A Hind Let Loose

Chapter 11

Prev List Next

Such compliance brought on the first desolating judgment, the flood on the old world (Gen. vi. 1, 2, 3.) when the G.o.dly conformed and incorporated themselves, and joined in affinity with that unG.o.dly crew, from whom they should have separated themselves. Likewise Deut. vii. 2, 3, 4, 5.--"Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them, neither shalt thou make marriages with them--for they will turn away thy son from following me--so shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you--but thus shall ye deal with them, ye shall destroy their altars." Where all transactions with a people devoted to destruction are discharged, even that of toleration of malignant enemies, according to which precept, "David resolved to destroy early all the wicked of the land, and cut off all wicked doers, from the city of the Lord," Psal. ci. 8. Mark this, all, of what degree or quality soever, without respect of persons. And lest it should be thought this is meant only of these seven nations there enumerate, the law is interpreted by the spirit of G.o.d or many other nations; where Solomon is condemned for joining in affinity with other wicked people, besides these, 1 Kings, xi. 1, 2. So that it is to be understood generally, against confederacies with all, to whom the moral ground is applicable, and the danger of insnaring the people of G.o.d. It is clear likewise, we must have nothing to do with the wicked, but to treat them and with them as enemies, Psal. cx.x.xix. 21, 22. with whom, as such, there can be no confederation; for that supposes always the enmity is laid aside, but that can never be between the professors of religion and the professed enemies thereof: but that must always be the language of their practice, "Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, for the Lord hath heard me,"

Psal. vi. 8. The command is peremptory and perpetual, "Forsake the foolish," Prov ix. 6. "Make no friendship with them," Prov. xxii. 24.

"Say not a confederacy to them." Isa. viii. 12. where it is clear from the opposition in that text, betwixt confederating with the wicked and the fear of G.o.d, that the one is not consistent with the other. There is an express discharge to yoke or have any fellowship with them, 2 Cor.

vi. 14. to the end--"for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?--what concord hath Christ with Belial?--wherefore come out from among them, and be separate."--2. Many sad and sharp reproofs for such transactions and confederations do conclude the same thing, Judg. ii. 1, 2, 3--"I said,--ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land, you shall throw down their altars: but you have not obeyed my voice, Why have you done this? Wherefore--I will not drive them out from before you--." It cannot be expected, the Lord will drive out these enemies, if we swear subjection and allegiance, and come under confederations with them; for thereby we contribute actively to their settlement and establishment, and bring ourselves not only under the misery, but the guilt of strengthening the hands of evil doers. So Jer. ii. the people of G.o.d are reproved, for making themselves home-born slaves. How? by outlandish confederacies, verse 18. "Now what hast thou to do in the way of a.s.syria?--The Chaldee paraphrase hath it, What have you to do to a.s.sociate with Pharaoh king of Egypt? and what have you to do to make a covenant with the a.s.syrian?" So may we say, what have we to do to take their oaths and bonds, that are as great enemies as they were? Ephraim is reproved for mixing himself among the people, Hos. vii. 8. by making confederacies with them. What follows? He is a cake not turned, hot in the nether side, zealous for earthly things, but cold and raw in the upper side, remiss in the things of Christ. And this we have seen in our experience to be the fruit of such bargains, or bonds, or oaths, that they that were engaged in them, have always in some measure fallen from their former fervour for Christ. Nay we shall find, that such transactions are seldom or never recorded in the book of G.o.d without a reproof, or some greater marks of G.o.d"s displeasure put upon them? which doubtless is set purposely as beacons, that we may beware of them. And therefore, 3. We may take notice of many disallowed and condemned examples, on which the Lord set marks of wrath, as Ahab"s covenant with Benhadad, 1 Kings xx. 32. to the end. Asa"s covenant with Benhadad, which the prophet calls a foolish deed, 2 Chron.

xvi. from beginning to verse 10. proceeding from an evil heart of unbelief, as all such transactions are overawed compliances.

Jehoshaphat"s with Ahab hath the same censure, though he kept himself free of Ahab"s idolatry, and Ahab seemed to have been penitent before he joined with him, and his relation to him was very near, the enemy of both was an infidel, the cause was good, to recover a city of refuge, the manner of his proceeding was pious, consulting the prophets, and his end good; yet all this did not justify that wickedness, related 2 Chron.

xviii. and reproved 2 Chron. xix. 2. Jehu the prophet is sent to him, "Shouldst thou love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord." After this, when he joined himself with Ahaziah, who did very wickedly, the Lord brake his works, 2 Chron. xx.

35. to the end: which made him afterwards mend his fault, for he would not again join with him, when he sought the like a.s.sociation, 1 Kings xxii. 49. So Amaziah"s bargain with the Israelites, when the Lord was not with them, is condemned by the prophet, admonishing him to disjoin himself from them, 2 Chron. xxv. 7,--20. and Ahaz"s bargain with Tilgath Pilneser the a.s.syrian, 2 Chron. xviii. 16 &c. is plainly disallowed. 4.

The complaints, confessions, and lamentations of the Lord"s people, mourning over this sin, demonstrate the evil of it, Ezra ix. 14. "Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? Wouldst not thou be angry with us, till thou hadst consumed us, so that there shouldst be no remnant nor escaping?" Psal.

cvi. 35. "They were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works."

All these commands, reproofs, examples and complaints, are written for our learning; and being seriously laid to heart, will sufficiently sear all the fearers of G.o.d to join, but stand aloof from all compliances, conjurations, or confederacies with the enemies of G.o.d, directly or indirectly, formally or interpretatively, for fear of partaking of their sins, and receiving of their plagues. I insist the more largely on this argument, both because it will conclude that for which those proofs are adduced, to condemn all bonding or bargaining with malignant enemies; and because it will vindicate the aversion of this poor persecuted remnant, from a.s.sociating in expeditions of war, with promiscuous subverters and perverters of the cause, on which it were not proper to my purpose to dilate any discourse in a distinct head, while I must confine myself only to the heads of sufferings; only because it may be objected, and it will be profitable to consider it, that these scriptures disprove only voluntary and elective confederations with the wicked, but cannot condemn necessitated subscriptions of lawful obligations, when the matter is not sinful; nor come they home to the case of prisoners, who are constrained to transact and treat, and have do with the men in power, otherwise, if all bonds were unlawful, then prisoners might not procure liberty for longer or shorter time, upon bond and bail, to answer again when called; which yet is generally approven, and practised without scruple, and see us not want a precedent in scripture, in that Jason gave such security, Acts xvii. 9. I shall therefore subjoin here some considerations, by way of answer to this. 1.

These scriptures disprove all covenants, Exod. xxiii. 32. All confederacies, Isa. viii. 12. All concord or agreement with the men of Belial, 1 Cor. vi. 15. and, without distinction of voluntary or overawed transactions, all unitive agreements of whatsoever sort are discharged, and can no more be restricted to the particulars there specified, as if any other covenant, confederacy, or concord might be lawful, that there was not a joining in marriage, an a.s.sociating in war, or communion in communion in worship with them, than the moral grounds of these prohibitions can be so restricted: for the hazard of sins and snares, the hurt of faithless fears from whence they flow, and the hatefulness of such unequal conjunctions, which are the grounds and reasons of these laws, as may be seen in these forecited places, cannot be restricted to the particulars specified. But now all the tendered oaths and bonds of our adversaries, when subscribed as they require; yea, even those transactions of prisoners for procuring their liberty, on terms of engaging to re-enter themselves according to agreement with their persecutors, are unitive covenants, or conditional agreements, giving solemn securities for their respective obligations, upon terms wherein both parties accord; for these bonds are given to them, and not only before them, as was said. They are confederacies of the subjected, seeking the peace and favours of their superiors, which when overawed are sinful to be made with wicked enemies of religion, as well as when unconstrained, for Ahaz"s transaction with the a.s.syrian, was forced out of fear, and yet it is called a sinful confederacy, not to be h.o.m.ologated by any of the fearers of the Lord, Isa. viii. 12. They are concords and agreements with the unrighteous sons of Belial, and not about common matters, but matters wherein religion and righteousness are nearly concerned: can any think that these commands are given with exception of prisoners? and that if any Israelite was prisoner to these nations, he might make a covenant with them for his liberty, upon an engagement to render himself prisoner to them again? Then he might give bond to G.o.d"s devoted enemies, to bind up his hands from prosecuting the war with them, which all Israel was obliged to do: for if they might covenant subjection to them, then it would have been their sin to rebel, as it was Zedekiah"s sin to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar, because it was breach of covenant: and so there might be a case, wherein the Israelites, notwithstanding of all these prohibitions, would be obliged not to destroy, nor break down their altars, to wit, if they made such a bargain with them for their liberty, to surrender themselves as their subjects. Now we read, many times they were brought under subjection, and that as a punishment of their leaguing with them: and yet they broke the yoke, when they cried unto the Lord, and never submitted any longer than they were able to deliver themselves. Whence it is plain, that they never bound themselves to such subjection by oath, bond, or promise, for that would have been no mercy which was purchased by treachery. 2. It is a voluntary compact with the men in power to procure liberty upon bond to answer again, and cannot be called necessitated; or if it be, it is but a necessitated sin. It must be voluntary, because it is an act of the will, and the will cannot be forced; it is the consent of the will, and the consent cannot but be voluntary, in so far as it is a consent; and by this, whereas, before their so procured liberty, they were prisoners by constraint, now when they must return to prison, they are prisoners by consent: It is the prisoner"s choice, whether he will come out upon these terms, or not; and every choice, in so far as it is a choice, is elective and voluntary: it is put to the man"s choice, whether he will continue under the cross, and continue his testimony for the cause, or surcease from it for a time, the latter in the case is chosen. It is the prisoner"s desire and pet.i.tion, to transact with them in these terms for liberty, without which no benefit of any such bond can be procured, and every desire is voluntary. Yea, it is a formal compact and capitulation with them, binding and obliging these bonders by their own word and writ, at least to be at their call and command, not by compulsion and force now, but by the moral obligation of their own compact: now, every such compact is voluntary. And therefore, if all voluntary covenants, confederacies, and agreements, be discharged in scripture, then this bond of compearance also must be discharged. The judgment of the famous Mr. Rutherford, or a draught of a pet.i.tion to have been presented to the committee of estates, by those ministers who were prisoners in the castle of Edinburgh, will confirm what is said: we find it in the third part of his letters, Numb. 93. where are these words, "I am straitned as another suffering man, but dare not pet.i.tion this committee, 1. Because it draws us to capitulate with such as have the advantage of the mount, the Lord so disposing for the present, and to bring the matters of Christ to yea and no (you being prisoners, and they the powers) is a hazard." 3. This agreement with the enemies for liberty upon these terms, is sinful. For it is not only an acknowledgement of a wicked power, in owning and transacting with them as judges, who can free them and bind them as prisoners by law, which is disproved above; but it is a binding themselves over to a packed, perverse, and law-perverting judicatory, not as prisoners by forcible constraint, but a willing consent, acknowledging the legality of their imprisonment, and obliging themselves to observe it when demanded: yea, it is a covenanted and bonded obedience to a wicked law; for it is a wicked law, to exact from a sufferer for truth his re-entry to prison, for no crime but his duty. As also it is a justifying of a wicked sentence; for it is a wicked sentence, that an innocent man shall return to prison when they please; which is justified when they bind themselves to obey it. This is no ways like a man"s going to the gibbet on his own feet; for the man does not bind himself to do that, neither is it exacted of him as an obedience to a law, nor is it given forth as a part of his sentence, only he chooseth it for his own ease: but if all these did concur, it were unlawful for a martyr for righteousness to obey such a law, or voluntarily to submit to such a wicked sentence. Neither is it of any pertinency to urge, that it is lawful for a man to submit so far to a robber, as to bind himself to return to him against such a day with another purse to him: for this is a necessitated bargain, to give what a man hath, and promise more to save his life, and is like a man"s casting his goods out at sea to save the ship; the other is not so, but elective: this is only a choice of the least of two evils of suffering, but the other is a choice of one of two evils, which is sin, which cannot come under a Christian"s election at all; this is a compact with the robber, which is still discretive, and no ways unitive of the robber and him, in any bargain of concord, or confederacy, or acknowledged subjection, only a pa.s.sive surrender to his greater force as an enemy; but the other is unitive, as between rulers and ruled: this is not any obedience to a law, nor is the man"s purse required to be given, or promised under that notion, as the other is. I shall here also subjoin some more of that foresaid letter of Mr. Rutherford"s, in the second place, says he, "A speaking to them in writ, and pa.s.sing in silence the sworn covenant, and the cause of G.o.d, which is the very present controversy, is contrary to the practice of Christ and the apostles, who being accused, or not accused, avouched Christ to be the Son of G.o.d, and the Messias, and that the dead must rise again, even when the adversary initiated the question." Now plain it is, that neither in the bonds nor pet.i.tions, is there any word of the cause or testimony suffered for. 4.

As it is sinful, so it is very scandalous in several respects; in that at least it hath the appearance of evil, which Christians should abstain from, 1 Thes. v. 22. and seems to be a voluntary subjecting themselves to their impositions (at least of that to return to prison again) a willing acknowledgment of their unjust usurpations; a spontaneous consenting to their mischiefs framed into a law, and exacted under the notion of a law; a gratifying of the enemies of religion, and pleasing them more than any thing a prisoner can do, except he should wholly deny the cause: and therefore chiefly always this overture is most acceptable from those that durst give any testimony, because they look upon it as some indication of their fainting or falling from it, or of their wearying of the cross of Christ, of which they are very glad; and an offending and making sad the hearts, and condemning the practice, of some truly tender and zealous confessors of Christ, who have had strong tentations to make such transactions, and durst not yield so far for a world; yea it is certainly an argument of faithless fear, and impatient wearying of the cross, because of the fury of the oppressor, which the Lord taxeth, when the captive hastneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit, nor that his bread should fail; which is a dishonour to him who hath promised to bear their charges, and hath given them many encouragements to trust, that he will open a door in his own time and way. See Isa. li. 13, 14. Of this Rutherford addeth in that forecited letter: "Silence of the cause of G.o.d which adversaries persecute, seems a tacit deserting of the cause, when the state of the question is known to beholders, and I know the brethren intend not to leave the cause. And a little after, says he, the draught of that pet.i.tion which you sent me, speaks not one word of the covenant of G.o.d, for the adhering to which you now suffer, and which is the object of men"s hatred, and the destruction whereof is the great work of the times; and your silence, in this nick of time, appears to be a not confessing of Christ before men, and you want nothing to beget an uncleanly deliverance, but the profession of silence:" which is professed by all that pet.i.tion for such a bond, when their address and transaction speaks no more in favours of the cause, than if they denied it. It is plainly a coming out of prison without a testimony, which cannot consist with faithful and zealous suffering for Christ, and is far from the choice of Christ"s witnesses, who overcame by the blood of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony, recorded, Heb. xi. 35.----Who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 5. As it is a scandalous, so it is very inconvenient and unsuitable for the confessors of Christ. In that not only they may be ignorant, and much troubled to know what underhand dealings their friends may use sometimes to procure that liberty, without acquainting them, and how odiously their act of deliverance may be worded and registred to the prejudice of the cause, which they dare not testify against afterwards when they do know it, for fear of many inconveniences. But also it cannot be vindicated from being a dishonourable shifting, and putting off, or casting off the call of a testimony; and confessing either an inconstancy, or impatience, or unreadiness, or want of resolution, to confess or profess the testimony for Christ, without some respite to gather new defences for it: whereas Christ"s witnesses should be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them, 1 Pet. iii. 15.

And besides, they involve themselves into the inc.u.mbrances of a doubtful suspence about the event, whereas if they keep their first resolution and condition with cheerfulness, aloof from such bargains, they know the utmost they have to fear or hope from men. But now, as it is hard for them to come off without some sinful engagement, and to continue any measure of faithfulness when they are out, for fear of being soon called again; so they bring themselves into many sad difficulties how to behave, and cast themselves into many tentations unavoidably. However, except of late, a precedent of this practice can hardly be instanced among the sufferers of Christ in former times, but, on the contrary, many have refused such offers. I shall only name one; in the persecution of queen Mary of England, Dr. Sands, prisoner at London, had the offer of liberty, upon the term of such a bond, finding bail to appear when he should be called, but refused it absolutely; and when a gentleman, without his knowledge, having procured it by giving 1000 l. bond for him, brought him forth and required his consent and observance of the obligation, he would not consent to give any security, and denied his resolution to observe it in the least; whereupon the gentleman very courteously told him, he would stand to his hazard. This was far more like the innocency of the dove, but this new prudence resembles more wisdom of the serpent. Finally, as for Jason"s business, which is so much harped upon by these bonders. (1.) These were rulers that he had to deal withal, and not raging tyrants. (2.) They were indifferent arbiters between Jason and the lewd fellows that troubled him, and not both judge and party; he gave no security to his persecutors, as these bonders do, but to the true judges of the cause, who impartially took cognizance of it, from whom Jason might and did expect right. (3.) This was before he was prisoner, being as free as his accusers, and having the law as free for him as it was for them; whereby he could vindicate himself and abide the law, and be absolved by it: which does not answer the case of prisoners actually engaged in and called to a testimony for Christ, when there is no law but what is established in opposition to Christ. (4.) In the original it is, when they got satisfaction from him; that is, when he so cleared himself, that they could not fasten any transgression upon him, then they absolved him.

2. All these oaths and solemn securities that have been imposed in these times, are dreadful and heinous breaches of the third command, by taking his name in vain in the worst sort, whereby the takers cannot be holden guiltless. For it is impossible such oaths and bonds, however they be constructed, can ever be taken with these requisite qualifications necessary to be observed in all oaths (and consequently in all solemn promises or bonds) that are mentioned once for all, Jer. iv. 2. where one that sweareth, must do it in truth, in judgment, and in righteousness. 1. They cannot be taken in truth, which is a necessary qualification in all oaths, according to the definition of a true oath, which is a solemn invocation of G.o.d, for confirmation of some true, lawful, grave, and weighty, useful and worthy business, wherein he is attested and appealed unto, that he, as the only searcher of hearts, may give his testimony to the truth of the thing, and punish the swearers, if he swear not in truth. And this swearing in truth does import and require both sincerity of the heart, filled with reverence and the awful apprehension of a present G.o.d; and simplicity of the mind, well informed of the genuine meaning of the oath, that we have clear uptaking of it, and take it not implicitly, but with our own understanding; and also singleness and honesty of the intention, that it be not to deceive, by putting any other sense than the imposer hath, or will allow when he understands it: so the meaning must be clear, and such as may be obviously gathered from the words, and according as they are supposed to be understood by others, especially them that exact the oath; for if they mean one thing and we another, G.o.d"s name is profaned, and the end of the oath frustrated, and so all equivocations and mental reservations are condemned; as all divines treating on oaths teach, and worthy Mr. Durham particularly on the third command, who a.s.serts, "that though we could devise some other meaning, that might seem to make for us; yet if that was not meant at first tendering, but otherwise understood by him that did take it, it will not absolve from the guilt of perjury; for an oath of strict law, and will not admit, on any respect or account, of interpretations prejudicial to the native truth of it, lest it should be found to be" (according to Psal. xxiv. 4.) "a swearing deceitfully." And he afterwards says, "much less will it exempt a man from guilt, that in swearing he had a meaning of the words, contrary to what in common sense they bear, and in the construction of all indifferent persons, without oath, or beyond it; but it should be plain, single, and clear." And Paraeus saith, in Catech. Urs. part 2.

quest. 102. An oath hath the divine sanction, that it might be a bond of verity among men, and a testimony that G.o.d is the author and defender of truth. Now, none of these oaths and bonds can be taken in truth; for if they may be safely taken in any sense, it must be such as the oath in the design of the imposers cannot bear, and which the imposers never intended, nor would they ever have allowed, if they had understood it; which industriously the takers have a care they should not understand, and so they must take it in that sense with a mind to deceive, which cannot be in truth, but most derogatory both to the truth and simplicity of the gospel. And they are all unclear and ambiguous which cannot be taken in truth, because they have no truth in them, as Dr. Sanderson saith, de jure. promiss. oblig. prael. 6. Sect. 10. "A proposition of an ambiguous and indefinite sense, before the matter be distinguished, is not a true proposition; yea, nor a proposition at all: for a proposition, as its definition cleareth, should signify either a truth or a falsehood, without any ambiguity; and therefore, says he; such oaths should be suspected that there is some deceit lurking, and every pious and prudent man should refuse them offered under such terms,"

cited by apol. relat. sect. 10. pag. 118. and sect. 15. pag. 267. In fine, none of them can be taken in truth, since they are all a denying the truth, as will be evident by the induction of all of them: which, how it can consist with the fear of G.o.d, or sincerity of the heart, cannot be imagined; and if conscience be called into judgment, it will condemn the taking them. 2. They cannot be taken in judgment, is that, with knowledge and deliberation, minding and understanding what it is we swear or subscribe, as Mr. Durham explains it in the place above cited.

For, first, they cannot be taken in judgment, because they are all ambiguous, the terms of them being capable of divers senses, not explained by the imposers. And if they were explained in their sense, then they could not be taken in righteousness; and so at best they are uncertain: and that is dreadful to invoke the majesty of G.o.d to be a witness to uncertainties; for that is to swear with an evil conscience and contempt of G.o.d to dare to call him in as a witness of that which is in suspense, whether it be truth or a lie; and such a swearer must make it a matter indifferent, whether he make G.o.d a witness of a truth or of a lie in the case. Vide Paraeum. loc. sup. cit. pag. 754. sect. 4. Dr.

Sanderson as before, gives these reasons further against all ambiguous oaths. "Because of him who tendereth the oath. For the proper end of an oath is, that he in whose favours it is taken should have some certainty of that whereof he doubted before; but there can be no certainty out of the words which have no certain sense. Next, because of him who sweareth, who, if he take such an oath in these terms, either stumbleth his neighbour, or spreadeth a net for his own feet; for to what else should such collusion tend, but either that by our example others may be induced to take it, whereby they are stumbled; or, that afterwards, by virtue of that oath, something may be required of us, which is either unlawful or hurtful, and this is to lay a snare for ourselves! Therefore let every prudent man beware of suffering himself to be deceived by these wiles, and of thinking so much either of the favour of the ill will of any other, as to swallow the bait under which he is sure there is a hook: it is expedient, that, in the matter of oaths, all things be done aright, and that the sense be clear to all, and that is, to swear with a clear conscience," apol. relat. pag. 267. But next, they cannot be taken in judgment; because they are all imposed and extorted under a severe penalty, and some of them of death, and so must be taken out of fear. Such oaths are by many famous divines judged unlawful, especially public oaths imposed by authority, and under colour of law; these are worse than a man"s private oath given to a robber, for fear of death, if the matter be unlawful: for, without the matter be lawful or unlawful, such oaths coacted, exacted, and imposed by law, cannot be taken in judgment; for if they be taken out of respect to the law; then it is the person"s suffrage to the equity of that law, and an approbation of the imposition; which, in the present case, cannot be done, by any man of conscience; for, whether the oaths be lawful or not, the authority imposing them is nought, and the law wicked, and can never be approven; and if they be extorted out of fear, then they cannot be taken with deliberation, or voluntary and unviolented choice, unconstrained light or liberty, which are all the ingredients of judgment. 3. They cannot be taken in righteousness, that is, according to the law of equity as well as piety, neither wronging G.o.d nor others by our oaths. Lawful oaths should be in themselves ties of equity, as well as truth. And Paraeus faith, in the place before cited, lawful oaths are only these which are engaged into about things true, certainly known, lawful, possible, weighty, necessary, useful and worthy. And if that be true, then are all the oaths and bonds taken these many years but fetterings into bonds of iniquity; which, when the consciences of the takers will reflect on them, will become galls of bitterness, and found to have none of these qualifications; but on the contrary, to be about matters false, uncertain, unlawful, impossible, frivolous, fruitless, useless, and unworthy, to the worst degree of baseness; and, which is worst of all, dreadfully sinful, and horrid to be thought on to interpose the name of G.o.d upon, making him the approver of what his soul hates, and a witness of that which he will be an avenger of, as will appear by the particular consideration of all of them.

2. Let it be considered, that though (as the pleaders for these transactions do impertinently) alledge the same words in other cases might be subscribed in a more abstract sense, as being capable of a good construction; yet complexly considered in the form and frame of all the oaths and bonds we have been troubled with, they cannot be subscribed in any sense; and if in any, that must be the imposer"s sense, which in them all is always pernicious. 1. They cannot be taken in any sense though never so good, if we consider the absolute illegality of their arbitrary imposition. It will be confessed that oaths should be very tenderly imposed upon consciences, not only lest the name of G.o.d be prost.i.tute to profanation, in matters light and trivial, or dubious and uncertain; but lest a tyrannical jurisdiction be exercised over the souls of men, which are not subject to any power that mortals can claim: so it cannot be denied, but that the const.i.tution of our government requires, and reason as well as religion says it is necessary, that no ruler hath right to enjoin an oath which is not first enacted into a law; and it was always accounted a good plea for refusing oaths, when there was no law for them; and some have been charged with treason, for exacting oaths without a statute ordaining them: which might be brought in as a charge against all the imposers of our oaths, the most part of which have been enacted and extorted without any colour of law; some of them being never ordained by any act of parliament, and others of them before they could obtain such a mischief framed into an act for them, and all of them neither ever legally administred nor righteously enacted, by such who had power to make acts; for as for the packed parliaments that made them, no conscientious man could ever own such a company of perjured traitors, to be their parliamentary representatives.

Yet abstracting from that, I say, the oaths that have been imposed without and against law could never be taken in any sense, without consenting to their treasonable breach of law, for which they have forfeited their lives to justice, whenever there shall be a judicatory to revise their administrations: and these that have been imposed by a pretended law, could never be taken without justifying of that law that ordained them, which hath been nothing but a mischief framed into a law by a throne of iniquity. 2. They cannot be taken in a good sense, with a safe conscience, considering either what is plain in them, or what is more ambiguous. What is plain and capable but of one sense, that is always either restraining to a clear sin, to renounce some part of the covenanted reformation, in profession or practice; or constraining from a clear duty, that we should not do that which we may or ought to do.

There is nothing in all of them plain but what obliges to one of these two. Again, what is ambiguous in them, as it ought to be refused for its ambiguity; so, when it is explained according to the imposer"s mind and meaning, the sense will be found always pernicious, though the words may be plausible. As when they require an obligation to allegiance, or loyalty, or peaceableness, or orderliness, and other smooth words, signifying excellent things in an abstract notion, these will be found to carry quite another sense, if we enquire into the imposer"s meaning, in which only oaths and bonds must be taken. The only way to find out their meaning, is to consider either their acts or actings, or their designs and intentions, as they are discoverable by any man of prudence or consideration. If we consult their acts or actings practically, and not only legally explaining them for a commentary, then by allegiance, we can understand nothing else but an owning of their absolute tyranny: by loyalty, nothing but an absolute and implicit obedience of their absolute commands, without reserve (as the late proclamation for the toleration expounds it) by peaceableness, nothing but a stupid subjection to them, letting them do what they please without resistance or controul; and by orderliness nothing but a disorderly compliance and conformity with them, in going along with the corruptions and defections of the time; for their acts and actings expound them so. If we consider their designs and intentions, according to which they are all uniformly calculate and equally levelled; he is blind who hath not seen they have been driving all this time at these designs (to which all these oaths and bonds have been adapted and successfully subservient, and by which they have been promoted to the present pa.s.s) to overturn gradually all the degrees of our covenanted reformation, to establish tyranny, and advance it unto greater degrees of absoluteness, and to introduce popery and slavery: so that by allegiance and loyalty can be meant nothing else but an obligation to own and obey, and never to oppose the design of advancing tyranny; and by peaceableness and orderliness, nothing else can be intended, than an obligation never to oppose either the present settlement, or future establishment of popery and arbitrary power, upon the ruins of the reformation, and our civil and religious rights and liberties. Whence, they that can take these oaths and bonds in any other sense, and plead for the inoffensiveness of the terms, in a more abstract notion, and sense alledged more legal, without regard to that of the imposers, practically explained by their administrations, and so looking more to the briberies of their blinded reason and worldly interest, than to the dictates of conscience, please themselves with such notions and quibbling evasions, do but mock G.o.d, deceive the world, elude the enemies, and delude themselves. And all these debatings for accommodations and expositions in another sense, are but foul fairdings of conscience-beguiling compoundings in, and pitiful priggings for, a base compliance. But it is usual for a guilty son of Adam to sew fig-leaves.

4. Let it be considered, that all these oaths and bonds that the land hath been debauched with these 27 years, are all condemned by, and contradictory to anterior binding orders, the acts of the general a.s.semblies requiring no oaths in the common cause to be taken, without the church"s consent, as was cleared in the historical part, upon the fifth period, page 97. And that especially they are condemned as being contradictory to, and violatory of prior oaths, of continuing indispensible obligation; being designed, pressed, and imposed, on purpose to delete the same out of the minds and memories of the present generation; I mean the national and solemn league and covenants, and other former nationally binding public engagements. Which, because they are not only broken and burnt, but declared criminal to be owned, and because the owning of their obligation is ordinarily inserted in the indictments of our martyrs, I must touch upon them more particularly. It was cleared above, Head I. arg. 11. from the form, the object, and from the ends of the covenant, which are all moral, and of indispensible obligation, that it is of perpetual and unalterably binding force, obliging the present and all future generations, as well as that which did first come under the bond of it. And to confirm this, I shall add more particularly these many considertions. 1. The national engagements are national promises, plighting and pledging the nation"s public faith, for the preservation and propagation of religion and liberty, to succeeding posterity; which if succeeding generations may reverse, then the faith of men, and the faith of nations, can be of no force above a century of years; nay nor after the decease of them that personally made the promise: and so every new ruler, every new parliament, yea every person coming up to succeed the father in any capacity, might be free not to stand to it, which were very absurd. Certainly that promise of the jewish n.o.bles and rulers, not to exact usury of their brethren, but to restore, and not require it of them, did not only oblige themselves but would bring their posterity under the curse, if they should exact the same debt there remitted, Neh. v. 12, 13. And does not a national promise of preserving the reformation, bind as much to the curse of the breach of it? 2. They are national vows, avowing and avouching, and devoting themselves and their posterity to be the Lord"s people, and to keep his statutes, and promote his interests, which do bind the posterity. Jacob"s vow at Bethel, that the Lord should be his G.o.d, Gen.

xxviii. 21. did oblige all that his posterity, virtually comprehended in him; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us, saith the prophet many hundred years after, Hos. xii. 4. The Israelites vow to destroy the Canaanites, did oblige all their posterity, Numb. xxi. 2.

Not only by virtue of the Lord"s command, but by virtue of their vow; as we are obliged to preserve the reformation, not only by virtue of the Lord"s command, but by virtue of our covenants. Vows are bonds to the soul, which must stand, Numb. xx. 2, 4. And whereas it is said, that as a woman"s father or husband might disannul her vow, and so the magistrate might abrogate the covenant: besides the impertinency of this comparison, as might be easy to demonstrate, it may be, by giving and not granting that he might do so; yet if the father and husband shall hold their peace, then all her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand, ver. iv. 7. but so it was, that the supreme magistrate did give his consent to the national covenant, and the successor did swear the solemn league and covenant, and received the crown on the terms thereof, to preserve and promote religion and liberty; and therefore his vows must stand, they cannot be made void afterwards; for, it is a snare to devour that which is holy, and after vows to make enquiry, Prov. xx. 25. So we find the Rechabites were obliged to observe the vow of their forefathers Jonadab, Jer. x.x.xv. 6.

14. And if the father"s vow obliges the children, shall not the nation"s vow oblige the posterity? 3. They are national oaths which do oblige posterity: Esau"s oath to Jacob, resigning his birth-right, did oblige his posterity never to recover it, Gen. xxv. 33. Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel to carry up his bones into Canaan, Gen. 1. xxv.

which the posterity, going forth of Egypt in after ages, found themselves straitly sworn to observe, Exod. xii. 19. and accordingly buried them in Shechem, Josh. xxiv. 32. The spies swore to preserve Rahab alive and her house, Josh. ii. 12, &c. which was without the consent of the magistrate, and yet Joshua found himself obliged to observe it, Josh. vi. 22. Moses swore unto Caleb to ensure him an inheritance, Josh. xiv. 9. and upon this ground he demands it as his right, ver. 12. which he could not do, if successors might reverse their predecessors lawful oaths.

The Lord will in a special manner, resent and revenge the posterities breach of the oath of their father"s covenant, Ezek. xvi. 59. "Thus saith the Lord G.o.d, I will even deal with thee, as thou hast done, which hast despised the oath, in breaking the covenant," which was the covenant of their fathers. 4. They are national covenants, wherein king, parliament, and people do covenant with each other, for the performance of the respective duties of their several stations, either as to the work of reformation, or as to the preservation of each others mutual rights and privileges: so that they are national covenants made by men with men; and these we find do oblige the posterity. Israel"s covenant with the Gibeonites did oblige the posterity, Josh. ix. 15, 19. and for the breach of it many ages after, the posterity was plagued, 2 Sam. xxi.

1. Zedekiah was bound by his predecessor"s covenant, though it was such as made the kingdom base, yet in keeping it, it was only to stand.

"Shall he break the covenant, and be delivered? Thus saith the Lord, as I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head," Ezek. xvii.

12, 14, 15, 19. The apostle says even of human covenants, "Though it be but a man"s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereunto," Gal. iii. 15. that is, cannot do so lawfully much less can one man disannul a nation"s covenant. 5. They are national attestations of G.o.d as a witness, for the perpetuity, as well as fidelity of these sacred engagements. All such covenants, wherein the holy name of G.o.d is invocated as witness, are owned of G.o.d as his (hence the covenant betwixt David and Jonathan, is called the covenant of the Lord, 1 Sam. xx. 8.) and Zedekiah"s fault was the breach of the Lord"s covenant, Ezek. xvii. forecited. So likewise that covenant mentioned Jer. x.x.xiv. 8, 9, 10. wherein the princes and people did swear to let their Hebrew servants go free, is called G.o.d"s covenant, verse 18. and upon this account sorer judgments are threatened, verse 19, 20. "And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me----into the hands of their enemies." Certainly this did oblige the posterity, at least not to recal these servants, and, it was always morally obliging. So our national covenant, sworn with hands lifted up to the most high G.o.d, being materially also binding, cannot be abrogated by the posterity except the Lord renounce his interest in them; as long as the witness liveth then, who claims them as his, they cannot be made void; especially considering. 6. They are national covenants made with G.o.d, as the other party contracting, in the matters of G.o.d, which none can dispense with, or grant remissions in; and therefore they must perpetually bind, until he loose them. And if even the posterity break them, the Lord will make them that hate them to reign over them, and he will bring a sword upon them to avenge the quarrel of his covenant, Levit. xxvi. 15, 17, 25. Such were all the national covenants of the Lord"s people, renewed by Joshua, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, for the breaches of which the Lord plagued the posterity. It was for breach of their fathers covenant with G.o.d, that the ten tribes were carried away captive, 2 Kings xvii. 15, &c. We have already experienced the threatned judgments for covenant breaking, and may look for more. 7. They are for their matter national covenants, about things moral objectively, obliging to join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten, Jer. l. 5. I might easily demonstrate all the articles of the covenant to be morally binding, but they are demonstrated sufficiently above, Head 1. Arg. 11.

therefore they are perpetually binding. 8. They are for their ends national covenants, inviolably obliging. Which cannot be made void, though they should be broken, because the ends of them are always to be pursued, as is proved above, Head 1. therefore they are perpetual. 9.

They are for their formality national covenants, most solemnly sworn, and subscribed by all ranks, with uplifted hands, with bended knees, with solemn invocating the name of G.o.d, with solemn preaching, prayer and praise, rendering themselves and the posterity obnoxious to the curse, if they should break it. Now the solemnities of the oath do aggravate the heinousness of the breach of it, as is clear from Jer.

x.x.xiv. 19. Ezek. xvii. 18. quoted above: the reason is, because of their greater deliberation in the action, and because of the greater scandal accompanying the violation thereof. Hence as they are national oaths and covenants so solemnized, they are national adjurations, under the pain of a national curse, not to break them nationally, which do make the posterity obnoxious to it; as Joshua adjured Israel, saying, "Cursed be the man that raiseth up, and buildeth this city Jericho," Josh. vi. 26.

which was fulfilled many generations after, in the days of Ahab, upon Hiel the Bethelite, 1 Kings xvi. last verse. So the curse of introducing abjured prelacy and popery, if it be let in, will be impendent on the nation. All national covenants have a curse annexed, in case of a breach, whenever it shall be: so in Nehemiah"s covenant, "They clave to their brethren, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in G.o.d"s law, which was given by Moses the servant of G.o.d, and to observe and to do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his judgments and statutes;" particularly not to enter into affinity with their malignant enemies, Neh. x. 29, 30. which certainly did oblige the posterity, because the thing was moral; so in our covenants we are bound to the same things, and nothing but these: and therefore the posterity is liable to the curse of perjury, for the breach thereof. 10. They are for their legality national laws, being solemnly ratified by the parliament and by the king, and made the foundation of their compact with him at his inauguration, whereby they became the fundamental laws of the government, and among the very laws and rules of governing, which, though they be rescinded by a wicked law, yet make the rescinders chargeable not only of perjury, in breaking a covenant, but of treason and tyranny, in breaking and altering the const.i.tution of the government, and render them liable to the curse thereof: for they cannot rescind that, nor escape its vengeance: whereof we have a speaking pledge already, in that the rescinder of these covenants was so terribly rescinded, and cut off by the hands of unnatural violence; G.o.d thereby fulfilling that threatned judgment of covenant breakers, that he hath broken his covenant shall be brought to destruction, and b.l.o.o.d.y and deceitful men shall not live out half their days; Psal. lv. 20. last verse. So Charles II. got not leave to live out half the days that he projected to himself. 11. They are national engagements of an hereditary nature, like that of Israel, Deut. xxix. 14, 15. which did oblige not only the present, but the absent, "not only them that stood there that day before the Lord their G.o.d, but them that were not there that day."

Grotius de jur. bel. lib. 2. cap. 6. gives these marks of hereditary covenants, (1.) When the subject is of a permanent nature, and as long as the same body remains: therefore as long as Scotland is Scotland, whose people in their personal capacity, whose parliaments in their parliamentary capacity, whose king in his princely capacity, did all solemnly and sacredly engage in the covenant, it must be real and perpetually obliging. (2.) When there is such a clause in the covenant, as that it should be perpetual, there are many clauses in the solemn league to this purpose. In Art. 1. are these words, "That we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." In the 5th Art. "We shall each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that the kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all posterity." (3.) When it is such as is made for the good of the kingdom, the covenant expresses its end, for the perpetual good of the kingdom, "having before our eyes the glory of G.o.d, the advancement of the kingdom of----Christ, the honour and happiness of the king and his posterity, and the true public liberty, safety, and peace of the kingdoms; wherein every one"s private condition is included." And again it is added, "for preservation of ourselves and our religion from utter ruin and destruction." All this is a public national good. (4.) The matter is moral, about materially binding duties, and therefore it must be hereditary, and of perpetual obligation. 12. Lastly, They are national obligations, taking on public duties, by way of virtual representation of the posterity. And they that think it irrational, that the father should represent and involve the family, must resolve us how the religious and civil covenants of Israel and Judah, made in Moses", Joshua"s, David"s, Asa"s, Joash"s, Hezekiah"s, Josiah"s and Nehemiah"s days, did comprehend and bind as well the absent as the present, and their posterity, yet unborn; as also, how the laws and contracts continually pa.s.sed by some do take in others, not personally consenting; yea, how comes it to pa.s.s, that every succeeding generation is bound to the laws, and must be obedient to the kings, that they did not make themselves, no reason can be given, but because they are virtually represented by, and included in their fathers. Now, if these arguments prove our national covenants to be perpetually binding, and cannot be dispensed with, then must these posterior oaths that are made in a diametrical opposition to the covenants, and are condemned by the covenants, be false and unlawful oaths; but the first is proved: therefore these oaths so opposite to, and condemned by the covenants, are false and unlawful. That they are opposite to the covenant, will appear in the induction of all of them. And that, whatever they be imposed by this party, they are condemned by the covenants, wherein we are obliged to make no such transactions with them, will appear if we consider these and the like expressions, "That we shall neither directly, nor indirectly, suffer ourselves to be divided by whatsoever suggestion, allurement, or terror, from this blessed conjunction, nor shall cast in any let or impediment that may stop or hinder any such resolution, as shall be found to conduce for so good ends." Which are the words of the national covenant, clearly condemning oaths and bonds given to malignants, which are divisive of them that adhere to, and unitive with them that oppose the covenant, and impeditive of resolutions to prosecute the ends thereof. So, in the solemn league and covenant, Art. 4. "We are obliged to oppose all such as make any faction or parties amongst the people contrary to this league and covenant; but by these oaths and bonds, such factions are made," &c. And by Art. 6.

"We are obliged to a.s.sist and defend all those that enter into this covenant (contradicted by all the latter oaths and bonds) and not to suffer ourselves directly, or indirectly, by whatsoever combination,----to be divided----from this blessed union,----whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency," &c. Which we do, when we divide ourselves from these that refuse these oaths, and make defection unto the party that impose them. And in the solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, "We are sworn, sect. 6. to be so far from conniving at, complying with, or countenancing of malignancy, injustice, &c. that we shall not only avoid and discountenance these things, &c.

but take an effectual course to punish and suppress these evils." All which we counteract and contradict, when we take any of these oaths or bonds.

In the second place, by a particular induction of the several kinds of these oaths and bonds, the iniquity of each of them will appear; and the complex iniquity of the smoothest of them, the oath of abjuration compared with every one of them, will be manifest. And consequently the honesty and innocency of sufferers for refusing them will be discovered.

1. The first in order, which was a copy to all the rest, was the declaration, ordained to be subscribed by all in public charge, office, or trust, within the kingdom: "Wherein they do affirm and declare, they judge it unlawful to subjects, upon pretence of reformation, or any other pretence whatsoever, to enter into leagues and covenants, or take up arms against the king,----and that all these gatherings,----pet.i.tions, protestations----that were used----for carrying on of the late troubles, were unlawful and seditious; and particularly that these oaths,----the national covenant,----and the solemn league and covenant, were and are in themselves unlawful oaths." Here is a confederacy required against the Lord, at which the heavens might stand astonished; an unparalelled breach of the third command.

Which could no more be taken in truth and righteousness, than an oath renouncing the bible; but it hath this advantage of the rest; that it is somewhat plain, and the iniquity legible on its front. 1. That it is a renouncing of solemn and sacred covenants, perpetually binding to moral and indispensible duties, the wickedness whereof is evident from what is said above. 2. It makes perjury of the deepest dye, the absolute necessary qualification of all in public office, who cannot be presumed capable of administrating justice, when they have avowed themselves perjured and perfidious, and not to be admitted among heathens, let be Christians, nor trusted in a matter of ten shillings money, according to the laws of Scotland. 3. It renounces the whole work of reformation, and the way of carrying it on, as a pretence and trouble unlawful and seditious, which if it be a trouble, then the peace they have taken in renouncing it, must be such a peace as is the plague of G.o.d upon the heart, filling it with senselesness and stupidity in his last judgment, because of the palpable breach of covenant; or such a peace, as is very confident with the curse and vengeance of G.o.d, pursuing the quarrel of a broken covenant. 4. It condemns the taking up arms against the king, which shall be proven to be duty. Head 5. Besides, that hereby the most innocent means of seeking the redress of grievances, that religion, risings, law, and practice of all nations allows, is condemned. Yet, in effect, for as monstrous as this oath is, the complex of its iniquity is touched in the oath of abjuration; in which many of these methods of combinations, risings and declarations of war against the king, and protestations against his tyranny, which were used in the late troubles for carrying on the reformation, are abjured; in that a declaration is renounced, in so far as it declares war against the king, and a.s.serts it lawful to kill them that serve him: which yet, in many cases in the covenanted reformation here renounced, were acknowledged and practised as lawful, besides that it hath many other breaches of covenant in it, as will be shewed.

II. The next net they contrived to catch consciences, was the oath of allegiance and supremacy: "Wherein they that took it for testification of their faithful obedience to their most gracious and redoubted sovereign, Charles king of Great Britain,----do affirm, testify, and declare,----That they acknowledge their said sovereign, only supreme governor of this kingdom, over all persons and in all causes; and that no foreign prince----hath any jurisdiction, power, or superiority over the same; and therefore do utterly renounce all foreign power,----and shall, at their utmost power, defend, a.s.sist, and maintain his majesty"s jurisdiction foresaid,----and never decline his power----." The iniquity of this oath is very vast and various, 1. It is a covenant of allegiance with a king, turned tyrant and enemy to religion, subverter of the reformation, and overturner of our laws and liberties: and therefore demonstrate to be sinful both from the first general argument against oaths, and from head 2d. 2. It cannot be taken in truth, righteousness, or judgment: because the words are general and very comprehensive, and ambiguous, capable of diverse senses; when he is affirmed to be supreme over all persons, and in all causes, and to be a.s.sisted, and maintained, in that jurisdiction. Who can be sure in swearing such an oath, but that he may thereby wrong others, wrong parliaments in their privileges, wrong the church in her liberties, and which is worse, wrong the Lord Jesus Christ, who is supreme alone in some causes? Can an oath be taken in truth and righteousness, to a.s.sist him in all encroachments, upon causes that are not subordinate to him? And in invading all those privileges of subjects, which are natural, civil, moral, and religious?

For if he be supreme in all causes, then all these depend upon him, and be subordinate to him. And can it be taken in judgment, and with a clear mind, when it may be debated and doubted (as it may by some) whether the obligation of it is to be considered, as circ.u.mstantiate and specificate to the present object of it, supposing him a tyrant? Or in a more abstract notion, as it might be rendered in the sense of its first authors as it was taken in king James the VI"s days, and as they plead for taking the English oath of allegiance, as it was excepted by the Puritans in queen Elizabeth"s days? Whether it obliges to a king in idea, and in a more general consideration, as one who is said never to die? Or with reference to such an one as we have, a mortal man, and an immortal enemy to all those precious interests, for preservation of which he only received his kingship? Whether it must be taken in that of the imposers, practically explained by their administrations? Or in any other sense, alledged more legal? These would be clear, before it can be taken with the due qualifications of an oath. 3. As for the civil part of it, or ecclesiastical, no other examination needeth to be enquired after, than what they give forth on their acts on record: the act of supremacy (to be seen in the historical representation of the sixth and last period,) senses the ecclesiastical part of it: and the act for acknowledgment of his Majesty"s prerogative does sufficiently sense, explain and expound the civil part; declaring, "That it is inherent in the crown, and an undoubted part of his royal prerogative,----to have the sole choice and appointment of all officers of state,----the power of calling, holding, and dissolving parliaments and all conventions and meetings of estates,----the power of armies, making of peace and war, treaties and leagues with foreign princes or states, or at home by the subjects among themselves:----and that it is high treason in the subjects,----upon whatsoever ground to rise----in arms,----or make any treaties or leagues----among themselves: without his majesty"s authority first interponed thereto; that it is unlawful to the subjects, of whatsoever quality or function to convocate----themselves, for holding of councils to treat, consult, or determine in any matters civil or ecclesiastic, (except in the ordinary judgments) or make leagues or bonds upon whatsoever colour or pretence, without his majesty"s special consent,----that the league and covenant, and all treaties following thereupon, and acts or deeds that do or may relate thereunto, are not obligatory,----and that none----should presume, upon any pretext of any authority whatsoever, to require the renewing or swearing of the said league and covenant," &c. Whereby it appears, that all this s.c.r.e.w.i.n.g up the prerogative to such a pitch is by the oath of allegiance to defend all this jurisdiction justified: and so, these palpable encroachments on the privileges of the Scots parliaments, that, by the fundamental const.i.tutions of the government always had a share in making laws, and peace and war: these robberies of our natural privileges of defending ourselves by arms, in case of the king"s tyranny and oppression, and of convocating for consultations about the best means thereof; and these invasions upon our ecclesiastical privileges, in keeping general a.s.semblies for the affairs of religion for an affair newly happening, always strenuously contended for as a part of the testimony; yea, all these rescindings, repealings, and condemnings of the way and manner, methods and measures, of promoting the covenanted reformation, are by this oath explained, and by this act acknowledged to be parts of that supremacy and jurisdiction to be defended and maintained: as likewise, by many wicked acts since promulgated, which promote the supremacy to a vast degree of absoluteness, which all do interpret what that supremacy is which is sworn to be maintained, to wit, pure tyranny established by law. See the many grievous consequences of this laid out at large, in Apol. Relat. Sect. 10. 4. Here is absolute allegiance sworn to an absolute power, paramount to all law, engaging to faithful obedience to their sovereign, as supreme over all persons, and in all causes----and to defend, a.s.sist, and maintain his said jurisdiction, and never to decline his power: there is no restriction here on obedience, nor limitation on the power, nor definition of the causes, nor circ.u.mscription of the cases, in which that a.s.sistance, &c. is to be given, whether they be lawful or not. Now, absolute allegiance to an absolute power cannot be sworn by any man of conscience, nor owned by any man of reason, as is proven, Head 2. Arg. 6. It cannot be lawful in any sense, to swear such an oath to any mortal, nay, not to a David nor Hezekiah: because to swear unrestricted and unlimited allegiance to any man, were a manifest manc.i.p.ating of mankind, not only to an a.s.s-like subjection, but to a servile obligation to maintain and uphold the persons and government of mutual men, be what they will, turn to what they will; it is known the best of men may degenerate: and by this no remedy is left to redress ourselves, but our heads, hearts, and hands all tied up under an engagement to defend, a.s.sist, and maintain whosoever doth hold the government, manage it as he pleases. This reason will also conclude against the English oath of allegiance, though it be a great deal more smoothly worded, and seems only to require a rejection of the Pope, and legal subjection to the king; yet, that comprehensive clause makes it border upon absoluteness, I will bear faith and true allegiance to his majesty"s heirs and successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever. There are no conditions here at all, limiting the allegiance, or qualifying the object; but an arbitrary imposition of true allegiance and defence, in all cases, against all attempts, (even that of repressing their tyranny not excepted), not only of their persons, but of their dignities, if this be not an illimited allegiance to an absolute power, I know not what is. 5. Here is an acknowledgment of the ecclesiastical supremacy resident in the king: which is the most blasphemous usurpation on the prerogatives of Christ, and privileges of his church that ever the greatest mons

Prev List Next