A vindication of the Oath of allegiance in ansvver to a paper disperst by Mr Sam: Eaton, pretending to prove the Oath of allegiance voyd, and non-obliging. Wherein his positions against it are examined and confuted. / By the author of the Exercitation concerning usurped powers.

M^r Eaton's Positions against the Oath of Allegiance.

POSITION. I.

EVery Oath, to make it lawful and warrantable, ought to be taken in Iudgment and Righteousness, Jerem. 4.2. The Oath then of Allegiance, that it may be in Righte∣ousness and Iudgment, must be

First, Conditional, not Absolute; mutual, not single; taken by both parties, not by one onely; by the Ruler or Governor, not alone by the Ruled; by the Prince, as well as by the Subject.

Reas. 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 binde the Subject absolutely, whether the Prince or Governor rule for the Subjects good or not: Therefore such an Oath cannot be taken by the Subject in Judge∣ment or 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 rightly: If there∣fore 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 Iudgment and Righteousness, and so lawful, the King was, or ought to have been, as strongly bound to all the Sub∣jects 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 Par∣liament and Parliamentary party were both perjured persons, so many of them as have taken this Oath; and are Rebels, that have taken up Arms against the King.

Secondly, Nor to His Heirs.

Reas. Because who knoweth (as Solomon saith, Eccles. 2.19.) whether the Heir will be a wise man, or a fool? a just, or righte∣ous man? or a wicked man, and Tyrant? Now if no man know this, then it is not an Oath in Iudgment, if any man swear Allegi∣ance to an Heir, nor is it a righteous Oath; for the Subject may binde himself to his own hurt, yea ruine and destruction.

Conseq. 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 changed it? whether they would have upheld the Liberty and Property of the Subject, or subverted it? We know what their education was, who then could take an Oath in Righteousness and Iudgment in reference to them? It is good to know first, and swear afterwards.

Thirdly, Nor to any one kinde of Government, Monarchical, or any other, to uphold and continue it in a constant way, with∣out changing of it.

Reas. Because though civil Government in general be an Ordi∣nance of God, tending to mans good, therefore to reject it would be sinful; yet this or that kinde of Government is not an Ordinance of God, but an Ordinance of man, 1 Pet. 2.13. and if an Ordi∣nance of man, then man may change it, for his own greater good and benefit; and must change it, when he hath proved any kinde of government inconvenient and hurtful: Then to swear not to change it, is sinful, and in Righteousness and in Iudgment may not be done; for all kindes of Government are not equally good, nor are they equally suitable to all people: and experience makes persons wise, to discern what is better, and what is worse, for themselves; and therefore an Oath to uphold any one kinde of Government longer then it continues to be most safe and profitable, is unlawful.

Consequ. Then the Oath of Allegiance, serving to uphold King∣ly Government against all others, was an unlawful Oath; for who knows not what a plague this kinde of Government hath been to this Nation? and who knoweth not that the most of our Kings have been Tyrants? and who knows not what a Blessing the Change of Government hath brought to the united Pro∣vinces?

Object. But suppose there was some Ʋnlawfulness in the taking of such Oaths, yet is there not a necessity of keeping them, being taken?

Answ. If that Oath, taken against the life of one man by He∣rod, because unrighteous and cruel, was not onely 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 of just men, or Ty∣rants, which are to uphold Monarchy, the woful fruits whereof, though they have been long tasted and felt by this Nation, seeing they are dangerous, and may prove (as often they have done) de∣structive to the lives of many men, they are not onely unlawful to be taken, but unlawful to be kept.

POSIT. II. Suppose the Oath of Allegiance to be a Lawful Oath, yet the Subject is now absolved from it by those that have Power to absolve from it.

Reas. Because the Representative of the People, which in Rea∣son are the Supreme Power of the Nation, imposed this Oath up∣on the Subject by an Act made in Parliament, by which they ob∣liged the Subject to Allegiance to the King then in being, and to his Heirs: And this Act done by their Representatives, was their own Voluntary Act, to which they were not obliged by any 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 Al∣legiance to him and them: but this was the Subjects free Act in their Representatives; Therefore if the Representatives take away this Act, and repeal it, they thereby set the Subjects at liberty from such Allegiance, and from their Oath by which they are bound unto it: Abraham that imposed the Oath upon his servant, might acquit him of it, because not bound by any Rule from God, but obliged by Abraham onely.

Consequence. This Present Parliament having taken away that Oath of Allegiance which which was enacted to be imposed, there remains no more Conscience of it to such who have taken it: But

then it will come to this. Whether the Parliament be the Supreme Power: Whether the Representative of the People be the Parli∣ament: Whether the present Representatives, that now sit in Par∣liament, be the Representatives of the People?

To the first, I say, 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. Secondly, The Power of the Parliament is the Power of the People: Now in Reason the Power of the People is the Su∣preme Power, because thence, as from the root, all Power first sprung and proceeded.

To the second, I say, if the Parliaments Power be the Peoples Power, and the Supreme Power; Then the Representatives, or the People, are the Parliament, and none else: for the Represen∣tatives are the People in them, and there is the root of Power; therefore they are the Parliament.

To the third, I say, That the present Representatives, that now sit in Parliament, are, first, all of them chosen by the People, therefore of right they sit in Parliament. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, The Representatives, that remained and conti∣nued to sit in Parliament, were always, when fewest, and still are, above the number allowed of by Law, and therefore are a Parli∣ament. There is one Objection that may be urged against the Parliament absolving men from their Allegiance to the Kings heirs, and against their abolishing Kingly Government.

Object. It may be said, That Kings have the same Rights to their Kingdoms, Crowns, and Revenues, as others have to their Mannors and Demains.

Answ. Such Right as Kings have had, they never justly came by it, but by force and flattery have obtained it, and have usurped upon the birth-right of the People, to whom it belongs to choose them that must rule over them; and Kingdoms, with their

appurtenances thereto, were never intended for particular mens ad∣vancement, to lift up such Families in glory and greatness, or that the Hereditary Right of any should be in them: but Wisdom, Righteousness, and Virtue was to lift up men unto them; and crowns & revenu's were to incourage them in acting in such places; and men that were so qualified, were to be Heirs & Successors, set up by the People after them; and the People themselves, nor their Re∣presentatives, could neither give, nor sell away this priviledg from their posterity, in which the welfare of the People is so mainly con∣cerned, and without which a People are given up, and sold to ruine. This cannot be said of Mannors and Demains, which are things fall under Commutative Justice, and are things vendible, and where∣in particular men are concerned, and not the Common-wealth.

FINIS.