The Oath of Allegiance and National Covenant Non-Obliging, Positions
POSITION I.
EVERY Oath to make it warran…able, and lawful, ought to be taken in Judgment and Righteouſneſs. Ier. 4. 2.
The Oath then of Allegience, that it may be in Righteouſneſs and Judment muſt be,
1 Conditional, not Abſolute; mutual, not ſingle: 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.
Reaſon.
It is againſt the ground and reaſon of the Primitive Inſtitution of Government, which is the good of the Subject, That there ſhould be any Oath to hind the Subject abſolutelie to Allegiance and Dutie, whether the Prince or Governour rule for the Subjects good or not; therefore ſuch an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in judgment, or in righteouſneſs; therefore ſuch an Oath is not lawful.
So again it is againſt Equity, and Reaſon, and againſt the good of the Subject, that he ſhould be further or longer bound to the Prince, or Ruler, to ſubmit to him, then the Prince or Ruler is bound to the Subject, to rule well, and adminiſter juſtice rightlie, if therefore the Obligation be not mutual, but ſingle, it is not lawful.
Conſequence.
Then (if the Oath of Allegiance taken to the late King, were in judgment and righteouſneſs, and ſo lawful) the King was, or ought to have been, as ſtrongly bound to all his Subjects by Oath, as any of them to him; then if he break his oath, all the Subjects are abſolved, if they will. Then at what time the King levyed War againſt his Subjects, they were diſcharged by that breach of oath in him, of their Allegiance, elſe the whole Parliament, and Parliamentary party were both perjured perſons (as many of them as ha…e take… that Oath) and are Rebels, that have taken up Arms againſt the King.
2 Not to Heires.
Reaſon.
Becauſe who knoweth (as Solomon ſaith Eccleſ. 2. 19.) whether the Heir will be a Wiſe man, or a Fool: a juſt 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 ſwear Allegiance to an Heir, nor is it a righteous Oath, for the Subject may hind himſelf to his own hurt, yea ruin and deſtruction.
Conſequence.
Then the oath of Allegiance was in that branch of it that reſpected Heirs, an unlawful oath; for who knows what any of the late Kings Poſterity might have proved? Whether they would have upheld Religion, or have changed it? Whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Propriety of the Subject, or ſubverted it? We know what their Education was, Who then could take an oath in righteouſneſs and judgment in reference to them? It is good to know firſt, and to ſwear afterward.
3 Not to any one kind of Government, Monarchical, or any other, to uphold it, and continue it, in a conſtant way, without changing of it.
Reaſon.
Becauſe, though Civil Government in general be an Ordinance of God, tending to mans good, therefore to reject it would be ſinful; yet this or that kind of Government is not an Ordinance of God, but an Ordinance of man, 1 Pet. 2. 13. And if an Ordinance of man, then man may change it, for his own greateſt good, and benefit, and muſt change it, when he hath proved any kind of Government inconvenient, and hurtful. Then to ſwear not to change it, is ſinful, and in righteouſneſs and judgment may not be done, for all kinds of Government is not equallie good, uor are they equallie ſuitable to all people; and experience makes perſons wiſe to diſcern what is better, and what is worſe for themſelves: Therefore an Oath to uphold any one kind of Government, longer then it continues to be moſt ſafe and profitable, is unlawful.
Conſequence.
Then the oath of allegiance ſerving to uphold Kingly. Government againſt all other, was an unlawful oath; for who knows not what a plague this kind of Government hath been to this Nation? and who knows not that the moſt of our Kings have been Tyran…s? and who knows not what a Bleſſing the change of Government hath brought to the United Provinces▪
Objection.
But ſuppoſe there was ſome unlawfulneſs in the taking of ſuch Oathes, yet is there not a neceſſity of keeping them being taken?
Anſwer.
If that Oath taken againſt the life of one man, by Herod, becauſe unrighteous, and cruel, was not only ſinfully taken, but more ſinfully kept; then ſuch oaths of allegiance which are abſolute, and not conditional, which are ſingle, and not mutual, which are to Heirs, whether wiſe-men or fools, whether juſt men or Tyrants, which are to uphold Monarchy, (the woful fruits whereof having been long taſted, and felt by this Nation) ſeeing they are dangerous, and may pro…e (as often they have done) deſtructive to the lives of many men, they are not only unlawful to be taken, but unlawful to be kept.
POSITION II.
SUppoſe the Oath of Allegiance be a lawful Oath, yet the Subject is now abſolved from it, by them that have Power to abſolve from it.
Reaſon.
The Repreſentatives of the People, which in reaſon are the Supream Power of the Nation, impoſed this Oath upon the Subject, by an Act for it, made in Parliament, by which they obliged the Subject to Allegiance to the King, then in being, and to his Heirs. And this Act done by their Repreſentatives was their own voluntarie Act, to which they were not obliged by anie law of God, or Nature; for there is no rule requiring them to accept of ſuch a Perſon to be their Prince, and his Heirs after him, and to ſwear Allegiance to him and them; but this was the Subjects own free Act, in their Repreſentatives: Therefore if the Repreſ…ntatives take away this Act and repeal it, they thereby ſet the Subjects at Libertie from ſuch Allegiance, and from that Oath by which they are bound to it. Abraham that impoſed the Oath upon his Servant, might acquit him of it, becauſe not bound by anie rule from God, but obliged by Abraham onlie.
Conſequence.
This preſent Parliament, having taken away that Oath of Allegiance, which was Enacted to be impoſed; there remains no more Conſcience of it, to ſuch who have taken it.
But then it will come unto this,
Whether the Parliament be the Supream Power?
Whether the Repreſentatives of the People, be the Parliament?
Whether the preſent Repreſentatives that now Sit in Parliament, be the Repreſentatives of the People?
To the Firſt I ſay, 1 It is evident, That the Norman Kings coming in by Conqueſt had never any true Right to the Crown of England, but what the Parliament gave them: Then the Power of the Parliament was greater then theirs; becauſe that Power, that is the Cauſe of Power, is greater then that Power, that is the Effect of Power: 2 The Power of Parliament, is the Power of the People; now in Reaſon the Power of the People is the Supream Power, becauſe thence (as from the Root) all Power firſt ſprang, and proceeded.
To the Second I ſay, I… the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power, and the Supream Power, then the Repreſentatives of the People, are the Parliament, and none elſe: for the Repreſentatives of the People are the People in them, and there is the Root of Power, therefore they are a Parliament.
To the Third I ſay, The preſent Repreſentatives that now Sit in Parliament, are, 1 All of them Choſen by the People, therefore of Right they Sit in Parliament. 2 The preſent Repreſentatives are all that are left to Sit in Parliament; for the moſt of the reſt have Deſerted their Truſt, without any Force upon them; for though ſome were Secluded and Secured, yet the reſt were not at all interrupted, but have voluntarily Departed from the Houſe. 3 The Repreſentatives that Remained, and Continued to Sit in Parliament, were alwayes, when feweſt, and ſtill are above the Number allowed of by Law; and therefore they are a Parliament.
There is one Objection, which may be urged againſt the Parliaments Abſolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings Heirs, and againſt their Aboliſhing Kingly Government. It may be ſaid, That
Kings have the ſame Right to their Kingdoms, Crowns, and Revenues, as others Queſt. have to their Mannors, and Demeſnes?
Such Right which Kings have had, they never juſtly came by it, but Anſw. by Force and Flattery have obtained it, and have Uſurped upon the Birth-right of the People, to whom it belongs to Chuſe them that muſt Rule over them: and Kingdoms with the Appurtenances thereto, were never intended for particular mens Advancements; to lift up ſuch Families in Glory and Greatneſs; or that the Heraeditary Right of any ſhould be in them; but that Wiſdom, Righteouſneſs, and Vertue was to lift up men unto them; and Crowns and Revenues were to encourage them in acting in ſuch Places; and men that were ſo Qualified, were to be Heirs, and Succeſſors, ſet up by the People, after them. And the People themſelves, nor their Repreſentatives, could neither Give, nor Sell away this Priviledge from their Poſterity, in which the welfare of the People is ſo mainly concerned, and without which a People are given up, and ſold to Ruine. This cannot be ſaid of Mannors and Demeſnes which are things which fall under Commutative Juſtice, and are things vendible, and wherein particular men are concerned, and not the Common-Wealth.