for the Subject may bind him&s;elf to his own hurt, yea ruine.</HI></P>
<P>1 Though the Subject may not bind him&s;elf to what is nece&s;&s;arily, or at the time of his &s;wearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt, or ruine, yet he may &s;wear (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 &s;o &s;wear, yet having &s;o &s;worn, he is bound to &s;tand to his Oath, P&s;al. 15. 4. Io&s;h. 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. Judg. 21. 5. 15. 18. which is contradictory to what this man here &s;aith.</P>
<P>2 If the Heir &s;hould mi&s;prove, his power is bounded by the Law, and commixed with the Parliaments: If he vary, the power of Parlia|ment, the Laws and Liberties of the Subject are the &s;ame. The late King confe&s;&s;ed and declared a remedy again&s;t Tyranny to re&s;ide in the Parliament; there may be a prevention then of the Subjects ruine (what|ever the Heir prove) if the KINGDOME be faithful to it &s;elf.</P>
<P>3 His Third Exception again&s;t the Oath as unlawful, and void, is, <HI>That it is to uphold one kind of Government for continuance, and in a con&s;tant way without changing.</HI> His Argument to make good this Exception, proceeds thus,</P>
<P><HI>If of the &s;everal kinds of Government, all are not equally good, nor &s;utable to all People: And man may change the Government he is under for his own greate&s;t good and benefit, and mu&s;t change it when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient and hurtful, and mu&s;t not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be mo&s;t &s;afe and profitable; then to &s;wear to up|hold any one Government continually and con&s;tantly, and not to change it, is &s;inful; and in Righteou&s;ne&s;s and Judgment may not be done. But of the &s;everal kinds of Government, all are not equal|ly good, nor &s;utable to all people, and man may change the Govern|ment he is under for his own greate&s;t good and benefit, and mu&s;t change it, when he hath proved any kind of Government inconveni|ent and hurtful; and mu&s;t not uphold any one kind of Government longer then it continues to be mo&s;t &s;afe and profitable.</HI> Ergo,</P>
<PB N="14" REF="12">
<P>For An&s;wer hereunto,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, I ob&s;erve there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument, as &s;omewhat tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing the rules of arguing.</P>
<P>1 In the Con&s;equence there is &s;omething of the error called <HI>Ignoratio Elenchi;</HI> for we &s;wear not in the Oath of Allegiance, indefinitly or inde|terminatly as his words import, to uphold one Government continual|ly, and not to change.</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> We &s;wear only to <HI>His Maje&s;ty, his Heirs, and Succe&s;&s;ors:</HI> &s;o that when ever they are al extinct, (which may be &s;ooner or later, as divine Providence di&s;po&s;eth) the Oath of it &s;elf cea&s;eth and deter|mines.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> Notwith&s;tanding the Allegiance &s;worn to the &s;aid per&s;ons, their Crown and Dignity, there is power of change in the Govern|ment left to the mutual con&s;ent of both parties; to wit, Tho&s;e &s;worn to, and them &s;wearing, as it is in al humane Contracts and Oaths<NOTE PLACE="marg">Al&s;. Theol. Ca&s;. C. 15. Reg. 2.</NOTE> of this nature &Dagger;.</P>
<P>2 In the Minor there is &s;omewhat of the fallacy called <HI>petitio principii,</HI> 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 &s;o the Government comes to be abu&s;ed; but a perniciou&s;ne&s;&s;e cannot therefore be charged upon the Govern|ment it &s;elf, nor can that be a nece&s;&s;ary ground for the change of Go|vernment: if &s;o, you wil bring in a ground for endle&s;&s;e Mutations; a change in the per&s;ons, or a regulating of them, is the apt remedy for that hurt: but the Government, the ab&s;tract or e&s;&s;ence of the thing, never can prove hurtful, becau&s;e it is an Ordinance of God for mans good, Rom. 13. 12. 4. and that <HI>in &s;pecie,</HI> as afterwards wil be &s;hewed, and as a Go<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ernment it hath a political goodne&s;&s;e &s;eated in its being, by the un|changable Law of Nature.</P>
<P>Secondly, But admit the Argument were not peccant in form, yet the A&s;&s;umption in the main of it, which is, <HI>That man may change the Govern|ment he is under for his own greate&s;t good, and mu&s;t change it when he hath proved anie Government inconvenient and hurtful, and mu&s;t not uphold anie one Go|vernment longer then it continues mo&s;t &s;afe and profitable;</HI> I mu&s;t flatly deny. What Po&s;ition more Anarchical could be delivered? For the di&s;proof, I offer thus,</P>
<P>1 He &s;aith, <HI>Man may change the Government, &amp;c.</HI> but the holy Gho&s;t &s;aith, Prov. 24. 21. <HI>My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change:</HI> He alloweth <HI>a change to be for greater good;</HI> but the holy Gho&s;t tels us in the next words, Ver&s;. 22. <HI>For their Calamitie &s;hall ri&s;e &s;uddenlie, and who knoweth the Ruine of them <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">oth?</HI></P>
<P>2 If men may change for the better, and mu&s;t change upon a &s;up|po&s;ed
<PB N="15" REF="12"> hurt, then all Oathes, Engagements, or Promi&s;es of Obedi|ence, Allegiance, or Fidelity to Magi&s;trates, are unlawful to be un|dertaken; for al &s;uch Bonds, are in relation to a pre&s;ent, and particular Government, the Engagers are under: And they are not for the time pre&s;ent, or for an in&s;tant, but for a future Continuance. And there is in al &s;uch Engagements, a making over of the Right which the Enga|gers have in the matter Covenanted, to the per&s;ons Engaged to; accor|ding to that known Rule, <HI>Omne promi&s;&s;um cadit in debitum:</HI> either then &s;uch a change to be made by the per&s;ons under Authority may not, mu&s;t not be; or &s;uch Engagements may not, mu&s;t not be by them under|taken: The former imports a power and duty inherent in the Subjects to re&s;erve in them&s;elves a liberty to alter, and to practi&s;e it when they judge it convenient: The latter &s;peaks a binding out from any &s;uch deed, and an abandoning of any &s;uch Right; but the Scripture is cleer enough for &s;uch Engagements, Eccle&s;. 8. 2. 2 King. 11. 4. Jo&s;h. 1. 16, 17, 18 Judg. 8. 9, 10. 2 Chron. 36. 13.</P>
<P>Thirdly, This Po&s;ition not only di&s;alows all &s;uch Engagements, but di&s;&s;olves the natural, or moral bond it &s;elf of duty, and &s;ubjection to Magi&s;trates, for to be free to change when a man judgeth it be&s;t, is to be free when he wil, and that is not to be tyed at al; by this means any man is di&s;ingaged from &s;ubjection, both in <HI>foro interno, &amp; externo,</HI> when he wil &s;ay, He thinks the pre&s;ent Government not &s;afe or profitable, or another to be better; and having &s;o re&s;olved, he is ab&s;olved: He may now di&s;obey the Commands, &s;tand our again&s;t the Judgements, take up Arms again&s;t the Per&s;on and Authority, and be exempt from the Sword of the Magi&s;trate: yea, although he have &s;worn, or &s;ub&s;cribed Allegiance: becau&s;e &s;uch an Oath, or Promi&s;e (&s;aith this Doctor) was &s;inful, not in righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e: But I would fain have him declare, What thing Magi&s;tracy, and what Subjection is.</P>
<P>Fourthly, This Doctrine wil acquit, and ju&s;tifie al the Con&s;piracies, and Trea&s;ons, that ever were enterprized again&s;t the power of the Ma|gi&s;trate &s;ince the World was. Was not the Con&s;piracy of <HI>Ab&s;olem,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Sam. 1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> 1 Kin. 11 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. 12. 1. &amp;c. Act. 5. 36.</NOTE> and that of <HI>Sheba</HI> again&s;t <HI>David?</HI> Was not the Rebellion of <HI>Ieroboam</HI> a|gain&s;t <HI>Solomon,</HI> and <HI>Rehoboam?</HI> Were not the Seditions of <HI>Thendas</HI> and <HI>Iudas</HI> the Gaulonite again&s;t <HI>Cae&s;ar?</HI> Were not al the Trea&s;ons a|gain&s;t MAGISTRACY that ever have been, attempted for the p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rties (yea for the Publique) greater good, as the Con&s;pira|tors judged?</P>
<P>If it be &s;aid, That not particular men or a le&s;&s;e party are to judge the expediency, and take in hand the change, but the whole people. Be|&s;ides that, the people under Authority collectively taken have no &s;uch power (as I intend pre&s;ently to &s;hew) it may be &s;aid.</P>
<P>1 Seldome or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Govern|ment
<PB N="16" REF="13"> of them&s;elves affect or move to a change, it is the flatterers, and deceivers of the people &Dagger; ordinarily that de&s;ire and mi&s;lead the people to<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> Ari&s;t. <HI>poli. lib. 5. c. 5.</HI></NOTE> it.</P>
<P>2 How the Judgement and Will of the whole Body of a People &s;hould be known and declared unto Execution before particular men act to a change of their own private judgement, to me is a thing unimagi|nable.</P>
<P>Fifthly, This nece&s;&s;ity of retaining a power in Subjects to change, and of u&s;ing it for a greater good, or removal of a temporal hurt, in oppo|&s;ition to an Oath &s;worn again&s;t that change, is directly again&s;t the Scri|ptures, tying men, that &s;wear to their own hurt, not to change, P&s;al. 15. 4. Jo&s;h. 9. 18, 19. and condemning tho&s;e that for &s;uch ends have re|ceded from their Oathes, Ezek. 17. 13, &amp;c. Jo&s;h. 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam. 21. 2.</P>
<P>Sixthly, That Po&s;ition &s;o much now adayes in&s;i&s;ted on of the Peo|ples Power to depo&s;e, aboli&s;h, and alter the power of their Governors at plea&s;ure, which is actually &s;etled, and both in it &s;elf lawful, and law|fully &s;et over them, I hold is a gro&s;&s;e error.</P>
<P>Some of my Rea&s;ons in &s;hort are,</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> Such a cour&s;e (&s;uppo&s;ing the Governors Di&s;&s;ent to it al a|long) is no other then that re&s;i&s;tance of the Ordinance of God, con|demned, Rom. 13. 2.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> It is directly oppo&s;ite to that Subjection commanded e|very Soul that is in the relation of a Subject, Rom. 13. 1. and that 2 Pet. 2. 13.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> If the People may do it, then it mu&s;t needs be that they have a Civil power and authority over their Magi&s;trates; which is contrary to tho&s;e Scriptures which make the King Supream, and cal the power which the people are &s;ubject to, The higher Powers; higher in relation to them, who are below, and put in &s;ubjection to them, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Rom. 13. 1. And indeed, if the People have a power over their Magi&s;trates to judge, or di&s;place them, How are the Magi&s;trates their Superiors, and Rulers? The &s;ame per&s;ons cannot be under, and over others in the &s;ame kind of order or power. If the Magi&s;trates be under the People, whom are they over? If the People be above the Magi|&s;trates, whom are they under?</P>
<P><HI>Fourthly,</HI> The holy Gho&s;t commands the People to render Tri|bute, Cu&s;tome, Fear, Honor&punc; (not at random to a Magi&s;tracy lea|ving them at liberty to what they plea&s;e, but) to whom they are due; they are a debt then, which re&s;pecteth a determinate object, the pre|&s;ent Magi&s;trate. No Debtor can pay a Debt by transfering it from one to another, or giving what he oweth to another be&s;ides the proprie|tor.</P>
<PB N="17" REF="13">
<P><HI>Fifthly,</HI> Magi&s;trares are of God, his Ordinance and Mini&s;ters, and they are Judges for him as his Vicegerents, Rom. 13. 1, 2. 4. 2 Chr. 19. 6. and therefore cannot &s;tand at the meer wil of the People. God mu&s;t have a hand in their removal, as he hath in their admi&s;&s;ion; or el&s;e it is injurious: he removes, and admits now, but not by immediate re|velation (as &s;ometimes in I&s;rael) but by the rule of his Word, exe|cuted by man, He hath given a Rule for the &s;etting up of Magi&s;trates, but where hath he given any for their depo&s;ing?</P>
<P><HI>Sixthly.</HI> If it were in the Peoples power to change at plea&s;ure their Magi&s;tracy, then how could it be &s;uch a heinous &s;in as it is challenged to be for the people to reject <HI>Samuels</HI> Government, and de&s;ire and mo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e for a King, 1 Sam. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. 6, 7, 8. 12. 17?</P>
<P>But let us next <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ear what he alledgeth for this his A&s;&s;ertion of Muta|bility.</P>
<P>He &s;aith, <HI>Though Civil Government in general be an Ordin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nce of God tending to mans good, therefore to reject it would be &s;inful, yet this or that kind of Government is not an Ordinance of God, but an Ordinance of man,</HI> 1 Pet. 2. 13. <HI>and if an Ordinance of man, then man may change it, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>1 Civil Government in the general cannot be &s;aid to be Gods Ordi|nance, and therefore unrejectable; but this, or that kind of Govern|ment, that is a legitimate &amp; true <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of it, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily be yeelded to be al&s;o Gods Ordinance, and unrejectable; for it is a &s;ure rule, what|&s;oever is directly and <HI>per &s;e</HI> &s;aid of the <HI>genus,</HI> or general nature, mu&s;t be al&s;o &s;aid of the <HI>&s;pecies,</HI> or particu|lar kind: And again, the whole nature of the <HI>genus,</HI> or general, is conteined in every <HI>Species,</HI> or kind <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg"><HI>Quicquid predicatur de praedicato praedicetur de &s;ubjecto,</HI> Reg. 1. <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Tota natura generis continetur in una quaque &s;pecie.</HI></NOTE></P>
<P>2 The Apo&s;tle cannot be taken to &s;peak of power in general only, and ab&s;tractly, but mu&s;t be under&s;to<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">d di&s;tributively of al lawful powers in their &s;pecial kinds: When he &s;aith, <HI>There is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God: who&s;oever therefore re&s;i&s;teth the power, re|&s;i&s;teth the Ordinance of God,</HI> Rom. 13. 1, 2. He that &s;hal &s;ay of this or that kind of lawful Government, as of Monarchy, it is not of God, it is not the Ordinance of God; &s;peaks direct contradictories to the holy Gho&s;t here. No Subjects obedience, to this or that Government he is under, could be urged upon him by vertue of this rea&s;on, <HI>There is no power but of God, &amp;c,</HI> if this, or that kind of Government were not of God, and were not his Ordinances.</P>
<P>3 And for his di&s;cretive, <HI>but an Ordinance of man,</HI> it is no inference of the former, therefore not the Ordinance of God. For this, or that Go|vernment, is both an ordinance of God in <HI>Pauls</HI> &s;tile, and an ordinance
<PB N="18" REF="14"> of man in <HI>Peters;</HI> and you cannot &s;ay the&s;e two Apo&s;tles &s;peak of Go|vernment in two different wayes; the former in general, the latter in particular: for as I have proved, <HI>Paul</HI> mu&s;t be taken of particular kinds. So it is cleer, <HI>Peter</HI> &s;peaks fir&s;t in general, <HI>Submit your &s;elves to everie Or|dinance of man, &amp;c.</HI> and then in particular, <HI>Whether it be to the King as Su|pream, or unto Governors, &amp;c.</HI> this, or that Government, <HI>Paul</HI> cals an Or|dinance of God.</P>
<P N="1">1 In that it is in&s;tituted in its &s;pecial nature by God, and warranted for any people, but not commanded or impo&s;ed (as Government in the general is) upon every Nation. For it is with Governments in relation to Nations, as with Callings, in relation to Per&s;ons: every man mu&s;t have a Calling, but it is di&s;tribu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ively this, or that, or the other; al are not nece&s;&s;arily to have this one, 1 Cor. 7. 7. 17.</P>
<P N="2">2 In that it is inve&s;ted in the particular per&s;ons by God, when they are called to the Government according to his Rule, though he doth not point them out immediatly by his own finger, but immediatly by men. In like manner as they are the Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t in the Church that are Called according to his appointment, though men in the &s;ame office ordain them And in this regard, the Magi&s;trates (not the Govern|ment ab&s;tractly) are called Gods Ordinance, Rom. 13. 2. compared with 3, and 4. <HI>Peter</HI> terms it mans ordinance, either becau&s;e both the &s;peci|al form of Government, and the per&s;ons holding it are cho&s;en, and &s;o im|mediatly Con&s;tituted by men. Or rather becau&s;e it is conver&s;ant about humane affairs, and mans benefit. Not as if it were invented by, and had its original from men, for &s;o it is of God. As Expo&s;itors interpret and compare that place of <HI>Peter</HI> with the other of <HI>Paul</HI> <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Beza. Marlor. <HI>Divin<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s Annotat. D<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">odat.</HI></NOTE> And that <HI>Peter</HI> ex|cludes not, but taketh in the divine authoriration to that Government he treats of, is evident; in that he willeth &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to it, <HI>for the Lords &s;ake.</HI> How for his &s;ake, if it be not his Ordinance?</P>
<P>Having thus an&s;wered the Premi&s;es of his Sylogi&s;m, and what he brings to back the A&s;&s;umption withal. His Con&s;equence or Conclu|&s;ion following goes to the ground, and the lawfulne&s;&s;e of the oath of Allegiance remains un&s;haken. But he, as his manner is, amplifies his Con&s;equence with matters altogether incon&s;equential, and independant on the Premi&s;es.</P>
<P N="1">1 He &s;aith, <HI>Who knoweth not what a plague this kind of Government</HI> (viz. <HI>Kinglie) hath been to this Nation? And that the mo&s;t of our Kings have been Tyrants?</HI> I am one that knows not the&s;e things, but judge the contrary, and wil be tryed by the Experience, and Voice of this Nation. And in the mean while, I reque&s;t him to try the&s;e his words by the Scriptures following, 2 Pet. 2. 10, 11, 12. Jude 8, 9, 10. And to take heed of the Verdict, and Ju<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gement therein given upon Government|bla&s;phemers.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="19" REF="14">2 <HI>Who knows not what a Ble&s;&s;ing the Change of Government hath brought to the Vnited Provinces?</HI> I am &s;ure this man knows not, neither can &s;ay, If tho&s;e Provinces excel in Ble&s;&s;ings, that they are brought by a Change of their lawful Government, con&s;idering what <HI>Solomon</HI> ob&s;erved of old, Eccle&s;. 8. 14. 9. 1, 2. concerning the di&s;proportion of Wordly &s;ucce&s;s to mens wayes; and the inevidence of the goodne&s;&s;e, or badne&s;&s;e of per|&s;ons, and actions if e&s;timated by events. Which every mans experience can &s;econd.</P>
<P>Whether tho&s;e Provinees have changed or recovered their Govern|ment; or whether they yet &s;tand but as our Parliament did with the late King in the fir&s;t War, defending, and demanding the Security of their ju&s;t Priviledges with the Sword in their hand, I leave him further to con&s;ider: and I a&s;&s;ure him this, There have been ob&s;ervations great &s;tore of Gods Judgements up|on tho&s;e that have rebelled again&s;t, ca&s;t off, or murdered their lawful Governors gathered by worthy men <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Theatre of Gods judgments by D. Beard and Doct. Taylor, lib. 2. chap. 2, 3, 4, 5.</NOTE>. But I never before met with a|ny, that made ob&s;ervations of divine ble&s;&s;ings up|on any of tho&s;e acts.</P>
<P>Thus far his EXCEPTIONS by way of proof of his fir&s;t Po|&s;ition goes.</P>
<P>He in the clo&s;e makes one Objection again&s;t him&s;elf, and gi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">es his An&s;wer to it thus;</P>
<P>Objection. <HI>Suppo&s;e there was &s;ome unlawfulne&s;s in the taking &s;uch Oathes, yet is there not a nece&s;&s;itie of keeping them being taken?</HI></P>
<P>An&s;wer. <HI>If</HI> Herods <HI>Oath again&s;t the life of one man, being unrighteous and cruel, was &s;infullie taken, and more &s;infullie kept, then the&s;e of Allegiance which are ab&s;olute, not Conditional, &amp;c. and which are to uphold Monarchie, the woful fruits whereof &s;eeing they are dangerous, and may prove, as often they have done, de&s;tructive to the lives of manie men; they are not onlie unlawful to be taken, but to be kept.</HI></P>
<P>Not granting any unlawfulne&s;&s;e in the taking of this Oath, having (I hope) made good its innocency again&s;t al that hath been &s;aid; yet &s;uppo&s;e I had made this Objection, I would not take this An&s;wer. My Rea&s;on is,</P>
<P>He cannot paralel <HI>Herods</HI> Oath and ours in the matter wherein <HI>Herods</HI> was unlawful both in the taking and keeping. What was that? to &s;hed innocent bloud, to ma&s;&s;acre a guiltle&s;&s;e and holy Per&s;on. What was ours? To yeeld obedience in lawful things, to a lawful power. Is it any more? and are not the matters of the&s;e two Oathes as far unlike as light and darkne&s;&s;e? That which he heaps np to aggra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e our O<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> to the height of the unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e of <HI>Herods,</HI> is nothing but the three ex|ceptions which al this while I ha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e been An&s;wering, and therefore &s;hal
<PB N="20" REF="15"> content my&s;elf with what hath been &s;aid to them; only in the clo&s;e, he tels us,</P>
<P><HI>Monarchy is dangerous, and may, as often it hath, prove de&s;tructive to the lives of many men, and therefore its unlawful to &s;wear, or keep the upholding of it.</HI></P>
<P>This is nothing but what may be as truly &s;aid of any kind of Govern|ment, how lawful &s;oever: none that hath been as much practi&s;ed as it, can be affirmed to have been le&s;&s;e de&s;tructive&punc; or to be le&s;&s;e dangerous then it. But the po&s;&s;iblity of being, or experience of having been a|bu&s;ed, is no valid Rea&s;on why a Government may not be upheld; (if it be, down mu&s;t al Governments fal) and if yet it may be upheld, to &s;wear to uphold it, may be an Oath lawful for the matter; and if it cannot in that re&s;pect be made a Crime, it de&s;erves not to be paraleld with <HI>Herods&punc;</HI> Oath. What paralel in point of unrighteou&s;nes <HI>Herods</HI> keeping his oath, and others violating theirs; his execution, and theirs, may have; it is not to my pu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">po&s;e in hand to &s;hew.</P>
<P>I have done with his Fir&s;t Po&s;ition, and pr<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ceed to his Second, which is this,</P>
<P><HI>Suppo&s;e the Oath of Allegiance to be Lawful, yet the Subject is now ab&s;olved from it by th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m that have power to ab&s;olve from it.</HI></P>
<P>This Po&s;ition of a power in any to ab&s;olve from a lawful Oath is new (as far as I have read, or heard) among Prote&s;tants, and hath until now been accounted by Papi&s;ts, the Popes and Prelates Prerogative; by us, their Anti-chri&s;tian pre&s;umption.</P>
<P>But let us &s;ee where, and upon what ground he builds &s;uch a power:</P>
<P>Rea&s;on. <HI>Becau&s;e Repre&s;entatives of the People, which in rea&s;on are the Supream power, impo&s;ed this Oath by an Act of Parliament, this was the Subjects free Act in their Repre&s;entatives, no Law of God or Nature obliging them to ac|cept of &s;uch a Per&s;on, and his Heirs, and to &s;wear Allegiance to them. If ther|fore the Repre&s;entatives take away, and repeal this Act (as this Parliament hath done) they thereby &s;et the Subjects at libertie from &s;uch Allegiance, and from their Oath binding to it, there remains no more Con&s;cience of it to &s;uch as have taken it:</HI> Abraham <HI>that impo&s;ed the Oath upon his Servant, might acquit him of it, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t, For the Antecedent, I &s;hal only note;</P>
<P>1 He &s;ets up a Supream power over us by Rea&s;on, not by Law, or the Peoples Con&s;titution: and this Rea&s;on is not the Nations, but, 1 Either his own private judgement, and if that may create a Su|pre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m power to him, then every ot<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er private mans Rea&s;on is to &s;et up one to him&punc; even where there is one already, over the people he is of. 2 Or it is the Common Rea&s;on that is in all men naturally: and if &s;o, how comes it to pa&s;&s;e, That there is &s;o much variety of Kinds of Su|pream
<PB N="21" REF="15"> Government, and that Repre&s;entatives have it not in all times and Nations; yea that &s;carce they ever had it?</P>
<P>2 That in citing the power that Enacted this Oath, he omits the King, and Hou&s;e or Lords, who in the then Parliament concu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed in this Enacting, and Impo&s;ition.</P>
<P>3 That although the King then was right&s;ully and actually Enthro|ned 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 &s;ay, <HI>No Law of God, or Nature, obliged them to accept of &s;uch a Per&s;on and his Heirs.</HI> Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God, and Nature? and tho&s;e Precepts, Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ions, and divine Ratifications thereof? And doth not that Law command every people and per&s;on Allegiance to their particular lawful Governors&punc; and was not the King in Being, his Heirs in Capacity, and de&s;ignaton &s;uch&punc;</P>
<P>Secondly, But for the Con&s;equent there is no Truth in it, nor colour of Rea&s;on; or inference from the Anteceden<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> for it. Be&s;ides, That the act cannot (for ought appears to me) be Repealed, but by the &s;ame po|wer that made it: and the Allegiance &s;worn was not founded upon the Act or Oath, but due, and paid before them both. The Oath in its own words terms it &s;elf a Recognition and Acknowledgement; and the fir&s;t words of it are,</P>
<P><HI>I</HI> A. B. <HI>Do trulie and &s;incerelie acknowledge, profe&s;s, te&s;tifie, and declare in my Con&s;cience before God and the World, That King</HI> James <HI>is lawful King of this Realm, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Suppo&s;e the Repre&s;entatives to be the Supream power, that the Im|po&s;ing 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 fol|low. The Repre&s;entatives repealing that Act, the Subjects that upon their Enacting &s;wore it, are now ab&s;olved from their Allegiance, and from the Oath&punc;</P>
<P>1 They that have power to impo&s;e an Oath were never &s;aid (many Divintty extant) to have power <HI>eo ip&s;o</HI> to ab&s;olve from it, when the im|po&s;ers are al&s;o the party &s;worn to, there it is granted (both by Prote|&s;tant<NOTE PLACE="marg">&Dagger; <HI>Doct. Sander&s;. de juram. oblig. prael. 7. &sect;. 8. Theolo&s; Syntag. juris, l. 50. c. 12.</HI></NOTE> and Papi&s;ts &Dagger;) they have po|wer to relea&s;e from the Oath, not becau&s;e they are the impo&s;ers, but becau&s;e they are the party &s;worn to, for <HI>omnis qui promittit &s;acit jus alteri, cui e&s;t facta promi&s;&s;io,</HI> the right of the thing &s;worn is theirs to whom the Oath is made, and therefore they may relea&s;e from it; and this is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e true ground of that power he &s;up|po&s;eth in <HI>Abraham</HI> to acquit his Servant, not his being the impo&s;er of his Oath: but where the impo&s;ers are a Third party from the per&s;ons &s;wea|ring,
<PB N="22" REF="16"> and &s;worn to, there they have no claim of power of Relaxation. And thus the ca&s;e is here, The Repre&s;entatives (as he faith) impo&s;e the Oath, which is &s;worn to the King, and bind in Allegiance to him. If they that impo&s;e an Oath, may Relea&s;e from it, then may any Court or Magi&s;trate Relea&s;e a Juror or Examinate from the Oath they have gi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en him; then it a man impo&s;e an Oath upon him&s;elf (as in &s;ome ca&s;es he may) he may ab&s;olve him&s;elf when he wil from it, though he therein obliged him&s;elf to God, or another man. And this is truly the ca&s;e here, as he him&s;elf &s;tates it; The Subjects by their own act in their Re|pre&s;entatives impo&s;e this Oath, and by their own per&s;onal act &s;wear i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, and after by their own <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ctin their Repre&s;entatives ab&s;olve them&s;elves i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</P>
<P>2 The Repeal of the act, is no Repeal or di&s;&s;olution of the Oath; the Parliament that framed, and by their act impo&s;ed the Oath, did not there|by make it an Oath, but it was the Subjects &s;wearing which made it an Oath, and an Obligation or Religion to him&punc; as the Mini&s;ters rehear|&s;ing and dictating the words of Marriage to the Couple Marrying each other, makes not the Marriage, but the parties them&s;elves declaring in tho&s;e words. And as the Clerk in a Court reciting the words of a Ju|rors Oath to him makes not the Oath, but the Jurors a&s;&s;ent to it. The Parliament can conjoyn, or puni&s;h the refu&s;al, or manife&s;t breach of an Oath. But a promi&s;&s;ory Oath being the act and Covenant of him that &s;wears, and a part of divine Wor&s;hip, the bond of Con&s;cience upon the &s;wearer, and the validity of Gods Ordinance, and the Obligation that is therein entred into unto God, as the invocated witne&s;&s;e, and judge, can|not be within the Parliaments authority to nullifie in al Subjects Oathes which may be made with, or without their impo&s;ition. There are ca&s;es indeed, wherein a &s;uperior, as a Husband, Ma&s;ter, Father, Magi&s;trate, may make void the Oath of their re&s;pective inferior by ANALOGY, or equity of that Rule, <HI>Numb.</HI> 30. but tho&s;e are, 1 In matters that are belonging to the Right, or Power of the Superior to di&s;po&s;e of; as the Repre&s;entatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their owne Right <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Animadvertendum tamen e&s;t penes <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">os non e&s;&s;e facultatem re&s;cindendi quod libet jus jurandum &s;ubditorum &s;ed illud duntaxat cujus materia e&s;t eorum&punc; pote&s;tati &s;ubjecta. Al&s;ted. Theol. Ca&s;. Cap. 15. Reg. 2.</NOTE> But the Allegiance in this Oath &s;worn is none of theirs, but the Kings, and therefore &s;worn to him by the Subjects, and in par|ticular by them. 2 By that Law <HI>Numb.</HI> 30. the Superior may inter|po&s;e to nullifie his Inferiors Oath made without his knowledge and con|&s;ent, and that mu&s;t 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 Ca&s;e, the Repre&s;entatives have been &s;o far from being ignorant of
<PB N="23" REF="16"> the making of this Oath, and di&s;alowing it as &s;oon as it was know to them, that they were the Compo&s;ers and Commanders of it; yea, and have taken it them&s;elves. Let any the lea&s;t Warrant, yea or Pre&s;ident be brought for Relea&s;ing an Oath in this Ca&s;e, and I &s;hal &s;it down.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, For a Clo&s;e of my An&s;wer unto this Po&s;ition, I &s;hal ob&s;erve what the Tenor of this Oath hath in it:</P>
<P><HI>I do beleeve, and in Con&s;cience am re&s;olved, That neither the Pope, nor any Per&s;on what&s;oever hath power to ab&s;olve me of this Oath, or any part thereof. And do renounce all Pardons and Di&s;pen&s;ations to the contrary.</HI></P>
<P>This is not the Swearers Declaration only, but the Parliaments in Compiling, and Impo&s;ing this Oath, and al Repre&s;entatives have per|&s;onally thus declared in taking it. Shal we beleeve them concerning their power in this matter, or this man?</P>
<P>That which follows is no proof of the Po&s;ition, nor any thing to the validity of the Oath.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="reply">
<PB REF="17">
<PB N="1" REF="17">
<HEAD>A REPLY <HI>TO AN</HI> ANSVVER Pretending to Refute &s;ome POSITIONS <HI>Which tended to make the</HI> OATH <HI>of</HI> ALLEGIANCE <HI>Void, and not Obliging.</HI></HEAD>
<P>THE An&s;werer begins with the Drift of the Fir&s;t Po&s;ition, which he &s;aith is, <HI>To &s;hew the Oath to be unlawful in the taking of</HI> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The Drift of the Fir&s;t Po&s;ition is to &s;hew the un|lawfulne&s;s of the Oath upon a Suppo&s;ition, that the Oath was Ab&s;olute and not Conditional, that it was Single and not Mutual, &amp;c. and not o|therwi&s;e.</P>
<P>He falls upon Premi&s;ing &s;omething in the&s;e words: <HI>An Oath may be</HI> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>unlawful, 1 Either in regard of the matter or thing &s;worn, as when it is &s;ome &s;inful act: Or, 2 In regard of the manner, as when the thing is unadvi&s;edly
<PB N="2" REF="18"> &s;worn: The former way of unlawfulne&s;s makes the Oath Void in the taking of it, but not the latter: which appears by the validity of that unadvi&s;ed Oath of the Princes to the Gibeonites,</HI> Jo&s;h. 9. 15. 18, 19. 2 Sam. 21. 2.</P>
<P>He erreth at the fir&s;t da&s;h; That Oath of the Princes was a &s;inful Oath <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> in the matter of it, becau&s;e expre&s;ly again&s;t the command of God, <HI>Deut. 7. 2. Exod.</HI> 23. 32. yet it was not void, but was kept by them.</P>
<P>He falls upon Ob&s;erving, and &s;peaks of <HI>A gro&s;s imputation</HI> that is laid <MILESTONE N="3"> upon very many Worthies of all &s;orts and kinds of men, as if they had pre&s;&s;ed, taken, and ju&s;tified an Oath in the matter of it unju&s;t and &s;in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ul.</P>
<P>If there be any Charge at all upon any, it is upon tho&s;e that make the <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> Oath to be Ab&s;olute and not Conditional, &amp;c. But if any per&s;on hold otherwi&s;e, that it was a Mutual Conditional Oath that was taken when Allegiance was &s;worn, then there is <HI>no imputation</HI> at all upon one or o|ther, which the Author of the Po&s;ition rather conceives then the con|trary.</P>
<P>He mentioneth the general Exception again&s;t the lawfulne&s;&s;e of the <MILESTONE N="4"> Oath, and Objects again&s;t it in that branch of it that re&s;pects Judgment, and &s;aith, That Defectivene&s;&s;e in that will not invalidate the Oath, <HI>It is but a fault</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in the manner, not in the matter; in the Per&s;on, not in the Oath.</HI></P>
<P>If it be &s;o, Whence is it that the Law provides, That no Vows, Oaths, <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> Deeds, or Acts that are done by per&s;ons in their Nonage (becau&s;e it is &s;uppo&s;ed they are not done in Judgment) &s;hall &s;tand, but be all invalid, unle&s;&s;e ratified afterwards when they come to age. This man (who|ever he be) &s;peaks again&s;t the Law herein, which is more gro&s;&s;e then to &s;peak again&s;t per&s;ons. Notwith&s;tanding it mu&s;t not be conceived, That the Author of the Po&s;itions doth intend, That every oath that is defe|ctive in judgement, is <HI>ip&s;o facto</HI> void; but he connects Judgement and Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e together, as adding &s;trength to each other, and making &s;uch an oath &s;o unlawful, as not to be obligatory.</P>
<P>He de&s;cends to particulars, and objects again&s;t that Conditionality <MILESTONE N="5"> which in the Po&s;ition is made nece&s;&s;ary unto an oath, that it may agree with Jer. 4. 2. And he di&s;tingui&s;heth in the&s;e words: <HI>I conceive the words (Conditional and Ab&s;olute) may be taken, 1 Either in reference to the thing &s;worn, which is Obedience or Allegiance to the King; and &s;o the Condition is, it mu&s;t be Hone&s;t; Or, 2 In reference to the Tye or Obligation of the Oath:</HI> And of this latter, he makes another di&s;tinction concerning Conditions, in the&s;e words: <HI>Some Conditions are general, and &s;uch as no promi&s;ory Oath that is law|ful can be without:</HI> And he makes (Hone&s;t) this general Condition. 2ly. <HI>Others are &s;pecial and proper Conditions.</HI></P>
<P>He makes, <HI>Hone&s;t and Iu&s;t,</HI> to fall under the oppo&s;ite members of his <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> own di&s;tinction, and &s;o confounds that which he would di&s;tingui&s;h.</P>
<P>He comes to oppugn the Rea&s;on, that is brought in the Po&s;ition, that <MILESTONE N="6">
<PB N="3" REF="18"> the Oath mu&s;t not be Ab&s;olute, but Conditional, <HI>viz. That it is again&s;t the Ground and Rea&s;on of the Primitive In&s;titution of Government, which is the good of the Subject, that there &s;hould be any Oath to bind him ab&s;olutly whether the Prince Rule for the Subjects good or not.</HI> And his fir&s;t Exception is,</P>
<P><HI>That this Rea&s;on wants proof.</HI> <MILESTONE N="1"></P>
<P>There was &s;uch cleerne&s;&s;e in the Rea&s;on, that it needed not proof. For <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> if an ab&s;olute Va&s;&s;alage (with fir&s;t or la&s;t will infallibly be the Con&s;e|quence of an ab&s;olute Oath) be not for the good of the Subject, and &s;o not &s;utable to the Primitive In&s;titution of Government, then an ab&s;olute oath cannot be for the good of the Subject, and &s;o not &s;utable to the Pri|mitive In&s;titution of Government.</P>
<P>His Second Exception is, The Reflection that this Argument in the <MILESTONE N="2"> Po&s;ition would have upon the Parliament (&s;hould it be granted to be true) who Enacted the Oath of Allegiance, and all &s;ub&s;equent Parlia|ments confirmed it, which if it were not for the good of the Subject, would call their wi&s;dom and goodne&s;&s;e into que&s;tion.</P>
<P>There is &s;omething in&s;erted in this, that is not granted, <HI>viz</HI> That the <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> Parliament intended this Oath to be Ab&s;olute, without implying in it &s;o much as this Condition, <HI>While the Prince &s;hould rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom.</HI> For, 1 They never declared &s;o much, That they in|tended the oath to be ab&s;olute. 2 The Oaths that Kings in this Nation have alwayes taken, &s;hew the contrary, and their Oaths to him mu&s;t be interpreted by his Oath to them: Now his Oath to them is, To Rule according to the Laws of the Kingdom, therefore their Oath to him mu&s;t have the &s;ame re&s;triction, and &s;o cannot be ab&s;olute. 3 The Par|liament is &s;harer (at lea&s;t) by this mans own confe&s;&s;ion, pag 5. with the Prince in Government. For, he &s;aith, It is a mixed Government that is among&s;t us in this Nation; and in a mixed Government, the Prince hath his &s;hare; and the People, in their Repre&s;entatives, have their &s;hare; therefore the Parliament would never make the Oath ab&s;olute, lea&s;t thereby they &s;hould give away to the Prince that part in Government which is theirs. 4 It was to recover this &s;hare in Government, and the Peoples Liberties thereby out of the hand of the Prince, that this WAR was undertaken again&s;t him. Which if they had never Con|ditioned with the Prince for, in their Oath to him, (neither expre&s;ly, nor implicitly) had not been ju&s;tifiable upon this mans A&s;&s;ertion, That an ab&s;olute Oath is lawful.</P>
<P>His third Exception is &s;etcht from Experience, <HI>His words are,</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> It hath con&s;i&s;ted with the publick good (yea contributed to it, or el&s;e the Papi&s;ts would not have &s;o oppo&s;ed it) from the time it was fir&s;t &s;et forth, until now, and no complaint at all hath been heard again&s;t it <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ill now.</P>
<P>1 It had been nece&s;&s;ary that he &s;hould have &s;hewed what good it <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply.">
<PB N="4" REF="19"> hath contributed to it, and how it hath been con&s;i&s;tent with it, con&s;ide|red as ab&s;olu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e, as now he and many more do under&s;tand it, and hold them&s;elves &s;till obliged by it.</P>
<P>2 The Papi&s;ts <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ad rea&s;on to oppo&s;e it, becau&s;e it was given out to be intended principally (if not &s;olely) again&s;t them. And their Allegi|ance in reference to their Religion (which &s;ubjected them to a forreign power) tell ju&s;tly under &s;u&s;pition, to engage them therefore more firm|ly to the Prinee, this oath was contrived and Enacted.</P>
<P>3 Many precions con&s;cientious men were long &s;ince (much more then Papi&s;ts) offended at it, fore&s;eeing that there would be a great &s;nare in it, as it was urged without an explication, Yea, It was pre&s;&s;ed more upon them&punc; then upon the Papi&s;ts; and the Papi&s;ts (mo&s;t of them) knew how to get off from it, and to avoid it, but not they. When the Per&s;e|cution was &s;o ho<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> again&s;t <HI>Inconformi&s;ts</HI> that many thou&s;ands were forced to fly the Land; then was there a command, That all Ports and Havens &s;hould be narrowly looked unto, that none might be &s;uffered to pa&s;&s;e out of the Nation, till they had fir&s;t taken this Oath; and my &s;elf hardly e|&s;caped at that time.</P>
<P>4 It might <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ave proved fatal to this Nation, had this Parliament under&s;tood it as this man doth in an ab&s;olute &s;en&s;e, and not according to the Laws of the Land&punc; For then had the De&s;ign of the late King and his Father (to make them&s;elves ab&s;olute Mona<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">chs, and to bring the peo|into an ab&s;olute &s;ubjection to their arbitrary Government) been accom|pli&s;hed, and there had been no place &s;o much as for a Defen&s;ive War, but ab&s;olute &s;laves the Kingdom mu&s;t have been, as they were &s;everal yeers before this Parliament &s;ate.</P>
<P>He comes to di&s;tingui&s;h of things that are again&s;t the peoples good; and, <HI>&s;aith he,</HI></P>
<P>That &s;ome things are again&s;t the peoples good in their own nature, and <MILESTONE N="1"> other things accidentally&punc; and &s;aith, That any thing almo&s;t that falls under a Political con&s;ideration may be again&s;t the peoples good in the latter Con&s;ideration though unlawful, and for the pre&s;ent, probably (yea nece&s;&s;arily) for the peoples good: and of this &s;ort (I &s;uppo&s;e) he makes this ab&s;olute oath of Allegiance to be. It is but by accident that it proves hurtful, but it is good in it &s;elf.</P>
<P>He might and mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h of things accidentall; &s;ome things are <MILESTONE UNIT="Reply."> accidental in reference to the time when, and yet ce<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ain that they will be, in reference to the Cau&s;es whence they come, and the Cour&s;e of Gods Providence: other things are &s;o accidental, as that it is contin|gent, whether they will be at all. Chri&s;t &s;peaks of offences, That it is nece&s;&s;ary that they &s;hould come: and the Apo&s;tle of Here&s;ies, That there mu&s;t be Here&s;ies, and yet both the one and the other are acciden|tal, in reference to the per&s;ons by whom, and the time in which they
<PB N="5" REF="19"> &s;hould come: So it is in Common-wealths, there are many things that are again&s;t the good of the people, which though accidental in reference to the per&s;ons and time, yet certain and in<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">allible, in reference to the Cau&s;es, and the cour&s;e of Gods Providence; and when there is not pro|vi&s;ion again&s;t &s;uch evils, but rather a door &s;et open for them, by either per&s;ons or things done, 'tis again&s;t the good of the people, becau&s;e all knowing men may ea&s;ily fore&s;ee &s;uch things, though they cannot &s;o pun|ctually di&s;cern the times and &s;ea&s;ons of them.</P>
<P>I &s;hall give &s;ome in&s;tances: Wars, are things accidental, yet certain, at one time or another; and that Government that provides not again&s;t it, but rather invites it by &s;ecurity and negligence, is again&s;t the good of the people, and ought to be either redre&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed, or removed: Murthers, Rapes, Fellonies in a Common-wealth are accidental, yet they will cer|tainly be, and tho&s;e States-men, and L<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">gi&s;la<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ors that provide not again&s;t them, are again&s;t the good of the people.</P>
<P>There may be In&s;tances of other kinds: Wolves among&s;t the Flock are accidental, yet they will be, and tho&s;e Shepherds that provide not a|gain&s;t them, by feeding the Church of God with whol&s;ome &s;ound Do|ctrine, are again&s;t the good of the Flock. Storms and Tempe&s;ts at Sea are accidental, yet they will certainly come; and tho&s;e Ship-ma&s;ters and Marriners that go to Sea without good Tacking, they are again&s;t the good of their Principals, and tho&s;e that fraught them, and again&s;t their own lives al&s;o. And &s;o it is with Tyrants in Government, they are ac|cidental in a Common-wealth, yet it is certain &s;uch there will be, &s;ince &s;o great corruption &s;ell upon mankind, and tho&s;e Oath-impo&s;ers, and Oathes that are impo&s;ed, that provide not again&s;t &s;uch, but rather invite and &s;et open a door to Governors to be &s;uch, are again&s;t the good of the Common-wealth, and people; and &s;uch is that Oath of Allegiance, if it be ab&s;olu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e and not conditional, as this man would have it.</P>
<P>2 He di&s;tingui&s;heth again of the goodne&s;&s;e of the End, and of the means tending to that End; and he makes the happine&s;&s;e of the Com|munity to be the goodne&s;&s;e of the End; and this to be intended and not deliberated on, or cho&s;en by the Law-gi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ers. The means he makes va|riable, in relation to times and people, and &s;aith. That that may be good in the nature of a means, for one people or time, that is not good for a|nother.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> I allow of the Di&s;tinction in the former branch of it fully, and &s;ay with him, That the happine&s;&s;e of the Community is the goodne&s;&s;e of the End. And I ad this, <HI>That the ju&s;t freedom o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the Subject is the happi|ne&s;&s;e of the Communitie, which an ab&s;olute Oath of ALLEGIANCE fights again&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>I al&s;o concur with him in the &s;econd branch of the Di&s;tinction of the goodne&s;&s;e of the means, that it is that which falls under Deliberation and
<PB N="6" REF="20"> Coun&s;el: but that all means is variable and changable after Coun&s;el hath found it out, I deny: For the goodne&s;&s;e of the means may be con|&s;idered Generally, or Specifically. Con&s;ider it in its general nature, and it admits not of any &s;uch variation according to times and places: but con&s;ider it in its &s;pecial nature, and then it may admit of variation. For Example, Government in general, is a good of the means, re&s;pecting the happine&s;&s;e of the Community, and yet is nece&s;&s;ary for all Commu|nities, that they may be happy: but this, or that &s;pecial kind of Govern|mentis not nec&s;&s;ary for all Communities, in all places and at all times, but there may be &s;ome change and variation. So to Govern according to Laws, and to obey according to Laws, is nece&s;&s;ary, and admitts of no variation, becau&s;e it conduceth ab&s;olutly to the good of the Communi|ty: but to govern and obey according to the &s;ame Laws, is not nece&s;&s;a|ry, but variable, according to places and times.</P>
<P>Unto this head of the goodne&s;&s;e of means conducing to &s;uch an End, <HI>viz.</HI> The happine&s;&s;e of the Community, he makes a firm Sanction by an ab&s;olute Oath (that there may be a kind of immutability in States and Governments thereby) to appertain. And &s;aith, It is the wi&s;dom of mo&s;t States &s;o to &s;etle them, to prevent the danger of Innovation and changes. And <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e makes this to be a better means of the Communities happine&s;&s;e, then the other of Conditional parts and Covenants with the Prince. For he &s;peaks of the evil of &s;wearing to a Prince ab&s;olutly, to be but incon|venience, di&s;advantagiou&s;ne&s;&s;e, prejudice, outward incommodity, im|peachment of the Subjects good: but the evils of a Conditional, or un|ab&s;olute Engagement, he &s;peaks of them, as Mi&s;chief and Mi&s;ery: and when the other is in his accompt but uncertain danger, he makes this inevitable hurt.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If all this be true, then the Con&s;titution of our State, was not &s;o prudently con&s;idered by our fore-Fathers, when they E&s;tabli&s;hed a mixt Government, as might have been; and &s;o much expence of Bloud to recover the Subjects Liberty and Propriety, was a great &s;in. For it had been better for the Subject (if he have &s;aid truth) to have yeelded them&s;elves up to the Will of their Prince, to have &s;ubmitted quietly to an arbritrary power, and to have borne an Iron yoke for ever, then to have contended with him: and our Brethren of <HI>Scotland</HI> did ill to give us &s;uch an Example as fir&s;t to appear in Arms again&s;t him: But rational men mu&s;t fir&s;t put out their eyes&punc; before they can beleeve &s;uch a Para|dox. For can there be a greater Mi&s;chief and Mi&s;ery, then thraldom and &s;lavery? then lo&s;&s;e of Religion, Liberty, Propriety, Life it &s;elf? For all the&s;e will lie at &s;take, and be hazarded, by an ab&s;olute Oath firm|ly kept and ob&s;erved. War with all the effects of it that can follow &s;uch conditional Engagements, is but a &s;hort Mi&s;ery, and not &s;o ignominious as the other, for per&s;ons live and die like men in it; but in the other,
<PB N="7" REF="20"> they live and die like bea&s;ts, and all their life is but a long-lived death. But many in the&s;e dayes, are like the I&s;raelites, who when in bondage and under <HI>Pharoahs</HI> yoke, cryed to God, and &s;ighed and groaned, and then it was a condition intollerable; but when they were delivered and &s;aw War, and found &s;ome evils they expected not, then they judged it better to be in Egyptagain: and then the &s;tate of cruel Servitude was but an inconvenience in compari&s;on of the other Mi&s;chief. But let the mi&s;chief of a Conditional Engagement be what it will, it mu&s;t be cho&s;en, and the ab&s;olute mu&s;t be avoided, becau&s;e Liberty, and Propriety, &amp;c. are the happine&s;&s;e of a Community, and the end of Government, and the birth-right of all the Subjects which have not forfeited it, and ought not to be given away to the will of the Governor, and a Conditional En|gagement is the means to pre&s;erve it.</P>
<P><HI>He &s;aith,</HI> Such things as may by rea&s;on of their changeable nature prove in the i&s;&s;ue &s;omewhat di&s;advantagious, may yet, if for the pre&s;ent good, and probably hopeful &s;o to continue, be &s;worn to ab&s;olutly, as in voluntary Promi&s;es, Leagues, and Contracts, both publike and private, among all Nations hath been the practi&s;e, and by good Scripture-pre&s;i|dent it is ju&s;tified, <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">Gen. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Jo&s;h. 9. 15 14 9 Judg. 21. 5. 18. 15. 12. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 19. 6. 20. 12. 17 1 King. 1. 13. 29. 2 Sam. 19&punc; 23.</NOTE>.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Allegiance (which is the thing that he would have ab&s;olut|ly &s;worn unto) may not only prove through the changable nature di&s;ad|vantagious, but al&s;o hath, and doth often, and will certainly at one time or other prove pernicious, not to per&s;ons only, but to Common|wealths.</P>
<P>2 An ab&s;olute Contract of Allegiance, &s;ets up the Prince too high, and puts down the Subject too low: The one is made by &s;uch a Con|tract more then a man, the other is rendered le&s;&s;e then a man, and more like unto a Bea&s;t. And it is neither for the pre&s;ent good, nor hopeful to continue &s;o&punc; to put &s;uch a di&s;tance betwixt them. For ab&s;olute Sove|reignty is Gods Prerogative, who&s;e Will is perfectly holy, and ju&s;t, and good, and not to be attributed to the Creature, &s;o full of imperfecti|on and corruption; and it layes a temptation before him to mi&s;carry in his Office.</P>
<P>3 Some voluntary Promi&s;es and Contracts are <HI>di&s;&s;imilia,</HI> things un|like, holding no proportion to the thing in Controver&s;ie, <HI>viz.</HI> To the Oath of Allegiance, the ab&s;olutne&s;&s;e whereof is by him A&s;&s;erted, and the In&s;tances or Examples in Scripture carry not any kind of Analogy. Let them be pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">u&s;ed, and rational men will wonder, that ever they were produced. 1 Some of them, are not Oaths made to men at all, but to God, as that in Judg. 21. 5. 18. and &s;ome others. 2 Others of them are Oathes, the performanee whereof lies only on one Party; the other is to receive advantage, but to do nothing, as that in Gen. 47, 31. Exod. 13. 19. Jo&s;h. 9. 15. &amp; 14. 9&punc; 3 Others of them were Oathes of things, that
<PB N="8" REF="21"> were in their nature pernicious and &s;inful to be &s;worn to, as that in 1 Sam. 14. 24. <HI>Ionathan</HI> &s;peaks of it, That his Father had troubled <HI>I&s;rael</HI> and hindred the Lords Work by that Oath of not touching any food till evening. And when <HI>Saul</HI> would have had <HI>Ionathan</HI> put to death in refe|rence to his violation of that Oath, the people re&s;cued him, and did well in it. And there is none that comes &s;o neer the ca&s;e, as <HI>Ionathans</HI> and <HI>Da|vids</HI> Oath, which was not ab&s;olute, but conditional, &s;o as that if the one had broken it, the other would have been ab&s;olv'd upon it. But this Oath of Allegiance is an Oath betwixt per&s;ons, that owe re&s;pective du|ties to each other, and the Obligation of the one, hath a re&s;pect unto, and a dependance on the performance of the other; and &s;o is an Oath of another kind, then tho&s;e mentioned in his Scriptures, and cannot be ab&s;olute, as he from the&s;e patterns would prove.</P>
<Q>But he gives his <HI>Rea&s;ons,</HI> why ab&s;olute Allegiance doth not &s;o neerly and probably tend to the Subjects hurt, as the Conditional doth.</Q>
<P>1, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> The Prince may prove ju&s;t and vertuous.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 The Conditional Engagement is the be&s;t way to make him prove &s;uch, when he Rules upon his good Behaviour, he is more likely to Rule well. 2 Mo&s;t Princes prove not &s;uch but unju&s;t and vitious. 3 To be left to his own arbitrary Will in Governing, is like to prove a temptation and &s;nare to him. A lawle&s;&s;e Liberty to do what he li&s;teth many times corrupteth the Prince.</P>
<P>2, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> If he degenerates, the Subjects are bound to obey him a|ctively, but in lawful things.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> What then? If the Oath be ab&s;olute, they are bound to obey him pa&s;&s;ively in all other things, wherein they cannot obey him active|ly, even to the lo&s;&s;e of Life, Limb, Liberty, and E&s;tate, which will cer|tainly bring calamity enough upon them. Nor were the Children of I&s;rael bound to obey <HI>Pharaoh</HI> actively, &s;ave only in lawful things; and yet they were mi&s;erable enough for all that. And the Condition of the Sub|ject may be no better then the Condition of Gally-&s;laves, if this be all the comfort that the Subject hath, that he is bound to obey actively but in lawful things,</P>
<P>3, <HI>He&s;aith,</HI> In his lawle&s;s Acts there may be a remedy (as the puni&s;h|ment or re&s;i&s;tance of his bad in&s;truments by the Parliament, without whom, though he may Will unju&s;t things, yet he cannot Execute them) and yet his Government be continued.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 What Ju&s;tice is in this, To re&s;i&s;t, and puni&s;h his bad In&s;tru|ments, and not him who is the principal efficient? For if they be in fault, he that &s;ets them on work much rather. And u&s;ually it hath been &s;aid, <HI>The Me&s;&s;enger bears no blame,</HI> but if there be a fault, his it is that &s;ent him, and certainly the Servant is in le&s;&s;e fault. 2 This re&s;i&s;ting of his
<PB N="9" REF="21"> bad In&s;truments, is a re&s;i&s;ting of him, as Chri&s;t &s;peaks to his Apo&s;tles whom he &s;ent forth, <HI>He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that de|&s;pi&s;eth you, de&s;p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;eth me:</HI> So it may be &s;aid of Re&s;i&s;ting, in reference to the In&s;truments of the Prince, He that puni&s;heth, or re&s;i&s;teth them, pun|i&s;heth and re&s;i&s;teth him in them; and this is ab&s;olutly again&s;t the Oath of ab&s;olute Allegiance. 3 This re&s;i&s;ting and puni&s;hing of the Princes In&s;truments, is as un&s;afe and dangerous, as the not continuing of his Government when it is degenerated to Tyranny; for it will inevitably bring on a War betwixt the Prince and People: For the Prinee, if he be able, will maintain his In&s;truments in what he &s;etteth them about, and vindicate their Cau&s;e, while they do nothing but what they have his authority for; and this is the evil that this man declines &s;o much, that to prevent it, he pleads for an ab&s;olute Engagement, whatever the mi&s;|chief be to the Subject; and yet in this place he brings this in as a Re|medy to prevent the danger of the other. 4 This Remedy begins at the wrong end, goes not the next way, but far about to work redre&s;&s;e, and reacheth not the end, nor effects any cure; for a corrupt Prince will ne|ver want bad In&s;truments, his greatne&s;&s;e will have a corrupting influence upon tho&s;e about him; and like Prince, like Officers and Servants un|der him. But let the Prince be fettered by whol&s;ome Laws, tending to his own ju&s;t Honor, and the Subjects ju&s;t Freedom, and the Mi&s;chief will not only be redre&s;&s;ed, but might be pre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ented, and with le&s;&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">azard al&s;o. 5 The Parliament are Subjects, in this mans account, as well as other men; and therefore by his A&s;&s;ertion, mu&s;t be ab&s;olutly engaged to the Prince; and wherein they cannot obey actively, they are bound to obey pa&s;&s;ively, and therefore may not actively appear again&s;t his au|thority in his In&s;truments, for where is then Allegiance, which an ab|&s;olute Oath will alwayes bind too?</P>
<P>4, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> And &s;uppo&s;e the ca&s;e that there be no remedy, as when he hath got a party &s;tronger then can be re&s;i&s;ted, or &s;ubjected to puni&s;h|ment, then to ca&s;t off his power and depo&s;e him (&s;uppo&s;e it lawful to do) will be no relief, his &s;trength will command &s;ubjection.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 The way to prevent the getting of this &s;trong Party, is to keep the Subject from the &s;nare of ab&s;olute Oathes, and to let them know their Liberty, and that their Allegiance is but Conditional. 2 Concerning depo&s;ing (if an ab&s;olute Oath be once taken, and be lawful both to be taken, and kept when taken) it cannot be lawful; no nor yet the putting of his Per&s;on into hazard by War, pretended to be underta|ken again&s;t his Mini&s;ters and Servants under him. 3 When the Sub|ject hath a ju&s;t Cau&s;e to contend for; <HI>viz.</HI> For Covenanted Rights, they may ca&s;t them&s;elves upon God; for God hath made it to appear, not by Might, nor by Arms, but by his Spirit, great things have been ac|compli&s;hed.</P>
<PB N="10" REF="22">
<P>5, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> The mi&s;carriages of a Prince ordinarily extend but to the detriment of &s;ome particular per&s;ons, rarely doth any <HI>Nero</HI>-like, &s;eek the de&s;truction of the whole.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Let the Declarations which have been &s;et forth by the Par|liament (when both Hou&s;es &s;ate, and were mo&s;t full) be viewed, and it will appear, That the Mi&s;chiefs and Mi&s;eries that came by the corrupt Mind and Will of the Prince, were general, and reached the whole Na|tion: What can be &s;aid of Ship-money, and multiplicity of Monopo|lies? Did they not, one way or other, reach all? Were &s;ome particu|per&s;ons only annoyed by them? 2 If at fir&s;t few be like <HI>Nero,</HI> to &s;eek the de&s;truction of the whole; yet being cro&s;&s;ed, and thereby incen&s;ed and vexed, if it come to a publick Conte&s;tation, almo&s;t every one will chu&s;e to de&s;troy all, rather then to mi&s;&s;e of their Will, and fall &s;hort of their De&s;ign.</P>
<P>6, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> In that ca&s;e Subjects &s;worn, and un&s;worn, (if their Cau&s;e be good, and the Parliament authorize their &s;tanding up) are in the &s;ame capacity of Re&s;i&s;tance.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Not &s;o, if their Oath be ab&s;olute and obligatory, (as this man will have it) for an ab&s;olute obligatory Oath to obey actively or pa&s;&s;ive|ly, and yet a capacity of Re&s;i&s;tance (if the Parliament warrant it) are con|tradictory one to the other. 2 Nor can the Parliament authorize it, if them&s;elves have ab&s;olutly, and irrevokably, and lawfully al&s;o &s;worn Al|legiance, and in &s;uch &s;ort al&s;o impo&s;ed it upon the Subject.</P>
<P>7, <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> Set the people free to &s;hake off the reins of their pre&s;ent Government, when they &s;hall think it unequal, and, 1 You de&s;troy the nature of Government; and, 2 You expo&s;e the people to an immediate lo&s;&s;e of the very u&s;e and enjoyment of any Government.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 The People act all in, and by their Repre&s;entatives, who are &s;o wi&s;e and faithful to the Common-wealth, that they wil not &s;leightly &s;hake off the pre&s;ent Government; but when it is to pre&s;erve the Com|mon-wealth, after they have had long patience, and plentiful experience that there is little hope of good whil&s;t it &s;tands, much le&s;&s;e wil they &s;uf|fer the Common-wealth to be without a Government, and to lie in Confu&s;ion; the proof of both which we have had among&s;t our &s;elves. 2 How the change of Government &s;hould be again&s;t the nature of Go|vernment, I cannot apprehend; and he &s;hewes no Rea&s;on for it</P>
<P>What is &s;poken by him, in way of Compari&s;on, betwixt a bad Go|vernment, and no Government; betwixt one, or a few, doing that which is right in their own eyes; and every mans doing &s;o, the one he makes an accidental effect of ab&s;olute Allegiance; the other he makes an inevitable effect of conditional Allegiance, becau&s;e they be naked unconfirmed A&s;&s;ertions, and experience among&s;t our &s;elves hath &s;o evi|dently confuted them, I &s;hal therefore pa&s;&s;e over them.</P>
<PB N="11" REF="22">
<P>Afterwards in the Second place he layes down a contradictory A&s;&s;er|tion in the&s;e words, <HI>The Oath of Allegiance may be Ab&s;olute, or unconditio|nal:</HI> And he renders <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> for it:</P>
<P>1 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> Were there no Oath, the limitted obedience which is due to Princes and Magi&s;trates, is due to them ab&s;olutly, whether they Rule well, or no; and that which is ab&s;olutly due, may be ab&s;olutly &s;worn.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This is only true while they acknowledge them to be their <HI>Princes</HI> and <HI>Magi&s;trates,</HI> and do continue them in tho&s;e Offices and Pla|ces: and it is as true of every Con&s;table, what mi&s;demeanour &s;oever he be guilty of, yet he mu&s;t have that ob&s;ervance of his Place from all, while in his Place: But the Que&s;tion is, When Princes and Magi&s;trates Rule ami&s;&s;e, not to the welfare, but ruine of the people over whom they are Magi&s;trates, Whether the People be not (in that ca&s;e) ab&s;olved from al Tye and Obligation to them, as Magi&s;trates, if they will: that is, Whether the Repre&s;entatives of the People, which have the Peoples power, for the Executive part of it, may not if they wil, (yea, and in ma|ny Ca&s;es are bound in faithfulne&s;&s;e to the People, and for their good, to) declare &s;uch Princes and Magi&s;trates, in reference to &s;uch mi&s;cari|ages, to be no longer Governors, and &s;o therein to free the People from their Allegiance to them. And it is a&s;&s;erted in the Po&s;ition, That they may if they wil. A Pa&s;tor of a Church mi&s;carries in the execution of his Office, and becomes a Wolf to devour, rather then a Pa&s;tor to feed the Church of Chri&s;t, Is not his Flock notwith&s;tanding bound to obey him in the Lord, and according to Rule, while&s;t he remains a Pa&s;tor to them? But the Que&s;tion is, Whether it be not the Duty of &s;uch where the Power is, To Depo&s;e him from his Office, and therein to ab&s;olve the People from &s;uch Duty as &s;uch an Office cals for? And &s;o it is in this Ca&s;e of a Prince or Pa&s;tor to a Common-wealth.</P>
<P>But he Confirms this <HI>REASON,</HI> by Seven other <HI>Rea&s;ons.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;.</HI> 1. The Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors, is without any condition or re&s;erve from a di&s;ingagement of the Subject in ca&s;e of the Governors mi&s;carriage, reade the 5th Commandement, and tho&s;e other Injunctions, Rom. 13. 1, 2, &amp;c. Tit 3. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 13. &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It is to be under&s;tood while&s;t they are Governors, and while&s;t they are Fathers: and the &s;ame may be &s;poken of Pa&s;tors of Churches, for they are Fathers; and there is no re&s;erve for a di&s;ingagement from duty towards &s;uch, while&s;t the office of &s;uch la&s;ts. But the Que&s;tion is, Whether there be no Re&s;erve for a di&s;ingagement from the Office it &s;elf, and the Relation in reference to that Office, as it re&s;pects &s;uch a per&s;on who hath mi&s;carried in it? If that be a&s;&s;erted, the Fifth Commande|ment wil not prove it, not tho&s;e places quoted. For there are Two &s;orts of Fathers included in that Commandement; there is a Natural Father,
<PB N="12" REF="23"> who&s;e relations is indi&s;&s;olvable, what ever the mi&s;carrying be: and there is an In&s;tituted Father, which originally the People both in Church and Common-wealth were wont to create, for the Common good of them all. And &s;uch a Father as the People make, or their Elders, or Patriots for them, the People may lay a&s;ide; or their Repre&s;entatives on their behalf, upon mi&s;demeanors in Government, the relation in this Father|hood is not indi&s;&s;olvable; and tho&s;e Scriptures quoted, contradict not this; For it is known wel, That in tho&s;e times there were great Chan|ging of the Chief Magi&s;trate, which took off the People, and freed them from their duty, when their relation cea&s;ed.</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;.</HI> 2. God co~mands his people to be &s;ubject to Heathen Princes, and the mo&s;t ab&s;olute and oppre&s;&s;ive Tyrants that likely ever have been, Jer. 27. 12. Mat. 22. 21. 1 Pet. 2. 13. I &s;peak not here o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Tyrants, in regard of Title, or Right; that is, U&s;urpers: but of Tyrants who&s;e <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">itles a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e ju&s;t, but their Government unju&s;t, and oppre&s;&s;ive.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 But did God ever Command the Heads of the people, who had the power of al the people, to continue &s;uch in their Places, if they had power to remove them? It is one thing what God Commands particular par&s;ons to do, that have no Power no manner of way, and what the duty of the Chief of al the people (who repre&s;ent them) is to do. 2 Were not tho&s;e very per&s;ons many of them <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">yran<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s in Title, a&s;|wel as in Government, concerning whom God Commands his People, That they &s;hould be &s;ubject to them? Did not the Emperors advance them&s;elves by the power of their Armies that they commanded, to whom the Senate was forced to yeeld, and yet &s;ubjection is required whil&s;t they were in Place? What can be &s;aid of <HI>Nebuchadnezzar</HI> him|&s;elf? Was his Title good, getting all by the Sword as he did? and yet Subjection is commanded to him, as his own quotation proves. So that it is manife&s;t, That al the Scriptures which he produceth, are as &s;trong to prove that which he di&s;approves of, as they are to prove that, which he would prove by them.</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;.</HI> 3. Servants are to be &s;ubject to their Ma&s;ters, not only to them that are good and gentle, but tho&s;e that are froward, and that do them wrong, 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19, 20. and by Analogy Subjects are tyed in the &s;ame <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">erms to their Governors.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Servants in tho&s;e dayes were &s;uch who were bought with their Moneis, and were their Slaves, as now many Chri&s;tians are to the Turks; therefore in &s;ubjection they mu&s;t be, both to the Good and Froward, and could not help them&s;elves; and the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> exhorts them to be contented, and patient in their condition for the Lords &s;ake: But yet el&s;ewhere he exhorts them, That if they could be free, they would chu&s;e it rather. Now I hope this mans &s;cope is not, To put Common|wealthes into this Condition of Servility and Slavery to Princes. Nor
<PB N="13" REF="23"> will he grant &s;uch an ab&s;o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ute Dominion to Princes, as to Ma&s;ters over &s;uch Servants. Such Servants were for their Ma&s;ters, when their Ma|&s;ters had bought them: But Common-wealths are not for Princes, but Princes for Common-wealths; therefore there is no parity betwixt the one and the other. The &s;ubjection of Common-wealths, mu&s;t not be a bondage, as the &s;ubjection of &s;uch Servants was, unle&s;&s;e it be that &s;om people have forfeited their freedom by &s;ome Rebellion, or wicked bloudy ho&s;tile acts, as the <HI>Iri&s;h</HI> have done. The yoke may be hea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ie on &s;uch ju&s;tly, and yet they have no cau&s;e to kick again&s;t it.</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;. 4. David</HI> would not &s;tretch out his hand again&s;t <HI>Saul</HI> upon this ground, for that he was his Ma&s;ter the King of I&s;rael, and the Lords A|nointed, though he was then in actual, violent, and unju&s;t pur&s;uit of his life, 1 Sam. 24. 5, &amp;c. 26. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. &amp;c.</P>
<P><HI>Reply. David</HI> at that time was but a private man, and <HI>Saul</HI> was King unque&s;tioned by the Heads of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> and <HI>Sauls</HI> per&s;ecution was but of one private mans life, it appears not that he was a Tyrant unto the Com|wealth. However it i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ident that he was given of God immediatly, without the interpo&s;ition of the people, and therefore it might be, that he mu&s;t be taken away by God, though he had been a Tyrant. But what is this to Princes in the&s;e times, that have no &s;uch immediate Cals to Kingdoms?</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;.</HI> 5. Otherwi&s;e you leave no place for pa&s;&s;ive obedience to, pray|er for, and patience towards Magi&s;trates in ca&s;e of their wrong doing, and your own innocency, which yet is generally acknowledged to be a duty.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> There will be particular wrongs enough, to exerci&s;e the pati|ence of particular per&s;ons, before it come to be mi&s;carriage again&s;t the Common-wealth: and there will be mi&s;carries enough through weak|ne&s;&s;e and invigilancy again&s;t the Common-wealth which will exerci&s;e the patience of all the people, and yet at la&s;t, if the mi&s;chief grow very high and threaten ruine; &s;ubjection is not &s;o ab&s;olute, but that the Heads of the people may free them&s;elves, and the people, from &s;uch a yoke.</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;.</HI> 6. Els you di&s;&s;olve all Magi&s;tracy, it wil be impo&s;&s;ible in mans cor|rupt e&s;tate to retain or continue any, in as much as no man, or men, can in the va&s;t multitude, and difficulty of Magi&s;tratical affairs avoid offen|ding every day, 2 Sam. 23. 3, 5.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If the people them&s;elves were &s;uch Ideots and Children as to expect a Government that &s;hould be perfect, yet I hope it wil hardly be a&s;&s;erted of their cho&s;en men, whom they make their Repre&s;entatives, that they are &s;uch; and therefore I wonder that ever &s;uch a Rea&s;on &s;hould be produced. The High COURT where Wi&s;dome &s;hould be &s;eated (if any where) wil not run &s;tark mad, to di&s;place the Supream
<PB N="14" REF="24"> Governor for infirmity and weakne&s;&s;e, which (as a man) he is incident unto every day, and &s;o therein overthrow al Government: No, no, there hath been experience enough of their long &s;uffering. But when a Prince to maintain his Lu&s;t, wil rai&s;e a War, to endanger the de&s;truction of al his Subjects; then let the REPRESENTATIVES of a peo|ple know their Priviledg and Duty, which is to &s;erve the People, how|ever it goes with the Prince.</P>
<P><HI>Rea&s;. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> The Doctrin of orthodox Prote&s;tant Divines generally is, That obedience is due (in lawful things) to the mo&s;t degenerate, oppre&s;&s;ing, and tyrannical Princes.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The&s;e orthodox Divines &s;peak of &s;ubjection of particular per|&s;ons to &s;uch Princes while they are in place and power; but they &s;peak not of States which are &s;et up to be (at lea&s;t) &s;harers in Government with the Prince. Nor do they pre&s;&s;e obedience upon them, without a|ny allowance to help them&s;elves, by calling him to an accompt in the peoples name.</P>
<P>2 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> We find oaths of Allegiance in Scripture, &s;worn to Princes without any Conditions in&s;erted, Judg. 11. 9, 10. 2 King. 11. 4. 2 Chron. 36. 13. Ezek. 17. 13. &amp; Nehem. 10. 29. Their Oath was to ob&s;erve all the Commandements of the Lord, whereof the fifth Com|mandement, with application to their pre&s;ent and future Magi&s;trates, was one.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 If there be no Condition in&s;erted, it wil not follow, That therefore there was no Condition; but the ju&s;tice and equity of the thing is to be con&s;idered, whether i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> doth not require a Condition; and the Rules of general Equity are to be followed, which is con&s;onant to, yea, commanded in the Scripture, <HI>viz. To do, as one would be done unto.</HI> 2 The places quo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed, prove not the thing; That in <HI>Iudges,</HI> of the peo|ples Oath to <HI>Iepthah</HI> may well be under&s;tood with this re&s;triction, <HI>Accor|ding to the Laws of the Lord, and of the Land:</HI> for <HI>Iepthah</HI> was a Beleever, and a Judge whom God rai&s;ed up; and it is probable, that he would not de&s;ire Head&s;hip over them upon other terms. They were al&s;o an unfree people when they Covenanted with <HI>Iepthah</HI> to advance him to Government: and if their Oath were ab&s;olute, they did not put them|&s;elves into a wor&s;e Condition thereby, but might think it better to be &s;ervants to him, then &s;laves to the <HI>Ammonites:</HI> and if it were an ab&s;olute Rule which he had, he mu&s;t Merrit it before he had it, and was to be|come their Saviour, before their Ruler: &s;o that this In&s;tance is not ap|plicable to the thing in Controver&s;ie. That place in 2 King. 11. 14. mu&s;t be interpreted by Ver&s;. 17. where it is &s;aid, That <HI>Ie<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ada made a Covenant betwixt the King and the People,</HI> which implyes, that he mutually engaged them, and &s;o it was not an ab&s;olute Oath. That in 2 Chron. 36. 13. &s;peaks of <HI>Zedekiahs</HI> breach of oath, but nothing of any ab&s;olute Oath.
<PB N="15" REF="24"> That in <HI>Ezek.</HI> may receive the &s;ame An&s;wer with the former, becau&s;e it belongs to the &s;ame thing. That in <HI>Nehemiah,</HI> which re&s;pects the Ob&s;ervation of the Fifth Commandement, h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">th had its An&s;wer be|fore.</P>
<P>3 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> It is a thing within our power to &s;ettle our Allegiance ab|&s;olutly, as well as it is within a mans power to di&s;po&s;e of him&s;elf to &s;er|vice, whether his Ma&s;ter prove good, or evil; or as it is in a man or womans power to be&s;tow them&s;elves in Marriage, whether the Mate be ob&s;ervant of duty, or no?</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The Que&s;tion is not whether it be in our power to &s;ettle our Allegiance ab&s;olutly, but whether it be in our lawful power to do it or no; and the doubt is not the le&s;&s;e in reference to the&s;e In&s;tances which he produceth of a Servant his giving of him&s;elf up to his Ma&s;ter irrevo|kably, whether good or bad; and of a Man or Woman giving them|&s;elves up in Ma<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">riage, whether the Mate be ob&s;ervant of duty or no, but the grea<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">er? For it per&s;ons be bound to be wi&s;e, and ju&s;t, and merciful to them&s;elves, then they cannot do &s;uch a thing without &s;in: and it would be counted a de&s;parate wicked part in a man, to bind him&s;elf to a|nother to be &s;ervant for ever, whether he be kind or cruel; whether he give him any thing or nothing; yea, though he take from him that which he hath. And the unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e of the thing is the &s;ame, in the ca&s;e of an ab&s;olute Oath to a Magi&s;trate.</P>
<P>4 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> A conditional oath is not con&s;i&s;tent with a nece&s;&s;ary duty; o|bedience to Magi&s;trats is not left arbitrary, but co~manded, &amp; that though they be bad; but now the duty being nece&s;&s;ary, if you would have it &s;worn with a provi&s;o of the Rulers performing his duty, you nullifie the end of an Oath, which is to confirm, put out of doubt, and give &s;ecurity of what is due. A thing &s;worn may become due, either by the rule of Equity, or by a voluntary Covenant: That which is due the latter way, if the Covenant be conditional&punc; the Oath that is to ratifie it, may be al|&s;o &s;o far conditional, but what is due in the former kind, to wit, by ab&s;o|lute and unalterable rule, or precept of Ju&s;tice, cannot be &s;worn to con|ditionally; for that would be no ratification to it, nay it would be a de|bilitating, and rendering more in&s;ecure of that which was &s;imply due without an oath, a condition put into your oath, being a very pro|bable <HI>medium</HI> to per&s;wade the &s;wearer that he is no otherwayes bound to the things &s;worn, then upon that Condition&punc; which being broken by the party &s;worn to, he will ea&s;ily conceive him&s;elf altogether free: Thus the ab&s;olute Rule will receive impeachment, and not &s;trength in its obliga|tion by the conditional oath: &s;uch an oath therefore is in its end incon&s;i|&s;tent with it.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 This Rea&s;on is much like to the Fir&s;t, and hath its An&s;wer there: But, 2 It may be demanded, Whether obedience to Magi&s;trates,
<PB N="16" REF="25"> be more nece&s;&s;ary, or due by more ab&s;olute unalterable Rule and Pre|cept of Ju&s;tice, then obedience from Servants (which came free, and upon Covenant to their Ma&s;ters) is? If not, then, Whether obedience to Ma&s;ters may not (and ought not to) admit of a Conditional promi&s;e or oath to the performance of it, without any incon&s;i&s;tency with the ne|ce&s;&s;ity of &s;uch a duty: and if, in the nece&s;&s;ary obedience of Servants, &s;uch a Conditional promi&s;e or oath may be admitted, Why not in the nece&s;&s;ary obedience of Subjects to Magi&s;trates? And, 3 It may be asked how, and when obedience to Magi&s;trates came to be nece&s;&s;ary&punc; He wil not &s;ay, That before Magi&s;trates were, obedience was nece&s;&s;ary to them; but Magi&s;trates, and obedience to them, came in together. But how came Magi&s;tracy&punc; (I &s;peak of individual per&s;ons put into the Office of Magi&s;tracy) Not by an immediate cal from God, as <HI>David</HI> did and &s;ome few others which Scripture mentioneth: nor were they (ori|ginally) born to that &s;uperiority over the people, but were fir&s;t exalted to that power by the Choice of the People: then there was a voluntary Covenant at fir&s;t betwixt them: then (if the people looked at their own good) the Covenant was Conditional, and &s;o their Oath (which was to confirm it) was Conditional, and &s;o their obedience (which is the thing &s;worn to) was Conditional, and &s;o it was nece&s;&s;ary not otherwi&s;e but up|on a Condition. And &s;o it's commanded in Scripture, not otherwi&s;e but upon the Condition it was fir&s;t grounded on, and in that way it is ne|ce&s;&s;ary and unalterable, the Condition being ob&s;erved upon which it was built and bottomed; and more then this cannot be in&s;erted by di|vine Precept. And whereas he makes this di&s;tinction, <HI>A thing &s;worn may become due either by rule of Equitie, or by a voluntary Covenant:</HI> It appears by what hath been pre&s;ented, That both members of the di&s;tinction without jarring meet in this. 1, There is a voluntary Covenant which is Conditional; and 2, There is a Rule of Equity nece&s;&s;itating upon that Covenant and Condition; &s;o that obeying comes to be due both wayes. 4 A Conditional Oath doth not weaken, but &s;trengthen &s;uch obedience which is nece&s;&s;ary and unalterable upon &s;uch a Condition. For the Ma|gi&s;trate comes to be a&s;&s;ured by &s;uch an Oath, that he &s;hall be obeyed, up|on his good behaviour, and ju&s;t, and upright carriage in his Office, and that the people wil not be fickle to him, if he be faithful in Government to them. After his large di&s;pute again&s;t the Conditionality of the Oath, he proceeds to arguing again&s;t the Mutuality of it; and Fir&s;t he men|tioneth &s;o me of the words in the Propo&s;ition, and blames them for de|fectivene&s;&s;e in point of cleerne&s;&s;e, in reference to the Sen&s;e in which the Po&s;ition is to be under&s;tood, and takes occa&s;ion thereupon to &s;peak of different &s;en&s;es, and gives one &s;en&s;e which he &s;uppo&s;eth will not be ow|ned by me; and then an apter &s;en&s;e, which he &s;uppo&s;eth was in my In|tention: For thus he &s;peaks;</P>
<P N="1"><PB N="17" REF="25">1, His words &s;ound, as if he would have the &s;ame oath to be taken mu|tually both by Prince and Subjects, which he will not, cannot (I &s;uppo&s;e) own to be his &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2, But the apter &s;en&s;e, and that which (I &s;uppo&s;e) was in his intenti|on, is, That the Ruler and Subject, &s;hould each &s;wear to his re&s;pective duty; the Prince, That he will Command and Govern lawfully: the Subject, That he will performe all lawful Homage, and Obedience.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> And what needed &s;o much ado? Was the Propo&s;ition &s;ome|what defective in words? And was it not immediatly made full in the Rea&s;on which followed the Po&s;ition? So that he needed not to have &s;aid, For <HI>want of Explanation</HI> he mu&s;t ob&s;erve &s;ome different &s;en&s;es ap|plyable to my words; nor needed he to have &s;aid, (<HI>I &s;uppo&s;e</HI>) for he might have been at a certainty, what my &s;en&s;e was; For my words in the Rea&s;on are the&s;e, <HI>It is again&s;t the good of the Subject that he &s;hould be further, or longer bound to the Prince, or Ruler, to &s;ubmit to him, then the Prince or Ruler is bound to the Subject to Rule well, and to Admini&s;ter Iu&s;tice rightly.</HI> Let the Reader judge, whether he needed to have come with his diffe|rent &s;en&s;es: or, whether the different &s;en&s;es that he brings were ap|plyable to my words, when the&s;e words were before him.</P>
<P>After he pretends to have found out the &s;en&s;e of the Propo&s;ition, he concludes it fal&s;e. But how doth he make it out?</P>
<P>1 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> We read of many undoubtedly righteous Oaths in Scri|pture, undertaken in Covenants between men and men, wherein one party only &s;weareth, and not both mutually, Gen. 24. 2. 47. 31. Exod. 13. 19. Jo&s;h. 2. 12. 9. 15. 14. 9 Judg. 15. 12. 1 Sam. 19. 6. 1 King. 1. 13. 29. 51. 2 Sam. 19. 23. Neh. 5. 12. Jer. 38. 16.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The Scriptures that he quotes to prove undoubtedly righteous &s;ingle Oaths, taken by one party, and not by both parties, are Oaths mo&s;t of them of another kind then that which the Po&s;ition &s;peaks of, <HI>viz.</HI> Oathes, the performance whereof lies only on one party, the other is to receive advantage, but not to do any thing: but the Oaths that the Po|&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ion &s;peaks of to be Mutual, are of things and duties which both parties are equally with re&s;pect to their &s;everal places bound to by the Com|mand of God: For the Command to Obey, lies no more &s;tricktly upon the Subject, then the Command to Rule, lies upon the Prince; and the&s;e Scriptures have been mo&s;t of them An&s;wered before: Only in Jo&s;h. 2. 12. and Jer. 38. 16. the performance whereof lies on both &s;ides, and whether the Oath were reciprocal, is not &s;o cleer; but conditional it was, as from Jo&s;h. 2. 17, &amp;c. Jer. 38. 24. appears; and conditional in the very &s;en&s;e I have urged: So as that they were di&s;charged if the Con|dition were not kept; and they a&s;&s;ented to the Condition whether they &s;wore, or not; and they are full again&s;t him as any text in Scripture.</P>
<P>2 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> We find in Scripture, Oaths of Allegiance taken by Sub|jects
<PB N="18" REF="26"> to the Rulers, without the reciprocal &s;wearing of the Rulers to them <NOTE N="&Dagger;" PLACE="marg">2 King. 11. 4. Judg. 11. 10. Ch. 36. 13</NOTE>; &s;uch was that engagement, Jo&s;h. 1. 16, 17, 18.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 To the Scriptures in the Margent, I have An&s;wered before, yet this may be added, That if there be &s;ome examples of Oathes of Al|legiance without reciprocal &s;wearing through over much credulity of the Subject, or becau&s;e in a nece&s;&s;itous condition, yet the equity and ju|&s;tice of the thing, <HI>viz. That the Oath ought to be reciprocal,</HI> is nothing le&s;&s;e by &s;uch examples. 2 That in Jo&s;h. 1. 16, 17, 18. which he &s;eems to lay mo&s;t weight upon, is rather again&s;t him then for him, for it was con|ditional as the la&s;t words in Ver&s;. 18. &s;hew, <HI>Only</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>be &s;trong and of good courage:</HI> It is as if they &s;hould have &s;aid, Upon this Condition we wil harken unto thee as unto <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> before, if thou be &s;uch as <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was, if thou be &s;trong 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 promi&s;ed to him in their places: for there is not any thing &s;poken of an Oath, on either &s;ide.</P>
<P>3 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> Oathes are never to be taken, but nece&s;&s;arily.</P>
<P>1 <HI>When the matter is of great weight.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Is there not as much nece&s;&s;ity for the Prince to &s;wear, as the People? Is not Ruling wel as weighty, if not much more weighty then Obeying? Hath not faithfulne&s;&s;e in Ruling, begotten Loyalty? Hath not a wi&s;e, ju&s;t PRINCE, made an obedient, upright Peo|ple?</P>
<P>2 <HI>When it cannot otherwi&s;e be &s;ufficientlie confirmed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This Rea&s;on of an Oath is much more &s;trong in reference to the Prince, then to the People: For when once the Prince hath the Po|wer of the Kingdom in his hand, What can be better &s;ecurity of his faith|fulne&s;&s;e, then his Oath? As for the people, if they &s;wear not, yet if they be di&s;loyal, their lives, and al they have, are in the Princes hands. But it is nor &s;o with the Prince, til there hath been a Conte&s;tation fir&s;t, and his power is broken.</P>
<P>3 <HI>It comes to pa&s;&s;e &s;ometimes, That the Performance is onlie on one Partie.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But that is not the ca&s;e betwixt Prince and People, for the per|formance mu&s;t be on both &s;ides, el&s;e the Common-wealth is mi&s;er|able.</P>
<P>4 <HI>Sometimes there is other Satisfactorie A&s;&s;urances given be&s;ides an Oath.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But what is that the Prince can give to &s;atisfie the People be|&s;ides &s;wearing, and yet the People cannot give the &s;ame, but they mu&s;t needs &s;wear?</P>
<P>5 <HI>Sometimes the danger of the breach lies onlie, or more on one Partie then another.</HI></P>
<PB N="19" REF="26">
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> So much more need hath the Prince to &s;wear then the People, becau&s;e the danger of the breach lies mo&s;t on his part. For, for one In|&s;tance that can be given of the Peoples di&s;loyalty to a ju&s;t Prince, there may be twenty given of the Princes unju&s;t oppre&s;&s;ive carriage to an obe|dient People.</P>
<P>6 <HI>Sometimes there is other remedies, if there &s;hould be a breach, then the forfeiture of an Oath.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> I hope the Remedy whatever it be be&s;ides an Oath, may be applicable to the People, if they break, as to the Prince, if he break.</P>
<P>4 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> But &s;uppo&s;e the ca&s;e, that it be as nece&s;&s;ary for &s;ecurity, that the King &s;wear to the people, as the people to the King; yet if (through overmuch credulity, or otherwi&s;e) it be that the people do &s;wear, and not the Prince, this cannot be the lea&s;t colour of the nullifying of the peoples Oath: For that which makes the Oath obliging, is, That in a ju&s;t and po&s;&s;ible matter promi&s;ed, God is invocated as a wit|ne&s;&s;e of the promi&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Grant it be as nece&s;&s;ary, that the King &s;wear as the People, and that through the credulity of the people the King &s;wear not, or that through fear of incen&s;ing him, they dare not demand an Oath from him, and yet through his power and wrath they are forced to &s;wear to him, (and this is the ca&s;e many times) and &s;uppo&s;e 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 A&s;&s;erted that it is not, and for this Rea&s;on, Becau&s;e whether the King &s;wear, or &s;wear not, he ought to do the thing that he &s;hould &s;wear, or el&s;e not expect that which he makes the People &s;wear to, becau&s;e the ju&s;tice 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 promi&s;e, much more for a people to &s;wear, that though it &s;hould come to pa&s;&s;e, that the King &s;hould turn all his power and force again&s;t them to de&s;troy them, yet he &s;hal be their King, and they will obey him &s;till, while any of them are le<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t alive. And this man him&s;elf, &s;aith nothing in his Rea&s;on which he renders Contradictory to this, but what rather &s;erves to confirm it. For he &s;aith, <HI>That which makes the Oath obliging is, that in a ju&s;t and po&s;&s;ible matter promi&s;ed, God is invocated, as a witne&s;&s;e of the Promi&s;e:</HI> He &s;aith, The matter mu&s;t be ju&s;t that is promi&s;ed and &s;worn to, or the Oath is not obliging: now the ju&s;tne&s;&s;e of &s;uch a promi&s;e and oath, is the Condition upon which it is made, <HI>viz.</HI> That the Prince Rule for their welfare, and not for their Ruine, otherwi&s;e the Subject is mo&s;t inhumanly unju&s;t again&s;t him&s;elf, and God is invocated to &s;uch wickedne&s;&s;e, which is high pre|&s;umption in tho&s;e per&s;ons that do it: and the thing is not ratified there|by, but repentance ought rather to be &s;hewed. But (indeed) it is to be
<PB N="20" REF="27"> &s;uppo&s;ed, that the people &s;wear not at any time, but that at lea&s;t this Condition is tacite, in the Oath; and that the King is engaged unto his part with the people in the &s;ame oath. And if any man argue otherwi&s;e and &s;ay it is not &s;o; I &s;ay then, <HI>Such</HI> an Oath is unlawful, and holds not longer, then in the true &s;cope and extent of it, it ought to hold.</P>
<P>After that apter &s;en&s;e of (<HI>Mutual</HI>) which he &s;aith is my &s;en&s;e, he comes to give another &s;en&s;e of (<HI>Mutual &s;wearing</HI>) which he &s;aith is &s;tricter then the former, and that is &s;aith he, <HI>When not onlie two per&s;ons &s;wear to each other their re&s;pective parts, but both &s;wear with a mutual re&s;pect; that is, The Obligation of the one partie, hath a re&s;pect to, and a dependence upon the performance on the other partie: as when one man &s;wears to give another &s;o much for his Land, the other &s;wears to convey to him his Land for &s;o much Money, in this kind the breach of the one, is the relea&s;ment of the other.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This is not another &s;en&s;e, but the &s;ame with the former; for this is in al mutual Oathes that are made by two per&s;ons to each other re|ciprocally, they are Oathes made with mutual re&s;pect; that is, The ob|ligation of the one party, hath re&s;pect to, and dependence upon the per|formance of the other partie, as in Gen. 21. 31, 32. betwixt <HI>Abimel<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ch</HI> and <HI>Abraham.</HI> Gen. 31. 52, 53. betwixt <HI>Iacob</HI> and <HI>Laban.</HI> Jo&s;h. 2. 12. 17. to 21 betwixt <HI>Rahab</HI> and the <HI>Spies.</HI> 1 Sam. 30. 15. betwixt <HI>David</HI> and the <HI>Ama|lekite.</HI> 1 Sam. 20. 16. 17. betwixt <HI>David</HI> and <HI>Ionathan.</HI> 1 King. 2. 42, 43. betwixt <HI>Solomon</HI> and <HI>Shimei.</HI> 2 King 11. 17. betwixt <HI>Ioa&s;h</HI> and the <HI>People.</HI> And where wil it be found otherwi&s;e, but &s;til in mutual Oathes of two per&s;ons to each other, they are with mutual re&s;pect, and the obligation of the one, hath re&s;pect to, and a dependence upon the performance of the other, &s;o as the breach of the one, is the relea&s;ment of the other, as in the Oath betwixt the <HI>Spies</HI> and <HI>Rahab</HI> is mo&s;t cleerly manife&s;t. For there it is expre&s;&s;ed in &s;o many words, and it is perpetually imply'd in al other &s;uch like Oathes which we reade of in the Scripture, where it is not ex|pre&s;&s;ed. Of this nature are Oathes betwixt Prince and People if they be mutual, (as (by the grant of this man) in <HI>Englands</HI> ca&s;e they be) then they be with re&s;pect: for the Prince doth not &s;wear to give him&s;elf up for the Peoples good, to be &s;hepheard of them, and Captain over them for nought, but for &s;uch homage, obedience, fear, duty, tribute, cu&s;tome, revenue, to be performed and given by the People uuto him: So the People do not &s;wear to give unto the Prince &s;o much fear, ob&s;ervance, &s;ubjection, revenue, ab&s;olutly and cleerly, but for &s;uch a work of faith|ful Ruling and Governing them. And it is yet more cleer in the Re|lation betwixt Pa&s;tor and People, the Covenant betwixt them is with re&s;pect, and the obligation of the one party, hath re&s;pect to, and depen|dence upon the performance of the other. The People do not promi&s;e or engage to give &s;o much of their E&s;tates for the maintenance of him ab&s;olutly and cleerly, but with re&s;pect to his labouring in the Word and
<PB N="21" REF="27"> Doctrine among them; neither doth the Pa&s;tor engage ab&s;olutly and cleerly &s;o to labour among&s;t them, and give out his &s;trength in &s;uch &s;ort for their good, but with re&s;pect to &s;uch double honor, as the Scripture obligeth them to give him. And yet it cannot be denied but that (not|with&s;tanding this mutual re&s;pect that &s;uch an Engagement hath to each other, and dependence which the one hath upon the performance of the other) both of them are tyed and engaged to God, and that the duties which they do performe are duties to God, becau&s;e God hath comman|ded them &s;uch duties, but not without, but upon &s;uch mutual re&s;pect to each other, and it is no duty to God without this re&s;pect, for a people to give this double honor to him, that wil not Rule wel, and labour in the Word and Doctrine among them, but they ought rather in di&s;charge of their duty to God, to remove, or cau&s;e to be removed &s;uch a per&s;on from his office, and &s;o to with-draw their double honor from him: and &s;o it is in the&s;e relative duties betwixt Prince and people. And &s;o let this man (if he can) or any other, &s;hew by divine Rule a more ab&s;olute en|gagement betwixt Prince and people, then betwixt Pa&s;tor and peo|ple.</P>
<P>But he &s;aith, <HI>This &s;en&s;e of &s;wearing cannot come in to be meant in the point of Controver&s;ie:</HI> But why &s;o?</P>
<P>1 Saith he, <HI>Such an Oath is plainlie Conditional, as when one gives &s;o much Monie for &s;o much Land, he gives it not cleerlie and ab&s;olutlie, but for &s;o much Land.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> So it is in this ca&s;e plainly Conditional, perhaps not alwayes expre&s;ly Conditional: If a people &s;hould &s;ay nothing to him that is to be their Pa&s;tor of any duty that he is to perform to them, but only pro|mi&s;e &s;uch maintainance to him, the Condition of Preaching to them is plainly enough imply'd though not expre&s;&s;ed. It cannot rationally be conceived, that they would give &s;o much to him, as being their Pa&s;tor, for doing nothing: &s;o of the People it may be &s;aid, in reference to their Allegiance to their Prince, that there is no ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity that the Condition &s;hould be expre&s;&s;ed, e&s;pecially in the ca&s;e of the Subjects of this Kingdom, becau&s;e the King was &s;worn to Rule according to the Laws, and that was the Condition of al after Oathes taken by the people to him.</P>
<P>2 He &s;aith, <HI>The Oath of Allegiance is granted to be ab&s;olute by the Author of the</HI> POSITIONS, <HI>and di&s;puted again&s;t by him, as &s;uch.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It is a mi&s;take to &s;ay &s;o: The Di&s;pute was to prove, That ei|ther the Oath was Conditional, or ought to be; was Mutual, or ought to be; if lawful: And therefore if broken on the Kings party, then the people are ab&s;olved. And though he him&s;elf was &s;atisfied that it was Conditional, and Mutual, and with Re&s;pect; yet becau&s;e others did de|ny
<PB N="22" REF="28"> it, therefore he expre&s;&s;ed him&s;elf in a disjunctive [either was mutual or ought to have been.]</P>
<P>3 But &s;aith he, <HI>The Kings Oath is ab&s;olute, and binds without depen|dence on the Subjects Loyaltie; no man will &s;ay, That the King is di&s;charged from Ruling ju&s;tlie, and may turn Tyrant, if the People fail in their Oath to|wards him.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It is denyed, That the Kings or Peoples Oathes bind without dependence any more then Pa&s;tors and Peoples Engagements do: and though no man wil &s;ay, That the King is di&s;charged from Ruling ju&s;tly, and may turn Tyrant; yet rational men wil &s;ay, That he may cea&s;e his Ruling, and lay down his Office of Government, if the People generally with-hold their Subjection, and his Revenue from him. Nor can any one rationally think, That the Governor &s;hould &s;til carry the weight of &s;uch a Tru&s;t over &s;uch a People, who do with-draw their fear, and reve|rence, and obedience from him, and wil pay him no tribute, and with|hold his Re<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">enue, and abu&s;e his per&s;on: but that he may in &s;uch a ca&s;e, be ab&s;olved from all engagement in reference to &s;uch a Function over &s;uch a People, and &s;o the ca&s;e is with the Subject. There is difference betwixt <HI>non adjuration,</HI> and <HI>male adjuration,</HI> the latter is in no ca&s;e warrant|able, but the former is ju&s;tifiable upon the breach of the people in di|&s;loyalty to him.</P>
<P>4 <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;uch mutual Oathes are entred into by both Parties at the &s;ame time, but neither doth the King nor Subjects &s;wear to each other at the &s;ame time.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This is not nece&s;&s;ary in mutual Oathes betwixt two parties which are with re&s;pect; &s;uch mutual Oaths may be betwixt two Princes of divers Nations, and &s;o depending the one upon the performance of the other; that if there be a breach on either &s;ide, the other is free upon it from &s;uch obligation, and yet the&s;e Princes not meet together, nor &s;wear at one time.</P>
<P>5 <HI>Such mutual re&s;pective Oathes, have onlie place in matters arbitrarie, which are in mens choice to do, or not to do before they &s;wear, but not &s;o in the&s;e relative duties betwixt Kings and Subjects.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It is arbitrary (though not in reference to Government it &s;elf, yet) in reference to the di&s;ignation of the per&s;on or per&s;ons that are to be put in place of Government, before there be a Pact or Covenant be|twixt &s;uch per&s;on or per&s;ons, and &s;uch a people whom they are to Go|vern. And though there be a nece&s;&s;ity after &s;uch Pact and Covenant, yet &s;uch nece&s;&s;ity is bottom'd on &s;uch a Pact or Covenant, and &s;o it is not an ab&s;olute nece&s;&s;ity, but a nece&s;&s;ity upon &s;uch a Condition. The duties of Ma&s;ters and Servants, are nece&s;&s;ary in the general, but particularly con&s;idered in reference to this or that per&s;on giving up them&s;elves to be Servants unto &s;uch and &s;uch Ma&s;ters, it is meerly arbitrary before the
<PB N="23" REF="28"> Pact, and there is place for &s;uch re&s;pective Oathes betwixt them, and that the one breaking, the other is free upon it.</P>
<P>But he goes on to con&s;ider of the Rea&s;on of the Po&s;ition, <HI>viz.</HI></P>
<P><HI>That it is again&s;t Equitie and Rea&s;on, that the one &s;hould be further or longer bound to the other, then the other is bound to him:</HI> And he &s;aith, <HI>That if that be granted, yet there is no nece&s;&s;itie that the Oath be mutual, for the Prince may be bound, and is bound, and it cannot he otherwi&s;e, but that he &s;hould be bound to his dutie as long as the Subject is to his, by Scripture, Con&s;cience, and po&s;itive Laws, and yet not &s;worn at al.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If al be granted that he &s;aith, let the Reader judge whether if the Subject be bound to the Prince by Scripture, Con&s;cience, and po&s;i|tive Lawes, and by an Oath to the Prince over and above al the other, and the Prince be bound to the Subject by Scripture, Con&s;cience, and po&s;itive Laws, but not by an Oath; Whether the Subject be not fur|ther bound to the Prince, then the Prince to him. But in this particle (<HI>further</HI>) he meddles not, which yet was in the Rea&s;on of the Po&s;ition: but &s;aith, <HI>The Prince is bound (and that as long)</HI> but he &s;aith not (<HI>and that as far</HI>) and yet he would &s;eem to grant the whole Rea&s;on, and notwith|&s;tanding deny the mutual Oath, but it is without Rea&s;on.</P>
<P>The Propo&s;ition remaining &s;til in &s;trength (as I &s;uppo&s;e) and the Rea|&s;on of it al&s;o, notwith&s;tanding al that hath been endeavoured by him a|gain&s;t it; the Con&s;equence remains firm al&s;o. And as he di&s;ables them not, &s;o need not I to confirm them.</P>
<P>Only in the end of the Con&s;equences there was (for further illu&s;tra|tion rather then confirmation) the Parliaments Fact, in taking up Arms produced as &s;utable to tho&s;e inferences, and &s;erving to cleer the Oath of Allegiance to be Conditional, and not Ab&s;olute; to be Mutual, and not Single; in the very accompt of the Parliament it &s;elf, who be&s;t un|der&s;tood it. For had not they in that Oath of Allegiance &s;worn with this limitation in their own under&s;tandings, (<HI>viz. According to the Laws of the Kingdom</HI>) as the Condition whether expre&s;&s;ed or not, and had they not known that the King was &s;worn to them, to Govern according to the Laws, and that the&s;e two Oathes had mutual re&s;pect to each other, this Oath of Allegiance in an ab&s;olute &s;en&s;e Con&s;idered, had they not re|nounced it as unju&s;t and wicked, would have made them guilty of di&s;loy|alty and Rebellion in taking up of Arms, which I am &s;ure my <HI>Antago|ni&s;t</HI> (whoever he might be) would not charge them with.</P>
<P>Now unto this he An&s;wereth two things:</P>
<P>1 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> If their taking up of Arms again&s;t the King were Rebel|lion, their ab&s;olution from their Oathes by the Kings breach of his, could not unmake, or make it no Rebellion; for the debt of Obedience is exi&s;tent in the Subject before any Oath taking, and it is not founded on &s;wearing, but only confirmed by it, and therefore &s;urvives after the Oath &s;hould be di&s;&s;olved.</P>
<PB N="24" REF="29">
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But in this argumentation, he builds upon that which I have oft de&s;troyed, and takes that for granted, which I have oft denyed, <HI>viz. (That there is an ab&s;olute debt of Obedience to this or that Magi&s;trate</HI>) which is not &s;o, &s;ave only upon mutual Covenant, which comes afterwards to be confirmed by Oath, and from which by the breach of Covenant and Oath upon the Magi&s;trates &s;ide, the Subject is acquitted, <HI>viz.</HI> From his Oath and Covenant together; &s;o that the one doth not &s;urvive the o|ther, as in al mutual Oathes it is; there is an ab&s;olution from the oath, and from the thing (of which the oath is) together; as in Jo&s;h. 2. 20. ap|pears: they would be quit of the oath, and not only &s;o, but of the thing al&s;o, if &s;he kept not within, or &s;hould di&s;cover.</P>
<P>2 <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> We mu&s;t therefore &s;ay, as the Parliamentarian party hath beleeved, declared, and in many Treati&s;es in Print, maintained al along the late Wars, That the Armes of the Parliament were not again&s;t any brance of the Subjects Allegiance, or the Oath for it (which they pro|fe&s;&s;ed &s;til to per&s;i&s;t in, yea, and in the act of their Armes bearing, Cove|nanted to yeeld and maintain) but concordant with the &s;ame. In as much as they enterprized not again&s;t the Kings Per&s;on, his State, or Govern|ment, they went not again&s;t his Maje&s;ty, his Heirs, or Succe&s;&s;ors, they joyned not again&s;t his Crown and Dignity, the Rights whereof, and the Bounds of the Subjects Obedience, are perfixed by the Lawes of the Realm, the ultimate interpretation whereof, is in the Parliament which declared their Arms to be for, and agreeable to the Laws. The King, as King, acts only by his Courts and Laws, what he doth be&s;ides, or a|gain&s;t the&s;e, is the mans, not the Kings acting. What is done by Order of the Courts of Ju&s;tice, and by vertue of the Laws, is done (though a|gain&s;t his per&s;onal pre&s;ence or command, yet) for the King, his Crown, and Dignity.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> In this &s;en&s;e that he puts upon the taking up of Arms, there is enough to ratifie and confirm that which al along I have been conten|ding for; and there is nothing that contradicts me, but what contra|dicts it &s;elf. I &s;hall take up &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in the Relation which he makes:</P>
<P>1 He &s;aith <HI>The King, as King, acts onlie by his Courts and Laws, and what he doth be&s;ides, or again&s;t, the&s;e is the mans, not the Kings acting:</HI> It is as much as if he &s;hould &s;ay, The King fals under a double con&s;ideration, as a man, and &s;o when he departs from Laws, and from Ju&s;tice, he is on|ly to be lookt upon as &s;uch, and as a King, and &s;o only when he keeps to his Laws, and to his Courts of Ju&s;tice. Now we know that the oath of Allegiance was made to the King, as King; and &s;o the Subject hath nothing to do with him in point of obedience or Allegiance, &s;ave only as King; that is, When he Rules according to Law. Again, The oath of Allegiance being to a legal King, when the per&s;on of the King is a
<PB N="25" REF="29"> Tyrant, and breaks al Laws and overthrowes al Courts of Ju&s;tice, where is then this legal King? and if there be none, the &s;ubject is then di&s;char|ged from their oath of Allegiance.</P>
<P>This di&s;tinction betwixt the man and the King, is but a notional con|ceit; for take away the man, and where is then the King? and &s;ure I am, that God wil make no &s;uch di&s;tinction when he &s;hal come to judg Prin|ces; but al their mi&s;carriages in Government, &amp; irregularities in the man|aging of their Offices &s;hal be charged upon them as Princes &s;et over the People: then it wil not be &s;aid, What he doth be&s;ides, or again&s;t the Laws and Courts of Ju&s;tice, is the mans, not the Kings acting; it wil appear then, That Kings, as Kings, have offended, and been unju&s;t and tyrannous.</P>
<P>2 He &s;aith, <HI>That the Parliament hath declared their Arms to be for, and a|greeable to the Laws;</HI> that is, for the King ruling by Laws: and again&s;t the King; that is, the per&s;on that carrieth that name, which is indeed but the man, when he violates al Laws in Ruling; for they were only &s;worn to the King, acting by his Courts and Lawes; and what is this, but the &s;ame that I have a&s;&s;erted in the Po&s;itions, <HI>viz.</HI> That if the Subject were ab&s;olutly engaged by oath to the per&s;on of the King, whether he Rule wel or il, and that this oath were lawful, the PARLIAMENT mu&s;t needs be di&s;loyal in taking up Armes again&s;t the per&s;on of the King.</P>
<P>3 He &s;aith, <HI>That which is again&s;t the Kings per&s;onal Pre&s;ence, or Command, is not again&s;t the King:</HI> that is, is not again&s;t the King in Law, or again&s;t &s;uch a one as the King ought to be according to Law. So that he grants, That Allegiance is not to a per&s;onal King, or his Commands, unle&s;&s;e he be a legal King, and a King according to Law; for things may be done again&s;t his per&s;onal Pre&s;ence and Commands, wherein he concurs with the Po&s;itions, but contradicts him&s;elf: For, where is any place for pa&s;&s;ive obedience, if that be true, which yet is one of his Rea&s;ons of un|conditional, or ab&s;olute Allegience.</P>
<P>4 Now whereas he &s;aith, <HI>The Parliamentarie Partie enterprized nothing again&s;t his Per&s;on, &amp;c.</HI> There &s;eems to be a contradiction in it; For he &s;aith, <HI>They declared their Arms to be for the Laws,</HI> and &s;o again&s;t al that op|po&s;ed them, which his Per&s;on, per&s;onal Pre&s;ence, and Commands often did. And (indeed) did they not make his Per&s;on flye from place to place? And was not his Per&s;on often in danger, as the per&s;ons of tho&s;e that fought under him were? And was not his Per&s;on &s;ecured in <HI>Holme&s;|by-Hou&s;e?</HI> And had their Allegiance been to his Per&s;on as di&s;tinct from the Laws, they had violated it.</P>
<P>And whereas there is mention made of the Covenant which they en|tred into to pre&s;erve his Per&s;on, and that in the very times of their Arms bearing: It is manife&s;t, That they bind them&s;elves fir&s;t to maintain Re|ligion,
<PB N="26" REF="30"> and the Liberties of the Kingdom; and then in Religion and Liberties to pre&s;erve his Per&s;on and Honor, and no further, but as might &s;tand with them; which &s;hews that they were bound to them fir&s;tly by Law, and not to any Allegiance to his Per&s;on again&s;t them, but &s;o far as they might pre&s;erve them: and therefore in the very time of this Cove|nant, they are found in wayes of cha&s;tizing him, though with a &s;cope of pre&s;erving him, if po&s;&s;ibly Religion and the Subjects Liberty may &s;ub|&s;i&s;t with it. And fir&s;t, they correct him in his In&s;truments, and then in Per&s;on in &s;ecuring him, which was not very honourable unto him, but the pre&s;ervation of Religion, and Liberty of the Subject forced them to it. At la&s;t their Coun&s;els were to make no more Addre&s;&s;es to him, but to lay him a&s;ide, and to &s;ettle Religion and Liberty without him, and this was more di&s;honarable to him; but their Covenant which bound them fir&s;t to Religion, &amp;c. compelled them to it: and there was yet further liberty in the Covenant left for them to cut him off, and his al&s;o, if the nece&s;&s;ity of the pre&s;ervation of Religion and Liberty of the Subject &s;hould require it. And indeed it is not rational to think, That they could have a lawful power, without contradicting the oath of allegiance or the Covenant, of inflicting le&s;&s;er Cen&s;ures and Penalties upon him, and yet want power to inflict higher and greater puni&s;hments if the na|ture of the Crime de&s;erved them, and the nece&s;&s;ity of con&s;erving Reli|gion and Liberty required them.</P>
<P>But he comes to con&s;ider of the Second Exception again&s;t the Oath of Allegiance which the Po&s;ition mentions, <HI>viz.</HI> as there is in it, <HI>A &s;wear|ing to the Kings Heirs,</HI> he mentions my words in the Rea&s;on that I lay down of my Exception again&s;t it, <HI>viz. Who knows whether he will be a wi&s;e man or a foole, &amp;c.</HI> And he mentions my Con&s;equence, <HI>viz. The Oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it an unlawful Oath.</HI> And he makes this An|&s;wer;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, <HI>I allow of the Antecedent, but utterlie denie the Con&s;equence of it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But it mu&s;t be under&s;tood that I mean it (as it is now made u&s;e of, and in&s;i&s;ted upon, and urged by many who have taken it) of an ab|&s;olute Oath to them what&s;oever they prove to be. For the &s;trength of the Rea&s;on which I bring again&s;t it, lies in the&s;e words, <HI>They may bind them&s;elves therebie to their own hurt and ruine;</HI> which if it be not ab&s;olute they cannot do: therefore I di&s;pute again&s;t it, as ab&s;olute as I did again&s;t the other branch of it.</P>
<P>But let his Rea&s;on of the whole CONSEQUENCE be weighed.</P>
<P>1 Saith he, <HI>This Inference is directlie contrarie to that which</HI> Solomon <HI>in the place cited,</HI> Eccle&s;. 2. 19. <HI>makes from the words:</HI> Solomons <HI>is, Yet &s;hall he have Rule over all my labour, wherein I have laboured, and wherein I have
<PB N="27" REF="30"> &s;hewed my &s;elf wi&s;e under the Sun; This mans is, (in effect) becau&s;e no man knows, whether he will be a wi&s;e man or a foole, therefore he &s;hall not have Rule.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Let the text be weighed and truly examined, and it wil ap|pear that <HI>Solomon</HI> &s;peaks not of the kingdom which he was to leave to his Son, whether a wi&s;e man or a fool, but he &s;peaks of his labour, where|in he had laboured in getting Riches, in gathering Wealth, in building Hou&s;es, in planting Vineyards, in improving of his earthly E&s;tate in the World. He &s;hewes there is a vanity in it, His Son &s;hal have Rule over al. In Ver&s;. 18. he &s;aith, <HI>He hated all his labour becau&s;e of this;</HI> which can|not be meant of his labor in the Kingdom in Government: and it is &s;u|table to that in Job 14. 21. P&s;al. 49. 10.</P>
<P>2 If <HI>Solomon</HI> &s;hould mean it of the Rule of the Kingdom, yet he &s;peaks not of it as a thing that he did approve of, but of it as that which he coun|ted vanity.</P>
<P>2 He &s;aith, <HI>The &s;ame Rea&s;on if it hold, would be again&s;t anie Oath or En|gagement to anie Rulers in being what&s;oever they are, for &s;ay they become to ma|turitie, and for the pa&s;t and pre&s;ent time have given proof, yet who knows what they that are now wi&s;e and ju&s;t (morallie) may hereafter come to be? The Scripture &s;uppo&s;eth, That not onlie a ju&s;t Father may have a wicked Son, but a righteous man (in Profe&s;&s;ion and External carriage) may turn from his carriage, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 This Rea&s;on of his wherewith he di&s;putes again&s;t the Ex|ception that I make, <HI>viz. Of Oathes to Heirs;</HI> is very &s;trong again&s;t him|&s;elf in reference to ab&s;olute Oathes which he would maintain, and &s;hews how dangerous ab&s;olute oathes to Princes or other Governors are, and how de&s;tructive they may become, if not only a ju&s;t Father may have a wicked Son, but a righteous man (Prince or other) may turn away from his Righteou&s;ne&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>2 Notwith&s;tanding there is this difference betwixt the one and the o|ther, that whil&s;t a man &s;wears Allegiance to a Prince, at pre&s;ent wi&s;e, and ju&s;t, and pious in profe&s;&s;ion, but mutual and changable he &s;wears in judg|ment to him, he exerci&s;eth his under&s;tanding and be&s;t abilities in judg|ing, beyond which a man cannot go, nor doth God require him to go: but in the other, he exerci&s;eth not his judgment at al, but &s;wears hand|over-head to a thing he doth not know what, and to a per&s;on he knoweth not whom. And I would ask this man, Whether (if it were &s;o) in al the under-Offices in the Kingdom, That per&s;ons &s;hould come by Succe&s;&s;ion to their Places? If all Judges &s;hould, and al Magi&s;trates and other per|&s;ons in office &s;hould, whether there were not like to be a mi&s;erable Common-wealth? And whether he dur&s;t rea&s;on after this manner, and make a parity, betwixt chu&s;ing men ju&s;t at pre&s;ent and wi&s;e men, and men of truth to &s;uch places, and making &s;uch places Hereditary; <HI>becau&s;e
<PB N="28" REF="31"> if there be an Election, the per&s;ons that are good and able for &s;uch places may de|generate, and if it be Hereditarie, they may be good, and can be but naught as the other may prove to be.</HI> I would ask him al&s;o, Whether there be the like ca&s;uality in reference to the one as to the other? Though there be a po&s;|&s;ibilty in reference to both. And if this Rea&s;oning be &s;hameful in refe|renee to under Officers, then, Why is it not &s;o in reference to the &s;upream Officer? Be&s;ides, there is an expre&s;&s;e Command for the one in Exod. 18. 21. 23. campared with Numb. 11. 16, 17. but where is there any Command for the other?</P>
<P>3 He &s;aith, <HI>This Con&s;equence were it of force, would equallie condemn all promi&s;orie Oathes, and other Covenants and Engagements between man and man; for it cannot be fore&s;een in anie, what the per&s;ons contracted with will prove.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This Rea&s;on of his (thus far of it) is of the &s;ame nature with the former, and receives its An&s;wer in the former; But he goes on, and &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>It is al&s;o again&s;t the Laws and Sanctions of tho&s;e Nations in all ages, which have &s;ettled &s;ucce&s;&s;ive Regalitie, or other Governments for longer then the pre&s;ent po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ors of the power endure.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Nations have &s;o done, and they have been plagued in doing &s;o al&s;o.</P>
<P><HI>But</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>its warranted by the Word of God. I&s;rael offered a &s;ucce&s;&s;ive power to</HI> Gideon, Judg. 8. 22. <HI>God him&s;elf in&s;tituted and bound his people to a lineal GOVERNMENT, in</HI> David <HI>and in his Seed,</HI> 2 Sam. 12. 15. 2 Chron. 13, 5. <HI>The Patriarchs power which was political, was &s;ucce&s;&s;ive; &s;o was the Government of the</HI> Jews <HI>for a hundred yeers, in the linage of the</HI> Ma|cabees.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 The in&s;tance in <HI>Gideon</HI> proves nothing; though <HI>I&s;rael</HI> offer|ed it, being deeply affected with the greatne&s;&s;e of the deliverance of which he was in&s;trumental, (and it was only a &s;udden expre&s;|&s;ion of their love, and not &s;o deliberatly done) yet <HI>Gideon</HI> accepted it not.</P>
<P>2 As for Gods in&s;tituting it lineally in <HI>David:</HI> 1 God rai&s;ed up <HI>Saul</HI> to the Kingdom, but &s;ettled it not lineally in him; let the one be &s;et a|gain&s;t the other. 2 It appears not that God &s;ettled it in the next of bloud in <HI>Davids</HI> lineage, or that the next of bloud had it; for <HI>Solomon</HI> was not his elde&s;t Son living, but <HI>Adonijah</HI> was before him, yet God gave it to <HI>Solomon</HI> not to <HI>Adonijah;</HI> therefore this &s;etting it in <HI>Davids</HI> &s;eed, is not pattern for &s;ucce&s;&s;ion among us. 3 It was done in reference to Chri&s;t, who was to come from <HI>Davids</HI> loines, and was to have his Throne, <HI>Luk.</HI> 1. 32.</P>
<P>3 The Patriarchal Government, whatever it was (for we are left much in the dark about it; and this man makes u&s;e of it, but holds not
<PB N="29" REF="31"> out any light concerning it) the Law of Nature in&s;tituted it, for the Father is greater then the Child, and his Governor, from that act of his in begetting of him; as God is Governor of the World, by that act of his in Creating it: but mixed Families, as in Common-wealths, the People make their own Father, that is, their own Governor. And they ought to do it with the be&s;t under&s;tanding they have.</P>
<P>4 The example of the <HI>Maccabees</HI> proves nothing. For they were Saviours whom God rai&s;ed up &s;ucce&s;&s;ively, and therefore they might wel Rule &s;ucce&s;&s;ively; but for the thing it &s;elf, God &s;eems to di<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">alow it, for I&s;rael had a Government &s;etled by God among&s;t them, before <HI>Sauls</HI> time, but not Kingly, nor in Succe&s;&s;ion, but of another kind. And this Government they liked not, but would have a Government according to the Nations, <HI>viz. Kinglie</HI> Government in Succe&s;&s;ion; but God was di&s;plea&s;ed with it, and &s;aid they had rejected him in it.</P>
<P>4 He &s;aith, <HI>We have Scriptural examples of an uncontroverted integritie, of Oathes to Princes and their Heirs, and to Princes in their yong&punc; unripe, and un|tryed yeers. Take</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that in&s;tance of</HI> Abrahams <HI>&s;wearing to</HI> Abime|lech, <HI>his Son, and his Sons Son,</HI> Gen. 21. 23, 24. <HI>And that of</HI> Davids <HI>making</HI> Solomon <HI>King in his own life time&punc; when he was yong and tender, 2 Chron. 23. 1. &amp; 29. 1. And that of</HI> Jehojada's <HI>and the Peoples making of</HI> Joa&s;h <HI>King, and &s;wearing to him when he mas but &s;even yeers old, 2 King.</HI> 11. 4. 21.</P>
<P><HI>Reply. 1, Abraham</HI> &s;wore to <HI>Abimelech,</HI> and to his Son, and to his Sons Son, not to deal fal&s;ly with them, but according as <HI>Abimelech</HI> had dealt kindly with him. This was not only a &s;afe oath without da~ger in <HI>Abraham,</HI> but a ju&s;t Oath, and of a thing nece&s;&s;ary in it &s;elf to be done; and of an unchangable nature &s;o far as concerns fal&s;ne&s;&s;e, and it was a mutual oath, and al&s;o therein conditional &s;o far as concerns kindne&s;&s;e, and therefore no way applicable to the oath of Allegiance in reference to Heirs which (as was &s;aid in the Rea&s;on) may bring Ruine, and is like to prove &s;ooner or later, pernicious. 2 That in&s;tance of <HI>David</HI> in making <HI>Solomon</HI> King in his life time while yong and tender, hath little &s;trength in it. <HI>Solomon</HI> was the per&s;on appointed thereunto of God, and therefore he was &s;ure to be competently furni&s;hed with abilities for it from God, what ever his age might be; and he grown up to &s;uch yeers, that excellent Wi&s;|dom, and an excellent Spirit fit for Government appeared in him. 3 That of <HI>Ioa&s;h</HI> hath more in it in reference to unripe yeers, but reacheth not the ca&s;e, becau&s;e he was al that was left of tho&s;e Heirs that were to &s;ucceed in <HI>Davids</HI> linage in the Kingdom, which God had e&s;tabli&s;hed by Covenant upon <HI>David</HI> and his &s;eed.</P>
<P>2, He denyeth the two parts of the Con&s;equence, 1 That part, <HI>viz. The Oath is not in judgment, becau&s;e no man knows what the Heir will prove.</HI> But what are the words wherein he denyes it?</P>
<P>1 <HI>It may be</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in judgment &s;o far as a future contigencie can be deli|berated
<PB N="30" REF="32"> upon, and this may be concluded on advi&s;edlie (as morallie certain) that it is better to have the Crown &s;etled in a Line wherebie &s;ometimes a vitious per&s;on may be advanced, then to have it under Election at everie per&s;onal change: This hath been the experimented Maxime of the wi&s;e&s;t States.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The true &s;en&s;e of this An&s;wer is, That there is no place for deliberation in &s;wearing to Heirs, of whom we can know nothing how they wil prove, &s;ave only how to prevent a greater mi&s;chief which is &s;up|po&s;ed wil come by new Elections upon every change, which wi&s;e 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 in&s;truct, That the greate&s;t, and longe&s;t la&s;ting Wars have been, where Competitors in point of Title, have contended for the Crown. And how frequently one hath &s;upplanted another to obtain the Kingdom, Stories do plentifully &s;hew.</P>
<P>2 <HI>If it were not in judgment</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>this defect makes not an Oath unlaw|ful as to the nullifying of it, a ra&s;h Oath (if of a lawful thing) binds, as before was proved,</HI> Judg. 21. 2. 7. 1 Sam. 14. 24. 37. Jo&s;h. 9. 14, 15.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Nor did I ever a&s;&s;ert, That an Error in Judgment when the Oath is righteous in the nature of it, might be broken, though there are ca&s;es 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, Fir&s;t, That Oath which the Tribes did make, of not giving their Daughters to the <HI>Benjamites,</HI> after they had cruelly cut off al the Wo|men appertaining to that Tribe, was an unrighteous and cruel Oath, and &s;hould not have bound them. Secondly, That <HI>Saul</HI> &s;hould lay a Cu<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e upon the People, that ta&s;ted any thing til evening, was al&s;o not only a ra&s;h, but an unmerciful, and unju&s;t Oath; and <HI>Ionathan</HI> &s;aid as much of it when he heard of it, &s;o far was he from being troubled that he had broken it, and he thought not him&s;elf guilty of death, <HI>Shall I die</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>for this?</HI> And the People re&s;cued him, and the Oath &s;tood not in that branch of it. And that of Jo&s;h. 9. re&s;pecting the <HI>Gibeonites</HI> was a &s;inful Oath in the matter of it, as it proved though they knew it not, as wel as a ra&s;h Oath; and there was <HI>Error per&s;onae</HI> in it al&s;o, which is enough to break any Oath, and therefore there was &s;pecial rea&s;on why it held, and it reacheth not to us. And it is again&s;t this mans own Po&s;ition, That an unrighteous oath in the matter of it &s;hould hold; now this oath to Heirs is of this nature, not only ra&s;h, and not in judgment, but unrighteous, and therefore ought not to hold.</P>
<P>2 He denies that part of the Con&s;equence, which concerns righteou&s;|ne&s;&s;e in an oath, which I lay down in the Po&s;ition thus, <HI>Nor is it a righte|ous Oath for the Subject may bind him&s;elf to his own hurt, yea ruine.</HI> His words are the&s;e;</P>
<PB N="31" REF="32">
<P><HI>Though the Subject may not bind him&s;elf to what is nece&s;&s;arilie, or at the time of his &s;wearing may appear probably to tend to his hurt or ruine; yet he may &s;wear (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 &s;o &s;wear, yet having &s;o &s;worn he is bound to &s;tand to his Oath, P&s;al. 15. 4. Io&s;h. 9. 15. Ezek. 17. 13. 1 Sam. 14. 26. 28. 37. Iudg. 21. 5. 15. 18. which is contradictorie to what this man here &s;aith.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> He &s;tates the Que&s;tion ami&s;&s;e, and puts the ca&s;e &s;o, as that it is not the ca&s;e, for to &s;wear to Heirs from generation to generation, though it be uncertain which Heirs, and at whattime &s;uch Heirs wil prove cor|rupt and unju&s;t in adjuration, yet it is more then probable (even as certain as that there wil be change of weather, when yet for the pre&s;ent it is fair and plea&s;ant) that &s;uch Heirs wil &s;tand up in en&s;uing generations.</P>
<P>2 Though there may po&s;&s;ibly be ca&s;es in which oathes that were ta|ken with a good intent, but proving accidentally pernicious to the ta|kers, mu&s;t be kept: yet if this be a&s;&s;erted by the An&s;werer, That meer voluntary arbitrary oathes made without any Condition, and at the be&s;t (if not forced) in favour of &s;uch a Family, and intended for mutual good, but proving ruinous to the makers, and &s;erving only to &s;trengthen cruel|ty and unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e in the per&s;ons to whom made, that &s;uch oathes ought to be kept, hath neither the colour of Rea&s;on nor Scripture for it; and this is the ca&s;e directly in &s;uch ab&s;olute oathes to Heirs: Nay, in the ca&s;e which him&s;elf makes, it wil not hold that &s;uch an oath &s;hould be kept: For &s;uppo&s;e a man &s;hould &s;wear to another to go to &s;uch a City for him at &s;uch a time, to effect &s;uch a bu&s;ine&s;&s;e; but he afterwards comes to under&s;tand, That at his return there are per&s;ons that wil be in ambu&s;cado to take away his life; <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> this man bound to keep his oath, if the other wil hold him to it?</P>
<P>3 As for the Scriptures, they are not pertinent, and &s;ome of them have been oft An&s;wered: That in P&s;al. 15. 4. is meant of an oath that is made to another, by which that other may be profited, and the per&s;on him&s;elf that &s;weirs, comes at unawares to be thereby damified; &s;uch an oath oug<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> to be kept, though it be to a mans lo&s;&s;e: but the oath <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> we are di&s;cu&s;&s;ing, is of another nature, an oath by which not one <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> but a Nation, not di&s;advantaged &s;omewhat, but even &s;old (as it is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> times) to ruine, or (what is wor&s;e, even) va&s;&s;alage, by which not the per&s;on to whom the oath is made is profited, but his ba&s;e lu&s;ts &s;atisfied, to his own ruine at the la&s;t. That in Jo&s;h. 9. 15. is not exemplary, as I have often &s;aid before; For I would ask, Whether if a Counterfeit Prince (as &s;to|ries make mention of many) had under pretence of being &s;uch a one (<HI>viz.</HI> The right Heir to the Crown) gained an oath of Allegiance, would that oath have &s;tood again&s;t the right Heir? I am &s;ure this man wil not a&s;&s;ert it. The other Scriptures have been an&s;wered already, therefore I pa&s;&s;e them over.</P>
<PB N="32" REF="33">
<P><HI>If the Heir</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;hould mi&s;prove, 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 &s;ame. The late King confe&s;&s;ed and declared a re|medie again&s;t Tirannie to re&s;ide in the Parliament, there may be prevention then of the Kingdoms ruine, whatever the Heir prove, if the Kingdom be faithful to it &s;elf.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But what are Parliaments, if the Prince wil not cal them, or may &s;peedily di&s;&s;olve 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 them? As the late King gave out, <HI>He would never have anie more Parliaments.</HI> And if the <HI>Scots</HI> had not frighted and forced him, pro|bably he would have made his &s;aying good. What are al the&s;e, if the People be ab&s;olutly bound to Alleg<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ance, whether the Prince Rule wel or il, and mu&s;t obey in lawful things, and be pa&s;&s;ive in al the re&s;t? And &s;uppo&s;e they may oppo&s;e, Wil it not engender a War? and how that War may i&s;&s;ue, who can foretel? It may be a Kingdoms Ruine: here is then but a poor Remedy, &s;uch an oath then as endangers al this cannot be lawful, nor is it fit to be kept.</P>
<P>But he comes to examine my Third Exception again&s;t the Oath of Allegiance, <HI>Which is again&s;t &s;wearing to anie one kind of Government ab&s;olut|lie wiihout admitting of a change, for a greater good and benefit, and to prevent inconvenience and hurtfulne&s;s, which hath been ob&s;erved to come through &s;uch a Government.</HI></P>
<P>And, 1 He blames the form of arguing in the&s;e words;</P>
<P><HI>I ob&s;erve</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>there is a fault to be found with the whole Argument as &s;omewhat tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing the Rules of Arguing: 1 In the Con&s;equent, there is &s;ome|thing of the Error called</HI> Ignoratio Elenthi, <HI>for we &s;wear not in the Oath of Allegiance indefinitlie or indeterminatlie to uphold one Government continuallie and not to change.</HI></P>
<P>1, <HI>We &s;wear onlie to his Maje&s;tie, his Heirs, and Succe&s;&s;ors, &s;o that when e|ver they are extinct (which may be &s;ooner or later as divine Providence di&s;po&s;eth) the Oath of it &s;elf cea&s;eth and determineth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Repl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">n &s;wearing to Heirs, we &s;wear to al that are of the blood, for the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> Heirs in Law, and while any of them are alive, the oath ne|ver cea&s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">; and the blood hath la&s;ted neer 600 yeers already, and may la&s;t probably enough til <HI>Doomes Day.</HI> 2 Swearing to Succe&s;&s;ors (though not of bloud, though al the bloud &s;hould be extinct) is a &s;wearing that there &s;hal be Succe&s;&s;ors, and that we wil obey them; And is not this to &s;wear indefinitly to uphold one kind of Government, where is then that fault, <HI>viz. Ignoratio Elenchi?</HI></P>
<P>2. <HI>Notwith&s;tanding the Allegiance &s;worn to the &s;aid per&s;ons, there is power of change in the Government left to the mutual Con&s;ent of both parties, to wit, tho&s;e &s;worn to, and them &s;wearing, as it is in al humane Contracts and Oathes of this nature.</HI></P>
<PB N="33" REF="33">
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 But this man hath &s;ure forgotten, that which he hath often a&s;&s;erted, <HI>viz. That the Precept of Obedience to Civil Governors was without anie Condition, or re&s;erve of a di&s;ingagement, or that it was due by ab&s;olute and unalterable Rule, and without dependance upon another, and not with mutual re|&s;pect.</HI> Which (if he have &s;poken the truth) wil be an impediment to this power of change by mutual con&s;ent. However it be, its very palpable that he hath contradicted him&s;elf in his A&s;&s;ertions.</P>
<P>2 If the Oath be to Heirs and Succe&s;&s;ors, and binding, how can he &s;ay, They may be di&s;charged through mutual con&s;ent from that part of it which concerns Heirs, without Contradiction again to him&s;elf, in refe|rence to what he a&s;&s;erts afterwards in pag 8. His words are the&s;e, <HI>Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God? And tho&s;e Precepts, Rom. 13. 4. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof? And dotl<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> not that Law Command everie People and Per&s;on Allegiance to their lawful Go|vernors? And was not the King in Being, and his Heirs in Capacitie and De|&s;ignation &s;uch?</HI></P>
<P>Thus he Di&s;putes again&s;t ab&s;olution from the Oath of Allegiance, not only in reference to the King in Being, but al&s;o in reference to his Heirs in Capacity and De&s;ignation, as a breach of the Law of God: and yet it &s;eems by mutual Con&s;ent, the King in Being, and the People may di|&s;pence with this Law of God, and may cut off the Heirs from Reg|nancy, and change the Government, and not be guilty of breaking this Law of God.</P>
<P>3 This grant that he makes of a power of change through con&s;ent, is as good as nothing, for how unrea&s;onable wil it be to conceive, That a Per&s;on in Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of a Kingdom, wil con&s;ent to loo&s;e it, and alter the Government?</P>
<P>The Second fault he finds in the form of Arguing, is in the Minor: <HI>There is</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;omewhat of the fallacie called</HI> Petitio principii, <HI>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 &s;o (indeed) a change in the per&s;ons, or a regulating of them, is the apt remedie for that hurt: but the Government is the Ordinance of God, and hath a political goodne&s;s &s;eated in its being.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> But he forgets him&s;elf again, and makes that to be <HI>Petitio Prin|cipii,</HI> which he had before granted; and doth afterwards grant in that compari&s;on which he makes betwixt &s;everal kinds of Governments, and &s;everal Callings. He had &s;aid, pag. 2. in that di&s;tinction of the good|ne&s;&s;e of means tending to the happine&s;&s;e of a Community, <HI>That it was va|riable 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 &s;o for another.</HI> And he cites out of <HI>Ari&s;totle Pol. Lib.</HI> 3. the&s;e words, <HI>E&s;t enim genus hominum natur&acirc; varia com|paratum atque affectum, aliud &s;ervile, aliud colendis Regibus accommodatum, aliud
<PB N="34" REF="34"> timo craticum &amp; populare, atque horum generum &s;uum cuique, e&s;t ac di&s;tinctum commodum.</HI> And more there is ex&s;erted by him out of <HI>Ari&s;totle</HI> to this purpo&s;e. And then afterwards, in comparing diver&s;ity of Governments to diver&s;ity of Callings, he doth by Con&s;equence &s;peak the &s;ame thing again, <HI>viz.</HI> That though al Governments be according to God, warran|ted in the Scriptures, and in that &s;en&s;e Gods Ordinance, as al lawful Callings are, (for there is no difference, but what may be &s;aid of the one in this re&s;pect, may be &s;aid of the other) yet al Governments are not a|like good and profitable, alike congruous and agreeable, alike &s;afe and &s;utable to al people; nay, there may be a comparative evilne&s;&s;e and hurt|fulne&s;&s;e in &s;ome Governments to &s;ome Common-wealths; &s;ome Com|mon-wealths know how to put a bridle upon Kings better then others can: and &s;o it is in Callings, which is his own Compari&s;on, &s;ome Cal|lings though good in them&s;elves and Gods Ordinance in the &s;en&s;e before expre&s;&s;ed, yet hurtful to &s;ome per&s;ons, and pernicious al&s;o; and there|fore to bind up to one Calling is unlawful, e&s;pecially when by experi|ence it hath been found hurtful, through the un&s;utablene&s;&s;e thereof; and &s;o it is of Governments: and &s;o he cavils again&s;t that as not granted, which yet is granted by him&s;elf more then once.</P>
<P>Having done with the form of Arguing, he comes to con&s;ider of the Argument it &s;elf, which is, <HI>That man may change Government for his grea|te&s;t good, and mu&s;t change it, upon experience of the hurtfulne&s;&s;e of it.</HI> And he flatly denyes it, and &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>No Po&s;ition is more Anarchical then this is.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 But it was nece&s;&s;ary, that fir&s;t he &s;hould have done me right, and taken up my words in a right &s;en&s;e, and then have &s;hewed the <HI>Anarchie</HI> in them; but he puts a fal&s;e &s;en&s;e upon my words, and then di&s;putes again&s;t them. It is &s;aid in the Argument, That man may change Government; he takes it up for every particular man, and then cryes out of <HI>Anarchie,</HI> but without al rea&s;on, for this word [<HI>man</HI>] is frequently in common phra&s;e of Speech, and in Scripture acception, the &s;ame with [<HI>men] Let not (man) prevail,</HI> is the &s;ame with <HI>Let not (men) prevail. Vain is the help of (man)</HI> is al one with <HI>Vain is the help of (<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en)</HI> and &s;o here, <HI>man</HI> is put for <HI>men.</HI> And (<HI>man</HI>) is &s;ometimes in Scripture put for Rulers, and the great ones among&s;t men; <HI>Who art thou, that thou &s;houlde&s;t be afraid of a (man)</HI> that is, a <HI>man</HI> in power and authority, who is wont to be a terror unto other men; and &s;o here, (<HI>man</HI>) is put for the principal Men a|mong&s;t the People, and my inference which I make from 1 Pet. 2. 13. &s;hews the &s;en&s;e in which I under&s;tood it as he might ea&s;ily have concei|ved (if he had plea&s;ed) It is this, <HI>If an Ordinance of man, then man may change it;</HI> that is, If it be not expre&s;ly commanded of God, but left to the liberty of man at the fir&s;t, to e&s;tabli&s;h what form of Government he liketh be&s;t, then man, that is, &s;uch men which at fir&s;t Erected it, may
<PB N="35" REF="34"> change it. Now the&s;e are chief men cho&s;en out of al the People (be|cau&s;e al the people cannot meet together conveniently, nor without con|fu&s;ion act) and which have the peoples power, if the&s;e &s;et up Kingly Go|vernment, they may upon experience of the hurtfulne&s;&s;e of it, change it, and e&s;tabli&s;h another, which they apprehend more &s;afe and profitable: And where is the <HI>Anarchie</HI> in this Po&s;ition or A&s;&s;ertion? And what is become of al his Di&s;proofs which he offers? Are they not Shafts &s;hot again&s;t the wal, and break them&s;elves?</P>
<P>2 He him&s;elf confe&s;&s;eth man may change it; For doth he not &s;ay, That the per&s;ons &s;wearing, and the per&s;ons &s;worn to, may by mutual con|&s;ent change it? And are not the&s;e [<HI>man</HI>]? And is not he become <HI>Anar|chical</HI> now in his own Po&s;ition?</P>
<P>But let the &s;trength of his Di&s;proofs be weighed.</P>
<P>His Fir&s;t Di&s;proof is from <HI>Prov.</HI> 24. 21. His words are the&s;e:</P>
<P>1, <HI>He &s;aith man may change the Government, &amp;c. but the holie Gho&s;t, Prov. 24. 21. &s;aith, My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, &amp; meddle not with them that are given to change. He alloweth a change to be for greater good: but the holie Gho&s;t tels us in the next words, ver&s;. 22. For their Calamitie &s;hal ri&s;e &s;ud|denlie, and who knoweth the ruine of them both?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The &s;en&s;e that he puts upon this Scripture is abu&s;ive to the place, and a wronging of the holy Gho&s;t therein: For the fir&s;t words, <HI>Fear the Lord and the King,</HI> &s;erve to give light to al the re&s;t, and the &s;en&s;e of the after words, mu&s;t carry re&s;pect unto tho&s;e former words, <HI>Meddle not with tho&s;e that are given to change:</HI> It is as if he &s;hould &s;ay, Meddle not with tho&s;e that wil change the Decrees and Precepts of God and the King, and &s;o neither fear God nor the King. The wife man admoni&s;h|eth that we would ab&s;tain from the fellow&s;hip of tho&s;e which detract from the Commands of God and the King, &s;peaking evil of them, and bringing others to the contempt of them; So <HI>Ian&s;enius</HI> upon the place. And <HI>Wilcock, Such as varie,</HI> viz. <HI>from the Command of God and the King, a|greeing together, are the per&s;ons that are given to change.</HI> And <HI>Tremelius</HI> up|on the place, under&s;tands it of per&s;ons violating the Commands of God and of the King, and departing from the reverence of God and of the King, in the di&s;obedience of their Life and Conver&s;ation; the Calami|ty of &s;uch &s;hal ri&s;e &s;uddenly, and who knoweth the Ruine of them both? that is, of &s;uch who do &s;o contemn God and the King, and others who are a&s;&s;ociated with them. And what is this again&s;t changing the Go|vernment, when it is (by the Governors breaking of Gods Laws and the Laws of the Land) become hurtful and ruinous.</P>
<P>2, He &s;aith, <HI>If men may change for the better, and mu&s;t change, then are all Oathes, Engagements, Promi&s;es of Obedience to Magi&s;trates unlawful to be un|dertaken; for all &s;uch Bonds are in relation to a pre&s;ent and particular Govern|ment the Engagers are under, and they are not for the time pre&s;ent, or for an in|&s;tant&punc;,
<PB N="36" REF="35"> but for a future Continuance. And there is in all &s;uch Engagements a ma|king over the right, which the Engagers have in the matter Covenanted, to the per|&s;ons engaged to: either then &s;uch a change may not, mu&s;t not be; or &s;uch Engage|ments may not, mu&s;t not be by them undertaken. But the Scripture is cleer enough for &s;uch Engagements, Eccle&s;. 8. 2. 2 King. 11. 4. Io&s;h. 1. 16, 17, 18. Iudg. 8. 9, 10. 2 Chron.</HI> 36. 13.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 All &s;uch Oathes &s;hould be Conditional, and then they can|not be unlawful, as hath often been &s;hewed: and as for the per&s;ons, where the chief Power re&s;ides, <HI>viz.</HI> The Repre&s;entatives of the people, they &s;hould never ab&s;olutly bind their own hands in Engaging to any Governors or Magi&s;trates whatever; for they &s;el away the peoples Li|berties, and betray their tru&s;t in &s;o doing. But they are to be the Eyes of the People, to &s;pie out the wayes of the Peoples &s;afety, and <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">elicity. No more then the pre&s;ent Parliament ought to make any ab&s;olute En|gagement to any Councel of State, but with Limitation of the good of the Subject of which they mu&s;t be Judges: and yet it will not follow tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;uch an Engagement would be only for an in&s;tant, but it may be for long Continuance, if the good of the Subject wil permit it. And as for the People, their &s;wearing ought to be with Subordination to their Tru|&s;tees which Repre&s;ent them. There is therefore no &s;trength in the Con|&s;equence, <HI>viz. If there be a libertie to Change, there mu&s;t be no Engagement.</HI> There may be liberty of Change in Servants that live with &s;uch Ma&s;ters, yet there may be an Engagement to them. There may be liberty of Change in people in reference to Pa&s;tors among&s;t them, and yet there may be Engaging al&s;o. And as for the Scriptures that are brought to prove the lawfulne&s;&s;e of Engaging they might have been &s;pared; for the lawfulne&s;&s;e of it is not denyed, Provided, That &s;uch Engaging be Con|ditional: and therefore they need no An&s;wer.</P>
<P>3, <HI>This his Po&s;ition not onlie di&s;aloweth all &s;uch Engagement, but di&s;&s;olves the Natural and Moral Bond it &s;elf of Dutie and Subjection to Magi&s;trates; For to be free to Change when a man judgeth it be&s;t, is to be free when he wil; and that is, Not to be tyed at all, &amp;c. and then a man may di&s;obey Commands, and take up Arms, and be exempt from the Sword of the Magi&s;trate, becau&s;e &s;uch an Oath to continue anie Government longer then he thinks it &s;afe, &s;aith this Doctor, is &s;inful.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> It is not my Po&s;ition, but his own Fiction, that di&s;&s;olves al Go|vernment: For I have not a&s;&s;erted [but he hath imagined &s;o much] That any man may be free to Change when he judgeth it be&s;t, but I place the power of erecting, and plucking up, and changing for the Com|mon-wealths Good, where it ought to be of right, in the Repre&s;enta|tives of the People. As for that Title, which in &s;corn he puts upon me, I pa&s;&s;e it over, knowing, That it is more his &s;hame to do it, then mine to &s;uffer it.</P>
<PB N="37" REF="35">
<P>But &s;aith he, <HI>I would fain have him declare what thing Magi&s;tracie and Subjection is.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The Apo&s;tle hath declared, Rom. 13. 1, &amp;c. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. to which I adhere: Magi&s;tracy is a Principallity or higher Power ordained of God, and (yet in reference to the &s;pecial form of Govern|ment and the per&s;ons holding it) cho&s;en, and immediatly con&s;tituted by men, for their good; And Subjection, is the Peoples acknowledging and obeying for their own good this Principallity, to ordained of God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">2 Sam. 15 20. 1 Kim. 11. 26. 1. 12. &amp;c. Act. 5. 36.</NOTE> and &s;o con&s;tituted by men.</P>
<P>4, He &s;aith, <HI>This Doctrine wil acquit, and ju&s;tifie all the Con&s;piracies and Trea&s;ons that ever were enterpri&s;ed again&s;t the power of the Magi&s;trate &s;ince the World was, for all will be pretended to be for the great good of the Common|wealth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This is a great &s;lander that is ca&s;t upon this Doctrine &s;o far as it is mine, for &s;eeing that it only re&s;erves a liberty in Common-wealths, to change upon weighty Cau&s;es which their Repre&s;entatives are Judges of, and Agents in; it ju&s;tifies no particular per&s;ons, no<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> particular par|ties Ri&s;ings, but it may be truly &s;aid, That this Doctrine cuts the comb of al Tyranny, and wil force, and con&s;train Go<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ernors to a good beha|viour.</P>
<P>But after he had &s;o greatly a&s;per&s;ed and vilified this Doctrine (as he cals it) which (indeed) was formed in his own heart; he approacheth &s;omewhat neerer to the truth of my A&s;&s;ertion by way of Objection, but reacheth not fully the &s;en&s;e in which I intended it; His words are the&s;e, <HI>But it may be &s;aid, Not particular men, or a le&s;&s;er partie, are to judge of the ex|pedi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ncie, or take in hand the change, but the whole People.</HI> And he argues again&s;t it thus,</P>
<P>1 He &s;aith, <HI>Seldo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e or never doth a whole Nation under a lawful Govern|ment of them&s;elves, affect, or move to a Change, it is the flatterers and d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ceivers of the people that lead the people to it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If they do not affect, and move to a Change, yet if their Re|pre&s;entatives do it, who are not (I hope, in this mans accompt) the flat|terers and deceivers of the People, but the Tru&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">es or t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e people for their good, the people do it in them, unle&s;&s;e they do in their Petitions generally appear again&s;t it.</P>
<P>2 <HI>How the judgement and will of the whole Bodie of the people</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>&s;hould be known and declared unto execution, before particular men Act to a Change of their own private judgement, is to me a thing unimaginable.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> When the whole Body of a people have entru&s;ted certain Se|lected ones with their Power, their Tru&s;tees meeting together, and hol|ding Core&s;pondence with the &s;everal Counties, and Places that Cho&s;e them; and &s;ent them out in their Name, mav act for a Change for the peoples good. And is this unimaginable? Be&s;ides, If this were not,
<PB N="38" REF="36"> yet the Common-wealth con&s;i&s;ts of rational, &s;ociable Creatures, which meet at Church and Market (as the &s;aying is) that is, have occa&s;ions of the Communication of Councels; and &s;o it comes to pa&s;&s;e, That the apprehen&s;ions of &s;ome men comes to be the Spirit of the mo&s;t of the People, nor is there any indirectne&s;&s;e or unlawfulne&s;&s;e in this.</P>
<P>5, He &s;aith, <HI>This nece&s;&s;itie of retaining a power in Subjects to Change, and of u&s;ing it for a greater good, or removing of a temporal hurt, in oppo&s;ition to an Oath &s;worn again&s;t that Change, is directlie again&s;t the&s;e Scriptures, tying men that &s;wear to their own <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">urt not to Change, P&s;al. 15. 4. Io&s;h. 9. 18, 19. and con|demning tho&s;e that for &s;uch ends have receded from their Oathes, Ezek. 17. 13. &amp;c. Io&s;h. 9. 15. compared with 2 Sam.</HI> 21. 2.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 The&s;e Scriptures have been oft made u&s;e of, and often An|&s;wered; That in P&s;al. 15. 4. &s;peaks of particular mens &s;wearing for the ad<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">age and good of another, and their own di&s;advantage; but &s;peaks not of things that have been, and may be pernicious; not to &s;ingle per&s;ons alone, but to Common-wealths; and not profitable to any, unle&s;&s;e to &s;aitsfie the lu&s;ts of &s;ome parricular per&s;ons. And I would ask, Whether if a Common-wealth &s;hould &s;wear Succe&s;&s;ion of Judges in al the Courts within it &s;elf, &s;hould &s;uch an Oath &s;tand or not? Or, whether would not &s;uch an Oath, rather fal under his own Exception, That the thing &s;worn to mu&s;t be ju&s;t and hone&s;t, el&s;e it is not obliging&punc; And I would know a Rea&s;on wherefore it &s;hould not much rather be a&s;&s;erted of the &s;upream Judge&punc;</P>
<P>2 If there hath been &s;uch a perpetuating Oath to any Family, yet it is Conditional while that Family carrieth it ju&s;tly, and according to the Laws of the Kingdom: and &s;o it is, That as a Family advanceth it &s;elf &s;ometimes by vertue over the people, meriting their favour as <HI>Gideon</HI> did, and gaining their Promi&s;e (yea oath) that they &s;hal Rule, and their Son, and their Sons Son: So a Family may by vice, di&s;honour it &s;elf; and lo&s;e that favour, and be adjudged worthy to be &s;leighted, and Ca|&s;hiered; yea, Cen&s;ured and Puni&s;hed, as <HI>Sauls</HI> hou&s;e came to reproach and ignominie: And an Oath, or many Oathes, would not have &s;up|ported it, or confirmed it.</P>
<P>3 That Oath of Jo&s;h. 9. 18, 19. to the <HI>Gibeonites</HI> was ratified after they knew that they were their neighbors, and after they knew that they had tran&s;gre&s;&s;ed the Commandement of the Lord (though unwillingly) by making peace with them; and therefore if they had not had &s;ome &s;peci|al warrant from the Lord for it, it would have been in them double ini|quity to have confirmed it. But its more then probable, That (being it was in <HI>Io&s;hua's</HI> dayes, to whom God did much reveal him&s;elf, and &s;eeing they had mi&s;t it by ra&s;hne&s;&s;e before in not enquiring at Gods mouth) they went to God about it, and had his direction in it; therefore the offence of <HI>Saul</HI> became &s;o heinous, as 2 Sam. 21. 2. &s;hews.</P>
<PB N="39" REF="36">
<P>4 That in Ezek. 17. 13. &amp;c. is not for his turn, but rather again&s;t him; For, 1 <HI>Nebuchadnezzar</HI> made <HI>Zedekiah</HI> King, who was not King til he made him; and &s;o he was of <HI>Nebuchadnezzar's</HI> &s;etting up. 2 <HI>Nebu|ohadnezzar</HI> took of him an Oath to be faithful, and he brake this Oath. 3 Therefore <HI>Nebuchadnezzar</HI> ju&s;tly came again&s;t him, and depo&s;ed him, and put out his eyes, and carried him to <HI>Babylon;</HI> and &s;o (indeed) origi|nally it was the Common-wealth in their Repre&s;entatives, make the King (for their be&s;t Title was from Parliament) and they take him &s;worn to Rule according to the Laws, and he breaks his oath, and they declare the Common-wealth di&s;ingaged from him, and they not not only re|move him, but &s;uffer not any of his Seed to Reign. Thus it appears he &s;trengthens that by Scripture which he would invalidate: Other An&s;wers have been given be&s;ides this, when this Text hath been urged, to which I refer the Reader.</P>
<P>6, <HI>That Po&s;ition &s;o much in&s;i&s;ted upon now a-dayes, of the Peoples tower to depo&s;e, aboli&s;h, and alter the power of their Governors at plea&s;ure, which is actual|lie &s;etled, and both in it &s;elf lawful, and lawfully &s;et over them, I hold is a gro&s;&s;e error.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> I know no &s;uch Po&s;ition in&s;i&s;ted on in <HI>Terminis,</HI> as he layes down; nay, I know, That al wi&s;e godly men do abhor &s;uch a Po&s;ition, of depo&s;ing, aboli&s;hing their lawful Governors at plea&s;ure: But that Parliaments may do it in the Peoples Name, upon ju&s;t, and weighty Cau&s;es; is a&s;&s;erted, and wil be maintained.</P>
<P>But &s;aith he, <HI>Some of my Rea&s;ons in &s;hort are:</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> His Rea&s;ons might be over-pa&s;&s;ed with out any an&s;wer, becau&s;e they be Rea&s;ons of a <HI>Po&s;ition of his own Invention, and will not be owned by them, at whom he &s;trikes at in it;</HI> yet they &s;hal be con&s;idered of.</P>
<P>1, He &s;aith, <HI>Such a cour&s;e (&s;uppo&s;ing the Governors di&s;&s;ent) is no other then that re&s;i&s;tance of the Ordinance of God, condemned Rom.</HI> 13. 2.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 This Rea&s;on &s;uits not with the <HI>Po&s;ition,</HI> which he undertakes to Confute, in the limitations that he gives it; For he &s;aith, That the Governors mu&s;t be lawfully <HI>&s;et over,</HI> but the Governors, Rom. 13. 2. were &s;et over the People by the Souldery, by the power of the Sword. And yet he &s;aith, To remove &s;uch (when their continuance is for the peoples hurt, without their own con&s;ent) is a re&s;i&s;ting of an Ordinance of God, which (I beleeve) when he con&s;idereth more &s;eriou&s;ly of, wil not appear truth in his own eyes.</P>
<P>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 &s;up|po&s;e he wil not deny, but that the <HI>Senate of Rome,</HI> while the power was theirs (though they obeyed Dictators, and Emperors, whil&s;t they con|tinued&punc;
<PB N="40" REF="37"> them) might yet upon ju&s;t cau&s;e remove them, without falling under the guilt of re&s;i&s;ting the Ordinance of God, condemned in Rom. 13. 2.</P>
<P>2, <HI>It is directlie oppo&s;ue to that Subjection commanded every &s;oul, that is in relation of a Subject, Rom 13. 1. 1 Pet.</HI> 2. 13.</P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This may receive the like An&s;wer with the former; and in the in&s;tance of Pa&s;tors in reference to their flocks may be morefully cleered. Is it required in Heb. 13. 17. <HI>That the People obey them that have the Rule over them in the Lord, and to &s;ubmit unto them:</HI> but this doth not take away their power of removing them from their Offices, upon their unworthy and un-Pa&s;tor-like carriages; Suppo&s;e (to prevent controver|&s;ies) it be in a place where there is no <HI>Cla&s;&s;is.</HI></P>
<P>3, <HI>It the People may do it, then it mu&s;t needs be that they have a Civil Power over their Magi&s;trates which is contrarie to tho&s;e Scrip<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">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, &amp;c. And if the Magi|&s;trates be over the People, how are they under them, to be removed or changed by them, &amp;c? If the Magi&s;trate be under the People whom are they over? If the People be above the Magi&s;trate, whom are they under, &amp;c?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The People may be con&s;idered, either in Them&s;elves, or in their Sub&s;titutes and Repre&s;entatives; in Them&s;elves, and &s;o they may be taken as they are a Community or Common-wealth collectively; Or di&s;tributively, as individual per&s;ons and members of the Community or Common-wealth. If they be con&s;idered 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, &s;o far as concerns right, but not &s;o far as concerns the exerci&s;e of power, for that is in their Sub&s;titutes, and Tru&s;tees, who have the power of the Community for the exerci&s;e of it. The Repre&s;entatives al&s;o may be con&s;idered in a two-fold Re&s;pect; as a Parliament and Court Collectively, and &s;o they &s;et up Judges, and Of|ficers, and Magi&s;trates, both the Superiour and the Inferiour, and are greater then they: Or they are con&s;idered &s;ingly, and per&s;onally, and as out of Courts, and as pri<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ate men; and &s;o they are le&s;&s;er, and inferior; to the very Officers which they them&s;elves in Court do make: So any Parliament-man is &s;ubject to inferiour Courts and the Judges thereof, as other men are. And a King, or any other Chief-Magi&s;trate, or Magi|&s;trates, by what Title &s;oever you wil cal them, may be con&s;idered in re|ference to the People, as they are a Common-wealth, Collectively; and &s;o he is not Superiour, or greater then they, in the right of Power, though in the exerci&s;e, he is. But con&s;ider him, in reference to any of the mem|bers &s;ingly, whether in Office, or Office, he is greater both in po|wer, and in the exerci&s;e of it, then any other, either per&s;on, or party: So of the Repre&s;entatives, they are al Subjects &s;ingly and a part con&s;idered;
<PB N="41" REF="37"> and he is &s;upream over them al; but Collectively con&s;idered, they ha|ving the power of the Common-wealth, and he &s;et up by the Common|wealth, (or by them in the Common-wealths name) they are greater then he; and he him&s;elf in that &s;en&s;e is but a Subject, though the prin|cipal in reference to that great authority, wherwith he is entru&s;ted. Thus a Prince is <HI>Major &s;ingulis, &amp; Minor univer&s;is;</HI> greater then any part, but le&s;&s;e then the whole. And (indeed) there is &s;ound Rea&s;on for it: Kings are for Common-wealths, and not Common-wealths for them; and therefore Common-wealths are greater. They are Mini&s;ters (&s;aith the Apo&s;tle) as to God; &s;o in a &s;en&s;e, to Common-wealths for their good: Common-wealths create them, and impower them, therefore they are le&s;&s;e then them. The Repre&s;entatives al&s;o, may be con&s;idered, as Sit|ting, and then no Magi&s;trate is &s;upream to them; or as not Sitting, and then the Magi&s;trate, King, or other chief Governor, may be called &s;u|pream in the exerci&s;e of Power, though not in the right of it.</P>
<P>4, <HI>The holie Gho&s;t commands the People, To render Tribute, Cu&s;tome, Fear, Honor, not at random to the Magi&s;trate, leaving them at libertie to what they plea&s;e, but to whom they are due; which re&s;pects a determinate object, the pre&s;ent Magi&s;trate.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> The whole of this may be granted, for it &s;erves only to prove &s;ubjection to the pre&s;ent Magi&s;trate, but it hinders not a Change; but that if Rea&s;on, and the good of the Community require, one may be re|moved, and another &s;et up in his &s;tead; and he who is impowered, is to have the tribute.</P>
<P>5, <HI>Magi&s;trates are of God, his Ordinance, and Mini&s;ters, and Iudges for him, and his Vicegerents, Rom. 13. 24. 2 Chr. 19. 6. and therefore cannot &s;tand at the meer will of the People; God mu&s;t have a hand in their removal, as he hath in their admi&s;&s;ion, or el&s;e it is injurious: he r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">moves and admits now, not by im|mediate revelation, as &s;ometime in I&s;rael, but by the rule of his Word, executed by man: He hath given a rule for the &s;etting up of Magi&s;trats, but where hath he given anie for their depo&s;ing?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> As Magi&s;trates are Gods Ordinance, &s;o they are Mans Ordi|nance; becau&s;e man determines both of the kind of Government, and doth al&s;o de&s;ign the men, but alwayes, according to Gods Word: And as they are Judges for him, and his Vicegerents, &s;o they are Judges for the Common-wealth and their Sub&s;titutes. They Judge for God, <HI>viz.</HI> His Glory: and for the People, <HI>viz.</HI> Their Good, Rom. 13. 4. And it being confe&s;&s;ed, That their admi&s;&s;ion 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, <HI>Eorum e&s;t deponere, quorum e&s;t ponere.</HI> And let me &s;ee that Rule that God hath given for &s;etting up, and I doubt not, but I &s;hal make the &s;ame Rule
<PB N="42" REF="38"> &s;erve for putting down. Indeed, That Scripture wherein it is &s;aid, <HI>That Kings, &amp;c. are the Ordinances of Man,</HI> doth impower man, both to &s;et-up, and to pul down.</P>
<P>6, <HI>If it were in the Peoples power to change their Magi&s;trates at plea&s;ure, then how could it be &s;uch a heinous &s;in, as it is challenged to be, for the People to reject</HI> Samuels <HI>Government, &amp; de&s;ire, &amp; move for a King, 1 Sam.</HI> 8. 6, 7. &amp; 12. 17?</P>
<P><HI>Reply. Samuels</HI> 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 rai&s;ed up by God immediatly, at certain times when they were mole&s;ted by the Nations round about them, of which <HI>Samuel</HI> was one: Now that which God had Con&s;tituted, That, they might not Change, e&s;pecially not for a wor&s;e, as they did, when they cho&s;e Kingly Government after the manner of the Nations.</P>
<P>After al his own Rea&s;ons again&s;t change of Government, he comes to weigh my Rea&s;on for the lawfulne&s;&s;e of Change; which was this, <HI>That though Civil Government in general be the Ordinance of God for mans good, therefore to reject it would be &s;in: yet, this, or that kind of Government is not the Ordinance of God, but an Ordinance of man, and therefore man may change it.</HI> And again&s;t the&s;e words (<HI>is not the Ordinance of God, but an Or|dinance of man</HI>) he bends him&s;elf by &s;everal Arguments to overthrow it; and yet in the i&s;&s;ue he e&s;tabli&s;heth it. And becau&s;e my words in point of cleerne&s;&s;e were not &s;o ful, he takes advantage; but yet opening that text of <HI>Peter,</HI> which I aleadge for the proof of my A&s;&s;ertion, he gives my &s;en&s;e wherein I made u&s;e of it; but I &s;hal &s;et down his Exception in his own words:</P>
<P><HI>Civil Government in the general cannot be &s;aid to be Gods Ordinance, and ther|fore unrejectable; but this, or that kind of Government that is a legitimate, and true</HI> &s;pecies <HI>of it, mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arilie be yeelded to be Gods Ordinance and unre|jectable.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> When I expre&s;&s;e my &s;elf in the&s;e words, <HI>This, or that kind of Go|vernment is not the Ordinance of God, but the Ordinance of man:</HI> my meaning was, This, or that kind of Government, is not in &s;uch &s;ort, or &s;en&s;e, the Ordinance of God, as Government in general is; that is, Is not by &s;pe|cial In&s;titution impo&s;ed upon al, or any people, as Government in ge|neral is; is not by Commandement laid upon any people to nece&s;&s;itate the receiving of it, as Government in general is: So that it cannot be &s;aid of any &s;pecial Government, That if a Nation, or People, receive it not, admit it not, it &s;ins in not doing it; as it may be &s;aid of Government in general, That if any People receives it not, that People &s;ins in not re|ceiving it. And becau&s;e I &s;peak of &s;inning, in the not-admitting of the one, and not of &s;inning in the not-admitting of the other; it is plain, That I meant it in the &s;en&s;e that I have now expre&s;&s;ed
<PB N="43" REF="38"> it. And in this &s;en&s;e he concurs with me; his words are, <HI>Government in its &s;pecial nature, is Warranted for anie People, but not Commanded, or Im|po&s;ed (as Government in general is) upon everie Nation:</HI> and he &s;aith after|wards, That <HI>Peter</HI> terms Government <HI>Mans Ordinance, becau&s;e both the &s;pecial form of Government, and the per&s;ons holding it, are cho&s;en, and &s;o imme|diatly Con&s;tituted by man.</HI> And this is that which I a&s;&s;ert: So that when I &s;aid, That Government in <HI>&s;pecie, was not an Ordinance of God;</HI> my mea|ning was, It was not an Ordinance by any &s;pecial Commandment, as go|vernment in general was; it was not immediatly Con&s;tituted by God, but by men. God doth not &s;o In&s;titute the kinds of Officers in Com|mon-wealths, as he doth the kinds of Officers in Churches. And in this lay the &s;trength of my Rea&s;on; <HI>Therefore if the &s;pecial kinds of Go|vernment be not Commanded by God, but cho&s;en, and immediatlie Con&s;tituted by men, then they may be changed by men; Provided, That their grounds be &s;uffici|ent to bear &s;uch a Change.</HI> And to this he replyeth nothing, nor di&s;ables it at al; &s;o that the Rea&s;on &s;tands in &s;trength, and the Con&s;equence is firm and un&s;haken; <HI>viz. That &s;uch an Oath, that tends ab&s;olutlie to uphold anie one forme of Government, is unlawful.</HI></P>
<P>But he urgeth this Argument again&s;t my words in the &s;en&s;e that he took them; as if I had a&s;&s;erted, That they were not the Ordinance of God at al: and &s;aith thus, <HI>Whatever is predicated of the</HI> genus, <HI>or general na|ture; is predicated of the</HI> &s;pecies, <HI>or &s;pecial nature.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> I appeal to the Reader, Whether he doth not herein Contra|dict him&s;elf afterwards, when he &s;aith, <HI>That of the general nature of Govern|ment, it may be &s;aid, That it is the Commandment of God; but of the &s;pecial kind of Government (he &s;aith) that it cannot be &s;aid, That it is the Commandment of God, but warranted onlie by God.</HI></P>
<P>There is al&s;o a Second Contradiction in his words, whil&s;t he pro&s;e|cutes again&s;t my Expre&s;&s;ion &s;o earne&s;tly; (if my under&s;tanding fail me not) he &s;aith in one place, That <HI>Government is In&s;tituted in its &s;pecial nature by God;</HI> and afterwards he &s;aith, <HI>It is not Commanded by God, and that both the &s;pecial forme of Government, and the per&s;ons holding it, are immediatlie Con|&s;tituted by men.</HI></P>
<P>There is al&s;o a Third Contradiction (which in this bad Cau&s;e which he manageth) he runneth into; He had &s;aid in pag. 5. <HI>The King, as King, Acts onlie by his Courts and Laws, and what he doth, be&s;ides the&s;e, is the Mans not the Kings; and that things may be done again&s;t his per&s;onal Commands.</HI> Yet in this place he &s;aith, <HI>The Magi&s;trates, not the Government ab&s;tractlie are cal|led Gods Ordinance:</HI> the meaning is, The King, not King-&s;hip (where Kingly Government is on foot) the per&s;on of the King, the Man, not the Power (as it ought to be exerci&s;ed according to Law) is the Ordinance of God, and mu&s;t be obeyed.</P>
<P>After the Con&s;equence, by way of Illu&s;tration, I expre&s;&s;ed my &s;elf in
<PB N="44" REF="39"> &s;ome words, concerning the heavie plague that hath been upon this Na|tion in Kingly Government, and of the many ble&s;&s;ings that have follow|ed the Change of it, among the United Provinces, which he takes great offence at, wherein I &s;hal be ju&s;tified by the Chronicles, that record the Reigns of the Kings of this Nation, and the plentiful experience which many thou&s;ands living have had of the truth thereof in &s;ome of them. Notwith&s;tanding le&s;t I &s;hould move his patience further, I &s;hal forbear any further Reply. It is enough what the Parliament when the Hou&s;e was ful, and Voted, <HI>NO more Addre&s;&s;es to be made,</HI> hath publi&s;hed to the World concerning the late King.</P>
<P>In the la&s;t place, in the Clo&s;e of the fir&s;t Argument, he comes to con|&s;ider of the Objection which I (knowing many other would be ready to make it) both framed, and an&s;wered: The Objection was, <HI>Though the Oath might be unlawful to be taken, yet being taken, it ought to be kept:</HI> The An&s;wer was, That <HI>if</HI> Herods <HI>Oath was unlawful to be taken, and much more unlawful to be kept, being only an Oath again&s;t the life of one man; then this Oath of Allegian<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">e (if ab&s;olute) was not onlie unlawful to be taken, but al&s;o to be kept, becau&s;e verie dangerous to the lives, &s;tate, and liberties of a Common-wealth of men.</HI></P>
<P>His An&s;wer hereto, in &s;ub&s;tance is this;</P>
<P><HI>He cannot paralel</HI> Herods <HI>Oath and ours in the mater, wherein</HI> Herods <HI>was unlawful both in the taking and keeping. What was the matter of that? To &s;hed innocent bloud: To ma&s;&s;acre a guiltle&s;s and holie Per&s;on. Now what is the mat|ter of ours? To yeeld Obediance in lawful things, to a lawful power: Is it anie more? And are not the matter of the&s;e two Oathes, as far unlike as light and darkne&s;s?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> There's only this difference, That Oath was to kil directly; This con&s;equently: <HI>That</HI> &s;peedily and out of hand; <HI>This</HI> &s;urely and un|doubtedly, though uncertain in reference to the time when. For if the Oath be of ab&s;olute obedience, to the Father, and Son, and Sons Son, and al after-Heirs, then not only active, but pa&s;&s;ive obedience mu&s;t be yeelded; and if the per&s;on be the power, as he a&s;&s;erts from Rom. 13. 2. compared with ver&s;. 3, 4. (his words are the&s;e, <HI>The Magi&s;trate, not the Government ab&s;tractlie (are called Gods Ordinance)</HI> then the per&s;on may not be re&s;i&s;ted in any thing, let him do what he wil; let him become a <HI>Nero,</HI> yet he may not be re&s;i&s;ted, no not in his Mini&s;ters; For his name and his authority is in them, and it is impo&s;&s;ible to re&s;i&s;t them, but there wil be a re&s;i&s;ting of him in them. And if this be &s;o, then the Floud-gates are &s;et open to al Iniquity, and corrupt men which are chief in power, and are &s;ecure from al oppo&s;ition and re&s;i&s;tance, that know that they may have life and &s;tate and al at their demand without contradiction, are in|vited to al unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e and oppre&s;&s;ion. Even as a gracele&s;&s;e per&s;on, that is in want, and knoweth that the Judge wil neither hang him, nor
<PB N="45" REF="39"> puni&s;h him, is invited to rob and &s;teal: what an unrighteous Oath then is this, in the very matter of it, that tempts the Prince in &s;uch &s;ort to al lewdne&s;&s;e and wickedne&s;&s;e, and that wil certainly, either &s;ooner or later, be de&s;tructive? And how unmeet is it to be kept? It is as it a Judge &s;hould &s;wear to al poor per&s;ons that are in want, That whatever they do, he wil not que&s;tion them: tho&s;e who are good, would be good &s;till, notwith&s;tanding this Oath; but yet it would invite naughty minded per|&s;ons to al di&s;hone&s;ty and unrighteou&s;ne&s;&s;e, and it would expo&s;e the lives and e&s;tates of men that have any thing, to extream danger, though it would be uncertain who the per&s;ons are that would &s;uffer, or at what time they might &s;uffer violence, but they are not &s;ecure any moment, &s;uch is the Oath of ab&s;olute Allegiance, and &s;uch an Oath as this kept, is more murtherous then the Oath of <HI>Herod.</HI></P>
<P>In the Second place he comes to Con&s;ider of the Second Po&s;ition, <HI>viz. That the Repre&s;entatives of the People, (which in rea&s;on are the Supream power) impo&s;ed this Oath, by an Act of Parliament, this was the Subjects free Act in their Repre&s;entatives, no Law of God or Nature obliging them to accept of &s;uch a per|&s;on and his Heirs, and to &s;wear Allegiance to them; if therefore the Repre&s;enta|tives take away and Repeal this Act, as this Parliament hath done, they thereby &s;et the Subject at liberty from &s;uch Allegiance, and from their Oath binding to it, there remains no more Con&s;cience of it to &s;uch which have taken it.</HI> Abraham <HI>that impo&s;ed the Oath upon his Servant, might acquit him of it.</HI></P>
<P>He begins with the Antecedent of this Po&s;ition, and Notes Three things;</P>
<P>1 He &s;aith, <HI>He &s;ets up a Supream power over us by Rea&s;on, not by Law or the Peoples Con&s;titution.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Though it be by Rea&s;on, yet it is by Law and by the peoples Con&s;titution al&s;o, for the People appoint their Repre&s;entatives, and the per&s;ons 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 &s;worn to confirme what they conclude on, and pre&s;ent unto him; as at the beginning of the War was held out in tho&s;e Declarations which they put forth for the Kingdoms &s;atisfaction. The Parliament then is above the King according to Law, and the peoples Con&s;titution: For, he is bound up to their Conclu&s;ions which they make for the good of the Kingdom, and they are not bound up to his, yet it is according to Rea&s;on al&s;o.</P>
<P>But he asketh, <HI>What Rea&s;on? Private, or Common Rea&s;on?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 Common Rea&s;on &s;hewes that in the mixture of Families in one Common-wealth, where there is no natural head&s;hip (as in one Fa|mily there hath been) there, without con&s;ent, there can be no head&s;hip, or power, or Government; And tho&s;e that mu&s;t Con&s;ent, are the Root of that power or Government that comes to be among&s;t them.</P>
<PB N="46" REF="40">
<P>2 Common Rea&s;on &s;hews al&s;o, That al the people that give this Con&s;ent unto a power or powers to be over them, cannot act this power which is founded in their Con&s;ent.</P>
<P>3 Common Rea&s;on &s;hews, That tho&s;e whom they Sub&s;titute for the acting of their power in matters of Supream concernment, are the Su|pream power.</P>
<P>4 Common Rea&s;on &s;hews, That if the&s;e Sub&s;titutes or Tru&s;tees for the people do chu&s;e one State&s;man to Rule over al, or a Councel of State to do it, yet they that chu&s;e and &s;et up &s;uch per&s;ons, are greater in power then they that are cho&s;en.</P>
<P>5 Common Rea&s;on &s;hews, That if &s;uch Princes who have gotten Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of the Kingdom by the Sword, have yet Complyed with the Parliament to obtain a &s;ure Title, then the power of putting in and e&s;ta|bli&s;hing &s;uch Chief Commanders, appertaineth to the Parliament.</P>
<P><HI>But how comes it then</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>that there is &s;uch variety of kinds of Su|pream Government?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This hath come to pa&s;&s;e &s;ometimes becau&s;e the peoples Right hath been invaded by force and power, and &s;o the people hath not acted freely; and &s;ometimes by the intere&s;t of &s;ome per&s;ons in the people, they have been wrought up to give con&s;ent to this or that kind of Su|pream Government, or it may come from the variety of apprehen&s;ions in &s;everal Common-wealths, affecting and chu&s;ing rather this then that kind of Government. Notwith&s;tanding, in tho&s;e Common-wealths where the people chu&s;e their Repre&s;entatives to act their power for them, Common Rea&s;on &s;aith that &s;uch Repre&s;entatives are the Su|pream power.</P>
<P>2 He &s;aith, <HI>In citing the power that Enacted this Oath, he omitts the King and Hou&s;e of Lords, who in the then Parliament Concurred in this Enacting, and Impo&s;ition.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> Neither King, nor Hou&s;e of Lords had power to make a Law, that was the Prerogative of the peoples Repre&s;entatives, and the King mu&s;t confirm what they did. Herein was the Repre&s;entative Suprema|cy above the other.</P>
<P>3 He &s;aith, <HI>That although the King was then rightfully and actually En|throned 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 &s;ay, That no Law of God or Nature obliged them to except of &s;uch a Per&s;on and his Heirs. Is not the Fifth Commandement the Law of God and Nature? And tho&s;e Precepts, Rom. 13. 1. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Repetitions and divine Ratifications thereof?</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> 1 I &s;peak of things Originally as they were at fir&s;t, him&s;elf &s;pake a little before, That Government in the &s;pecial forme of it, and the per&s;ons holding it, was Cho&s;en and immediatly Con&s;tituted by men; Where then is either Law of God or Nature, determinatively binding
<PB N="47" REF="40"> to it? Therefore what Right any &s;uch Family hath, it was Originally by the Peoples receiving &s;uch a Family, and therefore it was free and volun|tary. 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 ac|cept of &s;uch and &s;uch a Family to be over them; but being accepted, and while continued, requires &s;ubjection, but no further. 3 The Kings Ance&s;tors came by Conque&s;t, and if rightfully Enthroned in Regal Po|wer, then the Title by Conque&s;t it &s;eems is good by his A&s;&s;ertion, which yet in the pre&s;ent change, I beleeve he wil not acknowledge, nor dare I grant it without the con&s;ent of the Repre&s;entatives in Parliament. Ther|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ore it is that Kings them&s;elves, when they have got the Crown by the Sword, have de&s;ire to hold it by Con&s;ent of Parliament, and their Acts for it. 4 What Right came Originally by Parliament, and the Acts thereof, and not by any expre&s;&s;e Law of God or Nature, cannot be an e|verla&s;ting Right, but may be with-drawn, together with al the Confir|mations of it, if the Cau&s;es be ju&s;t, by the &s;ame power that &s;et it up.</P>
<P>But for the Con&s;equence, he &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>It hath no Truth in it, or colour of Rea&s;on, nor Inference from the Antecedent.</HI> But what Rea&s;on &s;hews he for bla&s;ting the Con&s;equence, and reproach|ing it in &s;uch &s;ort?</P>
<P>1 He &s;aith, <HI>The Act cannot (for ought appears to me) be Repealed but by the &s;ame power that made it.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> If he mean by the &s;ame power, the Repre&s;entatives in Parlia|ment, then the &s;ame power that made the Act, hath Repealed it; but if he mean, by the &s;ame power, the King and Hou&s;e of Lords, together with the Repre&s;entatives in Parliament, I have &s;hewed, That the King and Hou&s;e of Lords have no Legi&s;lative power at al, and that it is the Repre&s;entative &s;ole priviledge to make Laws, and the King mu&s;t Con|firme, therefore they could do it without him.</P>
<P>2 He &s;aith, <HI>The Allegiance &s;worn was not founded upon that Act, or Oath, but due before.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> I have not A&s;&s;erted, That the Allegiance is founded upon that Act or Oath, but I hold the contrary, <HI>viz</HI> That the Oath is founded upon Allegiance that was due before. But this I A&s;&s;ert, That Allegi|ance was never ab&s;olutly but conditionally due: 1 While the Prince keeps his Oath in the Coronation, taken to admini&s;ter Ju&s;tice. 2 While the Parliament have not declared him to have broken his Oath, and &s;o that relation cea&s;e betwixt him &amp; the people, &amp; con&s;equently the Alle|giance to be at an end, and con&s;equently 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 per|&s;ons and powers in the World, are never able to ab&s;olve or acquit the per&s;ons that have taken it, from it: But yet withal this I hold, That
<PB N="48" REF="41"> 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 &s;o the Judge o<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> this when the Condition is broken. 4 When they declare that the Condition is broken (unle&s;&s;e there be a palpable unrighteou&s;ne&s;s in their Declaration) and when they by their Acts do di&s;charge the peo|ple of their Allegiance, and do Repeal the Act for the Oath of Allegi|ance, then the people are free, fir&s;t, 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 fir&s;tly and principally &s;ubject to the Parliament their Repre&s;entatives, for they have put their whole power into their hand, &s;o far as concerns the exerci&s;e of it, and have put them|&s;elves into &s;ubjection under them, and therefore their Allegiance is fir&s;t|ly due to them, and through them to any Governor or Governors, Prince or other Magi&s;trate or Magi&s;trates, whom they &s;hal either &s;et up and entru&s;t with the exerci&s;e of Supream power when they Sit not, or whom they &s;hal confirm finding in that power, when they came to Sit. Why el&s;e have per&s;ons who have come to the Throne by Conque&s;t, im|mediatly called Parliaments to ratifie and confirme their Title, which they fore&s;aw might be ju&s;tly que&s;tioned without &s;uch ratification. And in this &s;en&s;e it is, That the Parliament it &s;elf hath taken the Oath of Al|legiance to Princes, not Collectively as an Hou&s;e &s;itting in power and authority of Parliament; for in that &s;en&s;e them&s;elves were Supream, but as &s;ingle per&s;ons and members of the Common-wealth, they them|&s;elves are &s;ubject to the power that as a Parliament them&s;elves erect and confirm. And I al&s;o conceive, That hereupon there is no Allegiance to any Magi&s;trate again&s;t the Parliament, but that the Parliament may make it void, while they remain the Peoples Repre&s;entatives, and con|tinue 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 &s;hal be no Parliament &s;itting; but in the time of Parliament, the Parliament it &s;elf is Supream, and not they. And though the per&s;ons of al Parliament men, and al the Nation with them, &s;hould &s;wear Allegi|ance to that Councel, yet it is in, and not again&s;t the authority of Parlia|ment, that they &s;o &s;wear; and if the Councel of State &s;hould mi&s;carry in point of Government, and the Parliament &s;hould declare them to be no Councel of State, both them&s;elves who in their per&s;ons were &s;worn, and al the people who have taken that Oath with them, are acquitted from it. For the Allegiance it &s;elf and the Oath to confirme it, are fir&s;t 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 al&s;o, and &s;o may di&s;charge the one of Government, and the other of du|ty to them. And &s;o I look upon the Parliament, as the principal party in the Oath of Allegiance to any Prince, and the Oath to the Prince is
<PB N="49" REF="41"> through them, and in them, and not again&s;t them; and &s;o the Parlia|ment (the Cau&s;es being ju&s;t and weighty) have power to acquit from it&punc; And in that &s;en&s;e it was that I produced the in&s;tance of <HI>Abraham&punc;</HI> So if a Magi&s;trate &s;hould <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> a Con&s;table, to obey <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> is lawful Commands, according to his place; a &s;uperior power to the Magi&s;trate, who hath power over them both, by removing the Magi|&s;trate from his Tru&s;t, ab&s;olves the Con&s;table from the Allegiance, and from his Oath al&s;o. And this is &s;o cleer, that none can rationally deny it. Yea, he him&s;elf grants it, in his fir&s;t Argument again&s;t my Con&s;e|quence, only he denies that this is the Ca&s;e in Controver&s;ie, (but it is but a bare denial) for he &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>Where the impo&s;ers are al&s;o the partie &s;worn to, there it is granted that there may be ab&s;olving from the Oath, or a di&s;pencing with it.</HI></P>
<P>And this is the Ca&s;e becau&s;e an Oath to an inferior power is made in and not again&s;t the &s;uperior power, in and through whom, Duty and Al|legiance is due to the inferior power, I hope then there is both Truth, and colour of Rea&s;on, and good inference in the Con&s;equence. He grants further, and &s;aith,</P>
<P><HI>There are Ca&s;es wherein a &s;uperiour, as a Husband, Ma&s;ter, Father, Magi|&s;trate, may make void the Oath of their re&s;pective inferior, by an Analogie or equi|tie of that Rule: but the&s;e are</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>in matters belonging to the right and power of the Superiour to di&s;po&s;e of, as the Repre&s;entatives may acquit from an Oath in point of their own right.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Reply.</HI> This is the very Ca&s;e, it is the right of the Repre&s;entatives to be Supream; therefore any Oath of the Subject, to any Magi&s;trate, (&s;uppo&s;e a Prince) is not again&s;t them, bnt in them, and they are the principal party; it is to the other in them, they may therefore ab&s;olve from it, by taking Rule from the one, and Duty from the other, becau&s;e both are &s;ubordinate unto them, and they are principally concerned in the Oath that pa&s;&s;eth betwixt them.</P>
<P>Thus I have endeavoured to maintain the Truth of the Po&s;itions: Let the Reader judge betwixtus.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="answer">
<PB N="50" REF="42">
<HEAD>There is one thing more which I think good to annex to what I have held forth in this Reply, <HI>viz.</HI> My <HI>An&s;wer</HI> to a <HI>Querie,</HI> or <HI>Con|clu&s;ion</HI> rather, which is drawn from my <HI>Po&s;itions,</HI> and is late|ly come to my hands, <HI>viz.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Querie.</P>
<P><HI>WHAT may Con&s;cientiou&s;ly be re&s;olved upon, in relation to the late Enacted</HI> Engagement, <HI>from the Principles and Premi&s;es laid down by me in the pro&s;ecution of my fir&s;t Po&s;ition? And whether I have not damned it, as to my &s;elf, and to all tho&s;e who are of my mind, and per&s;waded (fo far as my Po&s;ition may prevail) all others not to take it?</HI></P>
<P>For thus he Argues from my Po&s;itions;</P>
<P>If an Oath, or Promi&s;e, or Engagement, failing in any of tho&s;e Rules which in the Po&s;ition are laid down, be unlawful, then the Enacted En|gagement mu&s;t needs be unlawful, becau&s;e fir&s;t it is ab&s;olute, without any Provi&s;o of their Ruling wel, that are, or may be in power. 2 It is &s;ingle, or without the Rulers Engaging to the Subject to Rule wel and ju&s;tly. 3 It is to tho&s;e of whom we may be as much un&s;atisfied, 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 E&s;tabli&s;hed, and that de&s;cribed with contradi&s;tinction from, and Exclu&s;ion of King and Lords. It is al&s;o to continue in a con&s;tant way, for the words run, [<HI>I will be true and faithful.</HI>]</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>An&s;wer.</HEAD>
<P>If I &s;hould look upon the Engagement, under &s;uch apprehen&s;ions as he hath looked upon the Oath of Allegiance, and pleaded for it, I &s;hould not think it tolerable to be taken by any Con&s;ciencious man. But I have other Conceptions of it.</P>
<P N="1">1 I deny, That the Engagement is Ab&s;olute, or that any &s;uch En|gagement can be ab&s;olute, but that at lea&s;t there wil be a tacite Conditi|on therein, for the Equity and Ju&s;tice of the thing wil require it perpe|tually; and that (however it would be more &s;atisfactory if the Condi|tion
<PB N="51" REF="42"> were expre&s;&s;ed, yet it is palpable enough that the Condition is im|plyed, though not one word &s;hould be &s;poken. I have given In&s;tance in Pa&s;tor and People: If the people &s;hould not indent with their Pa&s;tor to Preach the Go&s;pel, but &s;hould accept of him to be their Pa&s;tor, and promi&s;e &s;o much Maintenance unto him, yet it is implyed that it is upon the Condition of his Preaching to them; for no rational man wil con|ceive that they promi&s;ed &s;uch Maintenance in reference to &s;uch an Of|fice, without performing the work of the Office: So it is betwixt Ma|gi&s;trate and Subject.</P>
<P N="2">2 I deny, That the Engagement is &s;ingle; for long &s;ince there came forth a Declaration from the Parliament, wherein they Engaged to Go|vern the Nation according to known Laws of the Land. And this Nar|rative was purpo&s;ely &s;et forth to &s;atisfie the Nation, in reference to Jea|lou&s;ies that the people lay under. And it makes the Engagement mu|tual betwixt the Magi&s;trate and the People. And if it be mutual, then it cannot be ab&s;olute, as he a&s;&s;erted. For I have &s;hewed, That in a mu|tual Engagement the Obligation of the one, hath re&s;pect unto, and de|pendence upon the performance of the other, &s;o that if the one violate the Engagement in his part, the other is di&s;charged upon it.</P>
<P N="3">3 I deny, That it is to tho&s;e of whom we may be as much un&s;atisfied how they wil prove hereafter, as we can be of an Heir; for the Engage|ment is to the Repre&s;entatives of the Nation, of whom we were &s;atisfi|ed when we Cho&s;e them, and we exerci&s;ed our judgement when we Cho&s;e them; and if otherwi&s;e, it was the Common-wealths fault. And we know what they have been, they have &s;ought 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 &s;o much as for term of life, much le&s;&s;e are their Heirs to be chief Rulers after them.</P>
<P N="4">4 I deny, That the Engagement is to one kind of Government ab|&s;olutly, whether hurtful or profitable, for the Repre&s;entatives of the peo|ple have power to change it, when they &s;ee cau&s;e, for the good of the Nation, and they neither have, nor intend to tye their own hands ab&s;o|lutly, but that if they &s;hould prove it to be pernicious, they might change it.</P>
<P>So that it is apparent, by what I have pre&s;ented, That he hath totally mi&s;taken the bu&s;ine&s;s of the Engagement.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
