I Must confesse to you, that I doe appre­hend that there is a Legislative Power in the Parliament, but I take it to be in sensu conjuncto, not in sensu diviso, in a sense when the KING is joyned to both Houses of Parliament, not when he is divided from them either in his Will or Person: For neither House by it self, or both Houses together have Power to make a Law to binde the Subject without the Roy­all assent; now the Legislative Power is nothing else but a Po­wer to repeal old Lawes, or to make new ones that shall binde the Subject: neither can the KING by him­self repeal any established, or make any Law binding to the subject without the preparation or assent of both Hou­ses, not joyning with any one House, make a Law or Or­dinance to binde the other, nor repeal any Law whatsoever; and I am very confident, you cannot shew me an authority in our Laws to the contaary; But you will peradventure say, That the KING will fully absent himself from both his Houses of Parliament, and that thereupon his Power is inherent in, and devolved to the Parliament. If you should make this objecti­on, besides what you will finde hereafter expressed as touching this question, the practice of all times shew the contrary: for as on the one part, if he be personally present with his Parl. yet he may be wilfully absent, or absent in his will, as if he answer to [Page 3] any bill promoted to him, Le Roy s [...]avisera, or the King will advise upon it, it stands at present for a negation of the bill, and thereby it is made incapable that Session to be an Act: so on the contrary part, if the King be absent from both Houses of Parliament in person, hee may be present in his will; that is, if his person were at York, and both Houses sitting at Westminster, and they should send him Bills to signe which he should accept of, and indorse this upon them ( Le Roy le Veut) or the King wills, this is an affirmation of those bills, and makes them Acts of Parliament; which not only proves that one or both Houses by them­selves have not legislative power without the King; (for as to the making of Lawes they have but a preparatory power to frame and present bills for the Royall signature and approbation) but also that if the King bee absent in person from them either willingly or by occasion of necessity, his legislative power is not representatively lodged in, or devolved unto one or both Houses of Parliament. I will agree with that great lover of Parliaments, and learned Father of the Law, Sir Edward Cooke, in the fourth part of his Institutes p. 6. ‘That a Parliament cannot begin or be held but either in the Kings person or by representation: By re­presentation two wayes, either by a Guardian of England by Letters­patents under the Great Seale, when the King is in remotis out of the Realme, or by commission under the Great Seale to certaine Lords of Parliament representing the Kings person, he being with­in the Realme, by reason of some infirmity;’ so that we hereby con­clude that the King is not represented in Parliament of common course, but only by speciall Commission, in one of these two causes: in the first of which cases, Edward Duke of Cornewall, and Earle of Chester held a Parliament in 24. E. 3. for King Edw. the third: And John Duke of Bed­ford brother and Lieutenant to the King and Guardian of England held a Parliament as Guardian of England in the fifth year of King H. the fifth; and in the second case in 3. E. 4. a Parliament was begunne in the presence of the King, and prorogued untill a further day; And when William Arch-bishop of York the Kings Commissary by Letters-patents held the same Parliament and adjourned the same, the cause of the said prorogation being because the King was inforced to goe into Glocester­shire to represse a Rebellion there; so in 28. Eli. Queen Elizabeth by her Commission did by her Letters-patents authorise John Whit gift Arch-bishop of Canterbury, William Baron of Burleigh Lord Treasurer, and Henry Earle of Darby, to begin, hold, and prorogue a Parliament, [Page 4] and this Commission is entred in the Journall booke of the Lords house, over which is written, Domina Regina representatur per comissionarios viz. That our Lady the Queene is represented by her Commissioners: ‘which precedents in both cases plainely prove that the King is not of course representatively in Parliament, nor his power lodged there, but by his speciall Commissions, or Letters Patents,’ which may suffice as to this point; but for those parts of your motives, that the power of both Houses is above the Kings, you shall find answered unto hereafter.

And whereas you write that the Scots have delivered up the King, and that he is a Prisoner, and his Person at their disposition, that the Ci­ty and Parliament are united, that the whole strength of the Kingdome is in their hands, that Bishops will be rooted out, their Lands sold, and Presbyterian government setled; which I conceive you alledge as argu­ments to perswade me to compound, and take the Oathes you mention; these are rather arguments of force and fraude, by all zealous lovers of honour, Justice and Piety to be resisted and withstood, then of truth and reason tobe submittd unto, and looke more like arguments of Su­tors Hill, then Westminster Hall; but if you lay them before me, as per­swasions of feare and terrour, I answer you in the words of King Da­vid, that you may see how vaine these conceits are, Psal. 2. The Princes of the earth stand up, and take councell against the Lord, and against his Anoynted, saying, Let us breake their bonds asunder, and cast away their cords from us, he that dwelleth in Heaven shall laugh them to scorne, the Lord shall have them in derision: he shall bruise them with a Rod of Iron, and breake them in peeces like a Potters Vessell. Be wise now therefore O yee Princes, be learned O yee that are Judges of the Earth. What though many Ox [...]n are come about the King, and fat Bulls of Rasan have closed him in on every side, that gape upon him with their mouthes as if they were ram­ping and roaring Lions? was not this good King Davids case, Psal. 22. 12. was not he hunted after by Saul to destroy his life, as a man hunteth after a Partridge in the Mountaines? 1 Sam. 26. 20. did not his enemies lie waiting in his way on every side, turning their eyes downe to the ground, Like as a Lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a Lions Whelpe lucking in secret places, Psal. 17. 11. 12. They spake against him with false tongues, & compassed him about with words of hatred, & fought against him without a cause, Psal. 109. 3. And Davids enemies kept him Prisoner too as out King is, for they compassed him about, Psal. 140. 9. Nay he com­plaines more heavily; they that hate me without a cause are more then [Page 5] the haires of mine head, they that are mine enemies, and would destroy me guiltlesse are mighty, Psal. 69. 4. Yet what of all this? Are not there many promises held forth in the holy Scriptures to us, that may assure a man of the smallest faith, that the King shall be reestablished in his Throne, and his enemies confounded, for David assures us there is verily a reward for the righteous, Doubtlesse there is a God in Heaven that jud­geth in the earth, Psal. 58. 11. and Psal. 9. The Lord is knowne by execu­ting judgement, the wicked shall be shared in the works of their owne hands, for the poore shall not be alwaies forgotten, the hope of the afflicted shall not perish for ever: and to prove this he affirmes by way of evidence, Psa. 27. 2. When the wicked even mine enemies, and my foes came upon me to eate up my flesh, they stumbled and fell, and Psal. 30. He shewes his delive­rance by his thanksgiving in these words, I will magnifie thee O Lord, for thou hast set me up, and not made my foes to triumph over me, thou hast turned my heavinesse into joy, thou hast put off my sackcloth, and gi [...]ded me with gladnesse. How then can I dispaire of our Kings deliverance and victory? I hope I may without offence say, that I beleeve our King is a parallell to David in his vertues, and the justice of his Cause, and therefore shall with David Psal. 21. conclude this point, The King shall rejoyce in thy strength O Lord, exceeding glad shall he be of thy salvation, thou shalt give him his hearts desire, and wilt not deny him the request of his lips, and why? Because the King putteth his trust in the Lord, and in the mercy of the most highest he shall not miscarry: And for the latter part of your Argument, which is, that either the King will signe the Propositions, and so mine estate will be confiscated, or if he doe not, the Parliament will doe it by their Ordinances without him: I answer, that I feare not his Majesties consent to give away the estates of his Loyall Subjects, but if he be a Prisoner as you signifie unto me by your letters that he is, I feare not much that his assent to the Propositions can take a­way mine estate; neither doe I hold it a peece of wisdome to presse his consent per dures to such Propositions, for you that are learned in the Lawes know that such consent is not any way binding at all amongst common persons, a fortiori in the Kings cause. And for their disposing of mine estate by Ordinance without the Kings consent, I must deale plainely with you, it terrifieth me not at all, for I am cleerely of opinion ‘that no Ordinance without the Kings consent is binding to the people, or can alter any property that I have in mine estate, by the Fundamen­tall Lawes of the Land: And if the King should consent to such an Or­dinance [Page 6] it were onely binding till the first Sessions of the next Parlia­ment, and then to dye of it selfe, if not againe revived;’ which if I thought you doubted of, I would take the paines to cleare it by ci­ting you authorities sufficient in the point, whereupon I doubt not but you wil infer that there can be no good assurance or sale made of ‘the Bishops lands by Ordinance without the Kings Royall and personall assent, nor that both or either House of Parliament can dispose of his Royall person by any Law of the Land (and I hope God will never permit them to dispose of him) otherwise then to re-establish him in his Throne againe, and invest him with all his Royall powers and interests, which by the knowne Lawes of the Land are due unto him, and to make him a glorious King accor­ding to their severall Declarations, Protestations, oaths of Supre­macie and Allegiance, and according to their solemne League and Covenant; all which Protestations, Oaths, and Covenants, every Member of both Houses, either by the Lawes, or by their owne Orders, hath or ought to take.’ Now as concerning the Cove­nant, if I understand it aright, the principall ends of it are the set­ling of Presbyterian government in the Church, the extirpation of Episcopacy, the right and priviledges of Parliament, the preser­vation of the Kings Majesties person and authority, which is quali­fied with a clause of equivocation; viz. in the maintenance of the true Religion and liberties of the Kingdome, to bring Incendiaries and malignants, or evill instruments to condigne punishment; and lastly, to assist and defend all those that joyn in that League and Co­venant, to the ends and purposes aforesaid. These being the ends of the Covenant, it is expedient that I should consider whether it be lawfull to take any Covenant tending to these ends: for I will not dispute the legality or illegality of taking of Covenants in ge­nerall, but whether without my King and his confirmation, I may make any Covenant at all with any sort of people in this Land, es­pecially to abrogate any knowne and established Law of the Land: Now to pull downe that government of Episcopacy which is esta­blished by divers acts of Parliament in this Kingdome, to set up Presbyterian by force of Armes, which is inconsistent with the Laws and Statutes of this Realme, and without the Kings consent (who by his office of divine appointment, is the nursing father of the Church, as Isaiah 49. 22. and by the Statutes of this Land acknow­ledged [Page 7] to be supreame Moderator and governour of the Church and Kingdome, as hereafter is more at large declared.) I very much doubt and scruple, whether I may doe it, and the rather for this cause for feare lest joyning in an unlawfull Covenant, hap­ly I be found to fight against God, as it was said in the case of the Apostles, Act. 5. 30. for if I enter into this Covenant to eradicate Episcopacy which hath been approved in the Church for the first 1500 yeares after Christs ascention by all men that have professed the name of Christ, and was doubtlesse of Apostolicall institution (if we may give credit unto the ancient Fathers, and Chronologies of the Primitive times) and make a League to set up Presbyterian government, which was never so much as heard of in the Church under that notion (for ought I can read) till the revolt of the Towne of Genevah from their obedience unto the Duke of Savoy in the year of our Lord 1535. at which time they tooke occasion to change their old Religion, and to expell their Bishops for countenance to their rebellion, and called in Calvin a learned man of France bred up in the Civill Laws, to be their Moderator in Divinity, whom they after through their inconstancie banished, and would have had a Bishop of the reformed Religion if they could have procured consecration, for want whereof they recalled him againe upon se­cond thoughts to perfect their new modell of Church-government, which he there established as it happened in the yeare of our Lord 1541. as partly by his owne Epistles, and more plainly by Mr. Hookers workes, and by Franciscus Boninardus his writings to a Se­bastian Minister, and elsewhere appeares; which kinde of Govern­ment, as many learned men are of opinion, is neither of Apostolicall institution, nor example, nor agreeable either to the primitive veri­ty or regiment in the Church, nor the true Christian liberty which the Saints of God doe challenge; though I will not deny that there were both Elders and Presbyters in the Church of Christ in the Apo­stles times, yet I take them rather to be a subordinate, then a distinct degree from the Regiment of Episcopacy. And therefore for mee that am not better satisfied in the discipline of Presbytery, and more perswaded of the divine right of Episcopacy, to take this Co­venant, were to act a sin of presumption against the perswasion of my conscience, wherein I may be said to fight against God. As for the preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament, God forbid, that I should not both sweare and covenant to maintaine [Page 8] them, so long as the Houses move within their Spheare, and steere their course by the knowne Chanels of the Lawes of England, and launch not out into the maine of Arbitrary Government without scale or compasse, so long I hold my selfe obliged with my life and fortune to mainetain them. But whether all those things are priviledges of Par­liament which are now pretended to be so, or whether the Houses move in their proper Orbe, without irregularity or deviation, it be­ing a matter of state, which I being abroad cannot take so perfect no­tice of, I leave it to you, and other learned men who are in England to judge of, it being more proper for you, and those that are upon the place to give a determination of it, then my selfe.

And as touching the preservation of the Kings Majesties person, I hold it my duty to lay downe my life and fortune for it, either in Active or Passive Obedience, without any reservation or such restriction as is aforesaid whatsoever. And I could wish for the worlds better satis­faction, that the Houses would please to explaine themselves, what the Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome are they mean by these words (in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and Liberties of the Kingdome) And as touching Incendiaries, Malignants, and evill in­struments of all sorts, I could wish they might be tryed by indifferent Judges lawfully constituted, and by the knowne established, Lawes of the Land, and by those Lawes to be brought to condigne punishment: But to enter into a Covenant or solemne League to defend the persons of those that shall take it in any other sence, then what I have before expressed; I doubt I may not lawfully doe it. Another scruple I make, whether this Covenant is not already broken by those that have taken it, in the very Act of restraining the Kings Person, and by taking away of his Authority from him, and in other points, I will not now insist u­pon; if it so fall out in truth, that it be already broken, I ought not then to joyne in League and Covenant with those that lifting up their hands to the high God, have sworne to maintaine and keepe the same, and notwithstanding this their Oath, have falsified their faith to him: with whom if I should joyne my selfe, I should say with the rebel­lious Jewes, Hosea 10. 3. Wee have no King, because wee feared not the Lord, and what should a King doe to us? And I should not only doe the same which they have done, but should also favour them that do them, making my selfe worthy of eternall death, with those Covenant brea­kers which Saint Paul makes mention of, Rom. 1. 30. 31. And thus much concerning [Page 9] the Covenant. But truely Sir though I take not upon me to dispute the lawfulnesse of the power of both Houses to impose Oathes or Covenants upon the Kings people; yet if I were in England, and this Covenant, or the negative Oath, or any other Oath or Covenant were offered to me by way of imposition or constraint, I doe confesse I should make these two objections against it: the one is that which a wise and great Peere of this Realme now sitting in this present Parliament objected against that Oath which was offered to be imposed upon all the Members of the great Counsell at Yorke, to wit, that I may lawfully refuse to take or submit my se fe to any Oath that is not lawfully injoyned mee by Act of Parliament, that is ena­cted and made a Law, with full consent of the King, Lords, and Commons assembled in Parliament. And the other objection I should make is this, That if the King, Lords, and Commons, with full consent in Parliament, should enact a thing contrary to the Law and word of God, and enjoyne all the Subjects of the Realme to take an oath to observe it, I might lawfully, and would refuse to take that Oath, rather sub­mitting my selfe to the punishment inflicted for not taking that Oath, then committing so high a sinne of presumption against God and mine owne conscience, as to sweare to observe a Law which is against his Law, and his most holy Word and Commandement. For we ought ra­ther to obey God then man, Act. 4. 19. 5. 29. And I am fully of this ‘opinion that there ought not to be any other oath imposed upon the Subjects of this Realme then what is imposed and enjoyned by act of Parliament, and that only concerning lawfull and indifferent things.’ And when an oath is offered unto us, so conditioned, I am likewise of opinion that both my selfe, and all other his Majesties sub­jects are bound to take it and observe it.

Now as concerning the Oath in question, which is the Negative Oath, which runnes in these words ( viz.) I. A. B. doe sweare from my heart that I will not directly nor indirectly adhere unto, or wil­lingly assist the King in this warre, or in this cause against the Parlia­ment, nor any forces raised against the two Houses of Parliament in this cause or war. And I do likewise sweare that my comming and submitting my selfe under the power and protection of the Parliament is without any manner of designe whatsoever to the prejudice or pro­ceeding of this present Parliament, and without the direction, privity, and advice of the King, or any of his Councell or Officers, other then what I have now made knowne: So helpe me God and the Contents of this book.

[Page 10]I am much scrupled in my judgement and conscience whether it be not both against the Law and word of God, against the Law of Nature, against the setled, knowne, established, and unrepealed Laws of this Kingdome; against the Law of reason, and against all reason, conscience, honour, and pollicy, either to take it or re­quire it.

First, this Negative Oath seems to me to be opposite to the word Negative Oath against the Lawe of God of God in restraining me from the performance and execution of a du [...]y to my King, which by the Law and Word of God I am enjoy­ned to discharge towards him, By me Kings reigne, saith God, Prov. 8. 15. therefore I cannot doubt of the lawfulnesse of their calling, and that they are of divine right and institution, the blessed Spirit of God speaking in Solomon, Prov. 24. 2. Solomon exhorts his sonne, ‘that is, every childe of God in these words, My sonne feare God and the King, and meddle not with them that are given to change; or as some Translations have it, that are seditious:’ Here the Holy Ghost joynes God and the King under one feare, or under one pre­cept, as if hee should say, to feare the King, is to feare God; and un­lesse thou fearest the King, thou canst not feare God, this is no un­sound or improper inference; for it is the will of God that thou shouldest feare the King, wich will, if thou performe not, thou canst not be said to feare God. Now feare in this place is only taken for subjection and obedience, and this duty of thy obedience and sub­jection, is as properly belonging unto the King, as thy feare is to God, which our most blessed Saviour Jesus Christ expresly declareth, Matth. 22. 23. in these words, ‘Give unto Caesar those things that are Caesars, and to God those things that are Gods;’ and though the question were there only concerning Tribute, and asked of the Pharisees and Herodians which were not naturall subjects to Cesar, but onely brought under by conquest and force, yet our Saviour ex­horts the Jewes and Herodians to performe subjection to Caesar in paying the tribute due to him, as well as to perform their duties to­wards God: which saying of his, (though the wicked Jews thought to entrap him by the question) yet could they not reprove it before the people, because they were convinced of the truth of it by the light of nature, having not faith to perceive the divine right, that was couched in it, and therefore they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace, as it is recorded, Luke 20. 26. And though our blessed Saviour might have challenged an exemption from the pay­ment [Page 11] of tribute, as being free, yet because he would not offend Caesar, he caused Peter to pay tribute for them both, as we may read Math. 7. 26. 27. St. Peter writing unto the strangers that dwelt in Pontus, Gallatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who were at that time under the dominion of the Roman Empire only by reason of their aboad, and so owed but locall allegiance to Caesar, exhorts them that they should submit themselves unto all manner of ordi­nance of man, for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King as unto the superiour, or unto governours, as unto those that are sent of him, for the punishment of evill doers, and for the praise of them that do wel, for so is the will of God that by weldoing ye may put to silence the ignorance of the foolish men. 1 Pet. 2. 15. where we are to understand by the way, that according to the Geneva notes upon that place, by this word, ordinance, is meant the framing and orde­ring of the Civill government, which the Apostle calleth the or­dinance of men, not because men invented it, but because it is pro­per to men to exercise, upon which place of the Apostle, there are these things observable. ‘First, that wee ought to submit to the King as superiour. Secondly, that where a government is Mo­narchicall, as in England, governours are sent by him, and by him only: for if governours had been to have been sent by any other, the Apostle writing by the Spirit of God, if their calling had been lawfull, would not have omitted to have instructed those stran­gers to performe subjection and obedience to them. Thirdly, that it is the will of God that wee should submit our selves to the King as superiour. Fourthly, That in so doing wee doe well. And fifthly, That in doing this well, we shall put to silence the ignorance of the foolish men; that is to say, of such, who hold that subjection and obedience belongs not to Kings, or such that seeke to withdraw us from ours;’ wherefore as St. Paul saith, Rom. 13. 5. we must be subject, not because of wrath only, (or for feare of punishment) but also for conscience sake; for this cause wee ought to pay tribute to whom wee owe our tribute, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour is due; in which words St. Paul coupleth together the whole duty of subjection and obedience which we owe to our King, tribute, feare, and honour; where, in the first place, we are to consider that St. Paul wrote those precepts to men as free in Christ [Page 12] as our selves, and to Romans, men of as much learning, courage, and warlike imployments, as were any at that time, or since in the world, and men who not long before were brought from the sub­jection of a popular state, to the obedience of a sole and sovereigne Monarchy: neither must we forget that these percepts were writ­ten in the time of that heathen Emperour Nero, which then ruled o­ver the Romans, and the most bloody tyrannous and persecuting Tyrant and enemy to the Church of Christ that ever was before or since his time: And yet St. Paul tells those Christian Romans, they must be subject for conscience sake, and his doctrine was true, and not without warrant from Gods owne mouth; for let a King be ne­ver so wicked, yet he is Gods ordinance upon us, and being Gods Ordinance we are to obey him, by his especiall commandement; Ieroboam was a wicked Prince and an Idolater, and caused Israel to fall away from God, and to sacrifice to Idolls, yet we finde that God sent Ahijab the Prophet unto him with this message, 1 King. 14. 7. Goe tell Jeroboam, for as much as I have exalted thee from among the people, and made thee Prince over my people Israell; and God sent Jehu with the like message unto Baasha, as we read 1 of Kings 26. 2. And we read of Syrus the Assyrian heathen Empe­rour, Isaiah 44. 28. where God saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall performe all my pleasure, and the 45 1. Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to subdue Nations before him; and verse the 5. of the same Chapter, I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me, I guided thee, though thou hast not knowne me. God also calleth Nabuchaduezar that wicked, Idolatrons persecuting heathen King of Babylon, his servant no lesse then three times in holy writ, as we read Ier. 25. 9. 27. 16. and 43. 10. which severall places of Scri­pture doe clearly evidence to me, that be the Prince or King never so wicked or Idolatrous, be he never so unjust; nay be he Pagan or Infidell, God acknowledged them to be his owne ordinance upon his people; nay, and more, commands his people to yeeld obedience to them as his ordinance, upon paine not only of temporall destru­ction, but of everlasting condemnation, and this is proved unto us by that command of God given to his chosen people the Jewes, Jer. 27. 12. Bring your neck under the yoke of the King of Babylon, and serve him and live, why will you dye thou and thy people by the sword, by [Page 13] the famine, and by the pestilence, as the Lord hath spoken against the Nation that will not serve the King of Babylon, therefore hearken not to the words of the Prophets that speake unto you saying, Yee shall not serve the King of Babylon, for they prophesie a lye unto you, for I have not sent them, yet they prophesie a lye in my name that I might drive you out, and that yee might perish, ye and the Prophets that prophesie unto you. Nay, God by the mouth of the Apostle St. Paul Rom. 13. 1. commands us upon paine of damnation to obey his ordinance in these words, Let every soule be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation: who these high powers are, St. Peter tells us, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as supreame, or unto gover­nours, as unto those that are sent by him: The King then is the highest power under God in his Realme, and governours are sent but by him, and therefore only to be obeyed, because sent by him: thus we see, were our King an heathen, an Idolater, an unjust, or perjured person, yet he is Gods ordinance upon his people; God so acknow­ledges wicked Princes to be, nay commands obedience to them, lest we be temporally destroyed: Nay, more then that, lest we receive to our selves damnation: What then? shall I sweare not to serve, ho­nour, submit unto, and obey my most Gracious Sovereigne Lord King Charles, a Christian King, and anointed, crowned; nay my naturall King, as religious, just pious, vertuous, mercifull, and wise a King as ever reigned over this Realme of England, or at this time lives in the world, without disparagement to any Prince, or Poten­tate now living upon the face of the whole earth: Marry God for­bid, for feare I receive unto my selfe damnation: No, I will with St. Peter, 1 Pet. 2. 17. Feare God, honour the King; which words import a most holy ordinance, eternall, and indispensable, and by us for no ordinance of man whatsoever to be omitted, or by any Law to be discharged: thus much in generall touching the duty that e­very Subject owes to his King by the Laws of God.

But if it be objected, that these generall precepts inforce no­thing in this particular case of the Negative Oath.

I answer, they doe very pregnantly, for the words of the Ne­gative Oath are these, I. A. B. doe sweare from mine heart that I will not directly, nor indirectly adhere unto, or willingly assist the [Page 14] King in this War, or in this Cause against the Parliament: In which words there is an inhibition of that duty to my King, which by Gods Law and his holy Word I am enjoyned to performe to­wards him: and if I sweare this oath, I restraine my selfe thereby in part of that subjection and obedience which is due from mee to my Sovereigne; for it doth not appeare by the Scriptures afore mentio­ned, nor by any other that I know, that there is any case whatso­ever excepted, wherein I ought not to pay tribute, custome, feare, or honour to my King; But in this case I engage my selfe by mine oath not to adhere, or willingly assist the King in this Warre, or in this Cause against the Parliament; which is as much to say, as I shall not pay him that is due to him by the Law of God and injunction of the Scriptures: If it bee objected that the Scripture bindes mee not to assist the King, or adhere unto him in matter of War: I answer, it doth, though not in direct words, yet in full effect and substance: for within the precept of Peter 2. 17. Feare God, honour the King, And by the first Commandement of the second Table, honor thy father and thy mother is included all manner of aid and assistance due to a King both in warre and peace, which I prove thus: The Geneva notes, which I follow in the interpretation of Scriptures being most authenticall of any in these times of Reformation, commenting upon the 20 Ezek. 12. on these words, Honour thy father and thy mother, expresse that by the parents also is meant all that have authority over us, wherein the King is included: and upon the 5 Chapt. of Deut. 16. verse upon the same words, glosse thus; not for shew, but with true obedience, and with due reverence; and upon the 15. Chap. of Matth. and 4. verse, where our blessed Saviour reproves the Jewes for not obser­ving this Commandement by offering their Corban, which in their case was much like this Negative Oath in ours, saith thus unto them: Honour thy father and thy mother, and he that curseth father or mother, let him dye the death; but yee say, whosoever shall say to father or mother by the gift that is offered by me, thou maiest have profit, though he honour not his father or mother shall be free, thus have you made the Commandement of God of none effect by your traditions: O hypocrites, Esaiah well prophesied of you saying, This people draweth neare unto mee with their mouth, and honour me with their lips, but their heart is farre from me, but in vaine they worship me, teaching for doctrine mens precepts. [Page 15] The Geneva notes say, that by honour is meant all kinde of duty which children owe to their parents, and what that is, both Arias Mountanus and Vatablus upon the same place interpret, that, ‘ Ho­narare est omni in memento supportare vel sustentare, to honour is to support and helpe with all manner of aid or assistance whatso­ever;’ by which places of Scripture, and the approved interpre­tations thereupon, it is manifest, that both by the first Commande­ment of the second Table, and by the precepts of our blessed Savi­our, and his Apostles, we ought to aid and helpe the King with all manner of aid and assistance whatsoever, such as we ought to yeeld to our parents, if they were assaulted, or in distresse, unlesse as the hypocriticall Jewes did make the Commandement of God of none effect, by offering a gift to the Temple, which they called Corban, and by taking an oath that they were not bound by that gift to help, honor, or aid their father and mother, but that they might have pro­fit by that gift, so shall we make the Law of God, and precepts of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles of none effect, by this tradition of men. This Negative Oath, which would absolve us from our duty of subjection & obedience to our King, as if this oath were to his profit. If we should not aid him or assist him, where is our feare, where is our honour, where is our tribute, where is our subjection? shall we take upon us where the Scriptures enjoynes us duties in generall? to say, the Scriptures requires not this or that particular at our hands, where those particulars included are in the generall.

But here it may be objected, that the Kings warre against the Parliament is unlawfull, and the Scriptures binde me not to the per­formance of any unlawfull thing, therefore I may safely take this oath: To this I answer, I will not take upon me to determine the question of the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the Warre, but leave that to the judgement of God Almighty, who will one day determine on which side the justice of this War doth remaine: but this I know, that it is lawfull for the King being invaded, to defend himselfe, and that his subjects in such a ease are bound to assist him: And if I bee perswaded in my conscience, that the right of this war is on the Kings side, I am bound to assist him in it, whether the right be with him or not: And this also I know, that the head is over the mem­bers, and not the members over the head; and that I also, and all his other subjects ought to performe, if not active, yet passive obe­dience [Page 16] to him in all causes, at all times, and in all places whatsoever. Furthermore, the Prophet Jer. saith, Jerem, 4. 2. Thou shalt sweare in truth, in judgement, and in righteousnesse, ‘Every oath ought to have these three speciall quallities, it ought to be made in truth, in judgement, and in justice, whereunto is opposed falsehood, rash­nesse, and unlawfulnesse; so that if the Negative Oath have any defect in any of these three particulars, we are to lay it aside, and not to take it as being unlawfull: The nature of an oath is as a bond, for God himselfe declares, Numb. 30. 3. He that sweareth an oath, and by it bindeth his soule, with a bond shall not violate his word, but doe according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth,’ which is as much to say that he shall not take the name of God in vaine; so that hereby I am bound if I take this Oath to performe it according to the letter, and not to evade it by saying, I take it in mine owne sense with a mentall reservation, but I must doe it according to all that proceedeth out of my mouth, & if so, then do I absolutely swear against that duty that I am enjoy­ned to by the Scriptures, for I sweare not to adhere to, or assist the K. in this War or this Cause, directly or indirectly, so that I may nei­ther aid him in word or deed, nay not so much as pray for his health or successe, nor for the safety of his person, that under him we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlinesse and honesty; though the Apostle S. Paul exhorts us in 1 Tim. 2. 2. to pray for Kings to that purpose: Nay, by mine oath I am obliged, if I meane to keep it, to stand by, and see any souldier in the Parliaments Army to kill him, and may not assist him to rescue his life; wherefore if I doe observe this Oath, I take it not in truth, but to an unjust and unlawfull end, and therefore take it not in justice and righteousnesse. Secondly, if I understand not what use may be made of this oath, or what I shall be inforced to by it, I take it not in judgement but rashly and unad­visedly, and therein commit a grievous sinne. Now I know not, as this Oath is penned, what interpretation may be made of it, for if I take it, I sweare that I will not directly nor indirectly adhere unto, or willingly assist the King in this Warre or in this Cause against the Parliament, nor any forces raised against th [...]t wo Houses of Parlia­ment in this Cause or War. First, I know what will be interpreted an indirect adhering to the King, or assisting of him. Secondly, I know not what is meant by this Cause, or how far it may be exten­ded. [Page 17] Thirdly, I know not in what sense they take these words against the Parliament, whether they include the person of the King within the word Parliament, or his power only excluding his person: neither doe I understand what is meant by any forces raised against the two Houses of Parliament, there being now no such forces in the Kingdome, and the War at an end; therefore understanding not the extent of these particulers, I sweare rashly, and therein commit a sinne of presumption if I take it: And lastly, if I take this oath, I sweare to an unjust and un­lawfull end; for I sweare to withdraw mine obedience, subjection and allegiance from him, which is an unjust and unlawfull thing, and to an ill end, the same being due unto him by the Law of God, as before is declared by the Law of nature, the Law of the land, and the law of rea­son, as hereafter shall be proved.

To conclude this point, in taking of Oaths we ought to take heed, that we observe these rules of the learned Fathers, that is, as to Oaths which we take voluntarily, and not by coertion, or by any impulsive ne­cessity: ‘ Ita jurare, ut sacramentum pietatis, ne sit vinculum iniquita­tis: so to sweare that the Oath or Sacrament of godlinesse which wee take, become not a bond of iniquity to our soules, thereby to engage us in things unjust and unlawfull, both against the Lawes of God and men: And if we take rash Oaths, to doe an evill thing, penitenda pro­missio non perficienda presumptio, we must repent of our oath, and not commit the evill, and if we are inforced to sweare that which is unjust and unlawfull, and against the Lawes of God and men, wee conceive our selves not bound thereby, for Injusta vincula rumpit ju­stitia, Justice and equity breaks the bonds of such an Oath from our consciences: It being a certaine Axiome in Divinity, Quod per sa­cramentum non tenemur nisi ad bonum, aut legale:’ By Oaths men are bound to the performance of nothing but what is good and lawfull: Now to manifest that this Oath is against the Law of nature, we are to Negative Oath a­gainst the Law of nature. consider what the Law of nature is, which we finde among the learned to be distinguished into two kindes, generall and speciall: This gene­rall by Ʋlpian de Justitia & Jure L. 1. tit. 1. is thus defined, ‘ Jus natu­rale est, Quod natura omnia Animalia docuit: Naturall Law is that which nature hath taught all creatures living,’ which he distinguisheth thus from the speciall: Jus istud non humani generis proprium sed omni­um animalium, Quae terra marique nascuntur, avium quoque commune est, The Law of Nature (saith he) is not proper to man alone, but the [Page 18] same is common to all living creatures, as well to birds as to those which the Land & the Sea produceth; and agreeable to this is the descrip­tion of the Law of Nature, set downe by learned and reverend Hooker, in his first booke of Ecclesiasticall pollicie, whereby he calls it, ‘That manner of working which God hath set for each created thing to keep, he being a director of infinit knowledge, to guide nature in her wayes:’ But I meane not that this Negative Oath is against this generall Law of nature, but there is a more speciall Law of nature proper to mankinde only, which will steere us to the question in hand: which speciall Law of nature proper to men, St. Augustine in his Epistle ad Hil. 89. & in Evangelium Johanes Tract. 49. defines thus, ‘ Lex naturalis est impressio divini luminis, in nobis & participatio legis aternae in rationali Crea­tura: The Law naturall, saith he, is the impression of divine light in us, and a participation of the eternall Law in the reasonable creatures,’ which distinction is strengthened by that expostulation which Moses makes in the person of God with Cain, before any Law written, Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted, & if thou dost not well, sin lyeth at the doore? for so is the Law of nature imparted unto us by il­lumination of the Law eternall: that this is most cleare, St. Paul wit­nesseth unto us, Rom 2. 15. 14. For when the Gentiles (saith hee) which have not the Law, doe by nature the things contained in the Law, these having not the Law, are a law unto themselves; which shew the works of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bea­ring witnesse, and their thoughts mean while excusing or accusing them; what other thing was this, but the Law of nature, or the im­pression of divine light in the hearts of the Gentiles? which doctrine of St. Paul reproves the opinion of those, who thinke that whatsoever proceedes of nature is sinne, for if so it were, that whatsoever proceeds of nature is sinfull, how could the consciences of the Gentiles bear wit­nesse for them, or excuse them of the breach of the Law? Therefore St. Augustine in his third booke de doctrina Christiana, Cap. 14 saith, ‘ Omne vitium naturae nocet, ac per hoc contra naturam est, every vice doth wrong to nature, and is therefore contrary to it;’ and in his 12. booke de Civitate Dei, Cap. 1. he saith, ‘ Omnia peccata sunt in univer­sum contra naturam & legem naturae: All sins are generally against reason, and the Law of nature:’ And Damascene, L. 2. fidei Orthodox: Cap. 30. agrees in this with him; for saith he, ‘ Homines facti sunt mali declinando in id quod contra naturam est, Men are made evill by decli­ning [Page 19] to that which is contrary to nature:’ Nature therefore is Gods instrument, and none other is her guide, but only the God of nature: for as S. Paul said in his Sermon at▪ Athens when he found an altar dire­cted to the unknown God, Act. 17. 28. in him we live, and move, & have our being, being also of his off-spring as he told them: their owne Poets said, whereby it is clearly proved, that though the Athenians being Gentiles, and ascribing the being of all things to the Law and course of nature; yet St. Paul could finde out another hand in those workes besides nature, to whom nature was only subservient, and an handmaid to o­bey his eternall Law, decree, and purpose according to that order hee hath set downe for the sonnes of men for ever to bee observed. This short digression I have made only to take away this objection that ma­ny make, That we are not bound to observe the Lawes of nature, and also to let them know that the Law of nature is to bee observed, and that as being a participation of the eternal Law, it is both perpetuall and unalterable, and not presumptuously to be violated: The consideration whereof moved Pythagoras the heathen Philosopher to publish amongst his golden precepts, this one, ‘ nil turpe committas, neque coram aliis, neque tecum maxime omnium, verere teipsum, commit nothing foule or dishonest, saith he, neither to be known to others, nor to thine own heart, but above all things, reverence thine owne conscience:’ but to draw somewhat nearer to the thing in purpose, and to prove that this Ne­gative Oath, is against the Law of nature, I must observe with Hooker, that as there is a Law naturall belonging to men, as they are men in their kinde, which Law directeth them in the means whereby they are to steere their actions as to their owne particular preservations, so there is a Law naturall which toucheth them as sociable parts united into one body, a Law which bindeth them to serve unto each others good, and all to preserve the good of the whole, before whatsoever their owne particular, and from both those roots or branches of the Law of nature, springs the allegiance, subjection and loyall obedience, which is due from a subject unto his King, from this speciall Law of nature? Man by the impression of divine light is bound to observe the Law naturall, as it is written in his heart, and is part of the Law eter­nall by which we are bound to obey, and succour, and assist our Parents, whether our naturall parents, or the parents of our Country; and from this relative Law of nature, as I may so call it, or the Covenant of nature whereby we are bound as sociable parts by the Law of nature united [Page 20] into one body for the preservation of the whole, the subject to obedi­ence, faith, and allegiance, the King to protection, and to maintaine the Laws, bodies, and goods of his subjects, and both together to maintaine the peace of all; as Fortescue in his booke of the praise of the Lawes of England, Cap. 13. observes; and therefore Glanvil who wrote in Hen. 2. time. L. 9. Cap. 4. saith, ‘ Mutua debes esse domini & fidelitatis con­nexio, ita quod quantum debet quisque domino ex homagio, tantum de­bet illi dominus ex domino praeter solam ex reverentiam the knot of faith ought to be mutuall between the Lord & his subject or tenant; for look how much subjection or obedience the tenant or subject owes to his Lord, so much doth the Lord owe to his tenant by way of protection, reverence excepted;’ which knot Aristotle in his first book of Politicks proves to be the duty of nature; for saith he, ‘To command and obey is of nature, for whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preser­vation of the society of man is due by the Law of nature.’ Now Tully lib. 3. de legibus tells us, that ‘ sine imperio nec domus ulla, nec ci­vitas, nec gens, nec hominum universum, genus stare, nec ipse denique mundus potest; which is, That without command or government, neither any house, nor City, nor Nation, nor mankinde, nor to con­clude, the world cannot stand:’ but peradventure that will be con­fessed, and yet it will be denied that the world cannot stand without Monarchy, and objected that Monarchy is not that government that ought to be by the Law of nature: to which I answer with Aristotle, in his first booke of Ethicks, That ‘ Jus naturale est quod apud omnes ho­mines eandem, habet potentiam, That is, the Law of nature which with all men hath the same power:’ Now as Aristotle in his first booke of his Politicks, Cap. 3. and Plato in his third book of Laws, jump in this opinion that in the first beginning of time, the chiefest person in every house was alwaies as it were a King; so when numbers of housholds joyned themselves together, in civill societies, Kings were the first kinde of governours among them, which is also (as it seemeth) the reason why Kings have alwayes been, and are to this day called, patres patriae or fa­thers of their Country: and it is not unknowne to any man learned in Antiquity, History, or Chronologie that it was 3198 years after the crea­tion before any Law was written or given in the world, according to the computation of Ioseph Scaliger by the Julian account; The Law being given in that year, and delivered by God unto Moses on Mount Sinai, and whether the old world before the floud were governed by [Page 21] Kings, it is disputable; but sure I am that Nimrod the sonne of C [...]sh, the son of Cham, the sonne of Noah, was a King; for I finde Gen. 10. 10. that the beginning of his Kingdome was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the Land of Shinar, and according to the computation aforesaid, began his reigne in the 2479 yeare of the world, which was 720 yeares before the Law was given, and 149 yeares after the floud; in all which time it is more then probable that all the Nations of the world (except the Jewes) were governed by Monarchies or Kings, and long after the Law was given to the Jewes, which is proved unto us by that demand of the Jews made unto Samuel, 1 Sam. 8. 5. ‘And they said unto him, behold thou art old, and thy sons walke not in thy wayes, make us now a King to judge us like all Nations:’ And we see it yet continued to this day among all the Gentiles & heathens upon the earth; by which sort of people, above twenty parts of thirty of the knowne world are now inhabited: That the only government of each severall Na­tion among them is Monarchy, and much more subjection and al­legiance performed by the heathen subjects to their Gentile Kings, then is amongst us towards ours; which is a full argument to mee that Monarchy is not only a divine ordinance or institution of God Almighty from the beginning, and a branch of the Law of nature, but also the best of governments too, because those Gentile Nations which guide their actions only by the Law of nature, imbrace this forme of government and none other, making good that maxime of their heathen Philosopher afore remembred, ‘ Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentia,’ which induces me to affect the opinion the more, because I see the Gentiles ever submit­ted to Monarchy call regiment; for with Monarchy I say, ‘ non potest error contingere ubi omnes idem opinantur:’ And with Teles [...] ‘ non licet naturale universaleque hominum judicium falsum vanumque existima­re, an error of judgement cannot be where all men are of the same opinion, and we ought not to esteeme the universall judge­ment of naturall men to be false and vaine.’ But I will dwell no longer upon the fringe of this particular, but make this point evi­dent by the Laws of this Kingdome, which are a part of natures Law, That this Oath is against the Law of nature, and for that Cause only, that if I take it, I am thereby withheld from the execu­tion of mine allegiance, whereby I make violation of natures Law; [Page 22] To make this cleare and evident, it appeares unto us by Calvins Cas, recorded in the seventh part of Sir Edwards C [...]ks Reports, that there are in our Law foure kinds of allegiance; the first [...]all, which is due from every subject bo [...]e within his Majesties domi­nions, to his Majesty as to his Sovereigne Lord and King. The se­cond is ligeantia legalis, or legall Allegiance, which is due by every subject to the King by reason of his suit Royall, and this is not natu­rall, but created by King Arthur for expulsion of the Sarazens, and continued after by others for the Danes exile, and is proper for the suppressing of insurrections, and expelling invaders. The third is, Ligeantia acquisitia, or purchased allegiance, which comes by inde­nization. The fourth and last, is locall allegiance and that is due from strangers, friends to Kings, whilst they are in their dominions. I meddle not with the two last, and omit for brevity sake, and be­cause I shall not need to draw any argument from it, to helpe my selfe withall, to speake any thing of legall allegiance: But for na­turall allegiance, it is absolute pure and indefinite, that such an al­legiance there is as naturall, if you read the indictment of the Lord Dacres, 26. H. 8. you shall finde it runne thus, Quod praedictus Do­minus Dacre debitum fidei & ligeantiae suae quod prefato Domini Regi naturaliter & de jure impendere debuit minime, &c. which in English is thus, That the aforesaid Lord Dacre not regarding the duty of his faith and Allegiance, which he did naturally and of right owe to, and ought to pay to King Henry the 8. &c. And Cardinall Poole 30. H. 8. being likewise indicted of Treason, Contra dominum Regem supremum & naturalem Dominum suum, that is against the King his naturall and supreame Lord; which indictments prove a naturall Allegiance to be not only due, but of right due from every subject to his sovereigne King, and as this allegiances is naturall, so is it abso­lute, so is it pure, and indefinite, ‘ Quia nullis claustris coercetur nullis metis refraenatur, nullis finibus premitur, it ought not to bee constrained or bridled with any bonds, nor restrained to any place;’ for a man though he may abjure his Country, or his Kingdome, yet he cannot abjure his Allegiance, nay he cannot alien, give a way, or withdraw his allegiance from his King by the Law of nature, to his Kings prejudice, though he should gaine his liberty, freedome of estate and honour or advancement unto the bargaine; for St. Au­gustine [Page 23] saith, ‘ nemo jure naturae cum alterius detrimento locupletior fieri debet, no man by the Law of nature ought to be made richer by the losse of another;’ but if I withdraw mine allegiance, the King hath lost a subject, therefore I may not doe it, neither can the King re­lease it to any of his subjects, it being an inseparable accident ad­herent in the person of a King, and is due, omni soli & semper, to e­very King under heaven from his owne naturall subjects: It is due to every King, and alwaies to Kings, and only to Kings by the Law of nature: ‘And it is only due to his person, and not to his office, which is only imaginary and invisible, and no where formally to be found but in his person, as by the said case of Calvin more fully appeares:’ Hereupon I conclude, that allegiance being due by the Law of nature to the Kings person, and that I neither can ab­jure it, nor alien it, or withdraw it from him, nor he release it to me, and that it is only due to him, and to no other: I cannot take this oath and keep it, without violation of the Law of nature, and manifest injury both to my selfe and Sovereigne King, Quia jura natura sunt immutabilia, the Lawes of nature are immutable, as be­fore is observed, and is plainly held forth by Bracton, L. 1. cap. 6. & Docter & Stud. cap. 5. 6. And so from this point of the Law of nature, Negative Oath is a­gainst the Law of England. I come to shew that this Negative Oath is absolutely against the knowne, setled, and established Laws of the Land: the reason is, be­cause if I take it & keep it, it withholds me from the performance of my duty of allegiance which is due to my King from me by the Law of the land; and so I am informed by the books of Law: this tearm or word allegiance is rendred unto us under divers names in our Law bookes, as sometimes it is called fides or faith, as Bracton l. 5. Tract. de exceptionibus cap. 24. fol. 427. And so Fleta l. 6. cap. 47. Alienigena repelli debet in Anglia ab agendo donec fuerint ad fidem Regis Angliae, Aliens ought to be kept from acting in England till they shall be of the allegiance of the King, that is by endenization: so Glanvil l. 9. cap. 1. Salva side debita domino Regi & heredibus suis, That is, saving our faith or allegiance due to the King and his heires: so Littleton l. 2. in chap. Homage, where I doe my homage to my Lord, Salve le foy du a nostre senior le Roy, saving the faith which I owe to our Lord the King; and in the Statute of 25. E. 3. De natis ultra mare, these words (faith and allegiance) are coupled together as signify­ing one thing; sometimes it is called obedientia Regis, our obedience [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] to the King, as in the bookes of 9. E. 4. 6. 7. 2 R. 3. 2. And in the Statutes of H. 8. 14. cap. 2. and 22. H. 8. 8. and in the booke of 22. Ass. pl. 25. it is called ligealty, but by what name soever it bee called, whether faith, obedience, ligealty, or allegiance, all is one, it is due still from us subjects to our sovereigne Lord the King: by the Statute of 10 R. 2. cap. 5. and 11. R▪ 2. cap. 1. 14. H. 8 cap. 2. and many other, the people are called liege people; and by the Sta­tute of 34. H. 8. cap. 1 and 35. H. 8 cap. 3. and divers other, the King is stiled liege Lord of his subjects, and these that are bound under the Kings power are called his naturall leige-men, as in the 4. H. 3. Fitz. title Dower, and 11. E. 3. cap. 2. So that I may conclude upon these authorities, that Ligeantia est vinculum fidei domin [...] Regi, our alle­giance is the bond of our faith to the King; which being so, wee may well say of it as Sir Edward Cooke doth, that ‘ ligeantia est legis essentia, our allegiance is the essence of the Law,’ and so it hath been often and sundry times declared by many & sundry, wise, temperate and well advised Parliaments of England. The government of Kings in this Isle of Britain, hath been very ancient, even as ancient as Hi­story it self; for those who deny the story of Brutus to be true, doe finde out a more ancient plantation here under Kings, namely under Samothes grandchilde to Japhet the son of Noah, from whom the ancient Britaines that inhabited this Land, are according to their conceits descended: Kings or Monarchs of great Britaine had and did exercise far more large and ample power, and did claime greater Prerogatives over the people under their government and jurisdiction, then the Kings of England have done since the Norman conquest, as it is to be seen at large both in the Brittish Chronicles and records of these times, and in our English histories, and may al­so be gathered out of the writings of the Romans who invaded this Island, and lived here upon the place: and I doe not finde that ever the people of Brittaine made any of their Kings by election of voices, or put them out at pleasure, but that the Kingly govern­ment and right of the Crowne, descended alwayes by hereditary descent and succession, though in that infancy of Law and right it may be suspected that there was not so much regularity of justice or observation of right, as in these latter & more refined ages hath or ought to be: I may boldly affirm, and it cannot be denyed by any [...]at hath read all the Chronicles and Statutes of this Realme, that [Page 25] there hath beene any King of England since the conquest, that hath not beene acknowledged by both houses of Parliament, of their severall times, to be soveraigne Lords of this Realme, and their soveraigne Lords too, although that some of those Kings were onely Reges de facto, and not de jure, Kings onely in fact and not of right, and such as by the Lawes of England had no right to the Crowne; and all the Parliaments since the conquest, have acknowledged that the Crowne of England, and the government of the Realme hath belonged to the Kings, of hereditary right, and not by election; some of these Parliaments, in more expresse and perticular manner then the rest: and they of later times, more amply then the ancient. By the statute called Dictum de Kenilworth, made 51. H. 3. King Hen. 3. is acknowledged to be Lord of the Realme, in the statutes made at Gloucester, in the sixth yeare of the raigne of King E. 1. King Edw. 1▪ is acknow­ledged by the Parliament, to bee their soveraigne Lord, and so was King Edw. 2. King Edw. 3. King Rich. 2. and all the Kings since, by all Parliaments held in their severall raignes; as to the studious Reader of the Acts of Parliament, made in their severall times will appeare: by a Parliament held at Westminster, Anno 7. Edw. 1. ‘It is acknowledged to belong to the King through his royall signiory, streightly to defend force of armour and all o­ther force against the peace of the kingdome, at all times when it shall please him, and to punish them which shall do contrary, according to the lawes and usages of this Realme, and that thereunto they were bound to ayde him, as their soveraigne Lord, at all seasons when need should be:’ In the raigne of King Edw. 2. The two Spencers, Hugh the father, and Hugh the sonne, to cover the treason hatched in their hearts, invented this dam­nable and damned opinion, as it i [...] stiled in Calvines case: ‘That homage and oath of legeance, was more by reason of the Kings Crowne (that is his politique capacity) then by reason of the person of the King, upon which opinion, they inforced exe­crable and detestable conseque [...]s. First, that if the King do not demeane himselfe by reason, in the right of his Crowne, the Peers are boundly oath to remove the King. Secondly, seeing the King could not be removed by suit of law, that ought to be done by Aspertee, which is as much as to say, by force, and [Page 26] war. Thirdly, that his Lieges were bound to governe in ayde of him, and in default of him: All which opinions were con­demned by two Parliaments; one held in the raigne of King Edward the second; the other in the first yeare of King Edward the third,’ cap. 1. as by the old printed statutes appeares: by the statutes of 25. Edw. 3. cap. 2, It is ordained, that if a man shall com­passe or imagine the death of our soveraigne Lord the King, or of my Lady his Queene, or of his eldest sonne; or if any man levy warre against the King in his Realme, or bee adhered to the Kings enemies, giving to them ayde or comfort in the Realme or elsewhere, &c. It shall be judged Treason. It is reported to us by Sir Edward Coke, in the fourth part of his Institut. called The jurisdiction of Courts, pag. 52. ‘That Rot [...]l [...] Parliament. Anno▪ 17. Edw. 3. num. 23. It was then agreed in Parliament, that the statute made, 15. Edw. 3. should be repealed, and lose the name of a statute, as contrary to the Lawes and prerogative of the King.’ It appeares, Rot. Parlia. 42. num. 7. called Lex [...] consuetudo Parliamenti, cited by Sir Edward Coke, in the fourth part of his Institutes, pag. 13. & 14. ‘That the Lords and Com­mons in full Parliament, did declare, that they could not assent to any thing in Parliament, that tended to the disherison of the King and his Crowne, whereunto they were sworne;’ By the statute of 16. Rich. 2. cap. 5. King Richard the second, is by the Parliament called their Redoubted soveraigne Lord, and the people his liege people; and by Parliament in the body of that Act; ‘It is acknowledged, that the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times; that it hath been in subjection to no Realme, but immediately subject to God, and to none other in all things touching the regall [...]ty of the same Crownel;’ notwith­standing, that afterwards warres was lovyed against him by his subjects, and he was against all Law and right, deposed, or en­forced to make a surrender of his Crowne, or at least they pre­tended he did so, though some Hystorians doubt whether he ever consented to it, being murthered, to make way for King Hen. 4. who had very small pretents to the Crowne, as men learned in the lawes of this Realme have in all time since held; which kind of disposing of the Kings person, I hope and beleeve is not meant by them, and which horrid act▪ though it gave some present se­curity, [Page 27] to some particuler persons that were then active▪ in his destruction: yet it cost this kingdome in generall very deare, in the expence of blood and treasure in the succeeding times, by bloody civill warres, wherein the decay of men by those warrs was so great, that many judicious Historians are of opinion, that the number of men lost in those warres, was not recruited or made up by a following progeny, till the beginning of King James his raigne; and it is to be feared that this blood is not expiated and dryed up in this land: The gates of Janus Temple being o­pened, both without the kingdome and within, for the space of an hundred yeares and upwards, till by Gods great goodnesse there came to be an union of the rights of the two houses of York and Lancaster to the Crowne of England, in King Hen. 7. and Queene Elizabeth his wife, though that till neare the middle of his raigne, the sword was not altogether sheathed; but there were some counterfeit pretenders to the Crowne, which stirred the unconstant multitude to sundry rebellions, which after some time of rest from those civill broyles, The King, Lords, and Commons in Parliament, upon full experience and considera­tion of the troubles past, for the prevention of the like in future times, thought fit to revive the ancient lawes of the Realme, and to declare that by act of Parliament, which was and had beene a fundamentall law of the Land, and was before part of the com­mon law, thereof to enact and declare in the eleventh yeare of the said Kings reigne, in the first chapter of the statutes made in Par­liament in the said yeare, in these words.

The King our sovereigne Lord, calling to his remembrance the duty of allegiance of his subjects of this Realme, and that they by reason of the same, are bound to serve their prince, and sove­reigne Lord for the time being in his warres, for the defence of him and the land, against every rebellion, power, and might, rais­ed against him, and with him to enter and abide in service, in battaile, if case so require, and that for the same service, what for­tune ever fall by chance in the same battaile, against the minde and will of the Prince, as in this land sometimes passed, hath been [Page 28] seene, that it is not reasonable but against all lawes, reason, and a good conscience, that the said subjects going with their sove­reigne Lord in Warres, attending upon him in his person, or be­ing in other places by his commandement, within this Land or without, any thing should lese or forfeit for doing their true duty and service of allegiance: It is therefore ordeyned, enacted, and established, by the King our sovereigne Lord, by the advice and assent of the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoe­ver he or they be, that attend upon the King and sovereigne Lord of this land for the time being, in his person, and doe him true and faithfull service of allegiance in the same, or bee in other places by his commandement in his Warres, within this Land or without, that for the said deed and true duty of allegiance, he or they be in no wise convict, or attaint of high Treason, ne of o­ther offences for that cause, by act of Parliament or otherwise by any processe of Law, whereby he or any of them shall forfeit life, lands, tenements, rents, possessions, hereditaments, goods, chattels, or any other things, but to be for that deed and service, utterly discharged of any reparation, trouble, or losse: And if any act or acts, or other processe of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance, that then the act or acts or other processe of Law whatsoever they shall be, stand and be utterly voyde: provided alway, that no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this act, which shall hereafter decline from his or their allegiance.

And Sir, here I desire to know your opinion in your indifferent judgement upon this Law, whether I need to sue out any pardon, or compound for mine estate, having done nothing but the duty of myne allegiance to my naturall King.

‘By the statute of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12. It is expressed that by diverse sundry old authentique Histories, and Chronicles, it is manifestly declared that this Realme of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the World, governed by one su­preame head, and King, having the dignity and royall estate of the imperiall Crowne of the same, unto whom a body politick, [Page 29] compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in tearmes and by names of spiritualty and temporalty beene bounden, and given, to beare next to God a naturall and humble obedience, he being also instituted and furnished by Gods goodnesse, with plenary, whole, and intire power, preheminencie, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice, and finall determination to all manner of folkes, resiants, or subjects within this Realme, in all causes, matters, debates, and conten­tions, happening or accruing, within the lymits thereof: By the statute of 26. Hen. 8. cap 1. It is declared in [...]u [...]l Parliament, that King Henry 8. was justly, and rightfully ought, to be su­preame head of the Church of England, and that he being their Sovereigne Lord, his heyres and successors Kings of this Realme should be so accepted and taken, and should have and enjoy, as united and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme, as well the title and stile thereof, as all honours, dignities, pre­heminencies, jurisdictions, priviledges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities, to the said dignitie of the same supream head of the said Church belonging or in any wise appertaining:’ Which statute was confirmed and inlarged in some perticulars, by the Acts of Parliament of 28. Hen. 8. cap. 10. and 35. Hen 8. cap. 1. By the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 22. the Parliament moved King Hen. 8. to foresee and provide for the profit and surety both of himselfe and of his most lawfull succession, and heyres, upon which depended all their joy and wealth; ‘and in whom they acknowledged was united and knit the onely meere true inhe­ritance, and title of this▪ Realme, without any contradiction:’ (wherefore wee say they) your said most humble and obedient subjects in this present Parliament assembled, calling to remem­brance the great divisions which in times past have beene in this Realme, by reason of severall titles pretended to the imperiall Crowne of the same, which sometimes, and for the most part en­sued by occasion of ambiguity and doubts, then not so perfectly declared, but that men might upon froward intents expound them to every mans sinister appetite and affection after their sence, con­trary to the right legallity of succession, and posterity of the law­full Kings and Emperors of this Realme, whereof hath ensued great effusion of mans blood, as well of a great number of the [Page 30] Nobles, as other of the subjects of the Realme, &c. By the statute of 27. Hen. 8. cap. 24. intituled, an act for recontinuing of cer­taine liberties and franchises heretofore taken from the Crowne, it is thus enacted, 27. Hen. 8. where diverse of the most antient prerogatives and authorities of justice appertaining to the impe­riall Crowne of this Realme, have been severed and taken from the same by sundry gifts of the Kings most noble progenitors, Kings of this Realme, to the great diminution and detriment of the Royall estate of the same, and to the hinderance and great de­lay of justice: For reformation whereof, be it enacted by autho­rity of this present Parliament, that no person or persons of what estate or degree soever they be of, from the first day of July which shall be in the yeare of our Lord God, 1536. shall have any pow­er or authority to pardon or remit any treasons, murders, man­slaughters, or any kinde of follonies, whatsoever they be. Not a­ny accessaries to any treasons, murders, manslaughters, or fello­nies, or any utlayers, for any such offences aforesaid, committed, perpetrated, done, or divulged, or hereafter to be committed, done, or divulged, by or against any person and persons, in any part of this Realme, Wales, or the Marches of the same, but that the Kings highnesse, his heyres and successors, Kings of this Realme, shall have the whole and sole power and authority thereof, uni­ted and knit to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme, as of good right and equity it appertaineth; any grants, usages, prescription, act or acts of Parliament, or any other thing to the contrary here­of notwithstanding.

[Page 31]And it is also enacted by the authority of the said Parliament, that no person or persons, of what estate, degree, or condition soever they bee, from the said first day of July, shall have any power or authority to make any Justices of Oyre, Justices of As­sise, Justices of Peace, or Justices of Gaole-delivery, but that all such officers and ministers shall be made by Letters patents under the Kings great Seale, in the name, and by authority of the Kings highnesse, and his heyres Kings of this Realme, in all Shires, Counties, Counties palatine, and other places of this Realme, Wales, and Marches of the same, or in any other his dominions, at their pleasure and wills, in such manner and forme as Justices of Eire, justices of Assise, justices of Peace, and justices of Goale-deli­very, be commonly made in every shire of this Realme, any grants, usages, prescription, allowance, act, or acts of Parliament, or any other thing or things to the contrary thereof, notwith­standing.

‘By the Statute of 1. Edw. 6. cap. 2. It is acknowledged that all authority of jurisdiction spirituall and temporall, is derived and deducted from the Kings Majestie, as supreame head of the Realme; and that no Ecclesiasticall Court can be held within the Realme, but by authority from his Majestie.’ By the statute of 5. and 6. Edw. 6 cap. 11. It is recited, Forasmuch as it is most necessary both for common pollicy and duty of the Subjects, a­bove all things, to ‘prohibit, restraine, and extinct all manner of shamefull slanders, which might grow, happen, or arise to their sovereigne Lord the Kings Majestie, which when they be heard, seene or understood, cannot but be odible and abhorred of all those sorts that be true and loving Subjects, if in any point they may doe, or shall touch his Majesty, upon whom dependeth the whole unity and universall wealth of this his Realme, &c.’ By the Statute made in the second Parliament, of the first yeare of Queene Mary cap. 1. ‘It is acknowledged that the imperiall Crowne of this Realme, with all dignities, honours, preroga­tives, authorities, jurisdictions, and preheminences whatsoe­ver, to the same united or annexed, were descended unto Queen Mary, and that by force and vertue of the same, all regall pow­er, dignity, honour, prerogative, preheminency and jurisdicti­on, did appertaine, and of right ought to appertaine unto her, [Page 32] as to the soveraigne supreame governour and Queene of this Realme:’ By the statute of primo Eliz. cap. 1. The Queenes right, as belonging to the Crowne of England, and are restored to her, and the Oath of supremacie enacted and then made; and by another Act made the same Parliament cap. 3. Intituled an Act of Recognition of the Queenes highnesse title to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme, ‘the whole Parliament acknowledgeth the Queenes right to the Crowne by lawfull discent and suc­cession,’ both by the lawes of God, and the lawes and statutes of this Realme, with all the rights, prerogatives, preheminencies, and jurisdictions whatsoever, belonging or appertaining to the same, binding themselves therein by solemne oath, to maintaine "the title of her and her heyres thereunto: Neither can I omit to remember that famous and never to bee forgotten Act of Re­cognition of his right to the Crowne of England, made to King James our Kings Father in full Parliament, in the first yeare of his reigne, which that it may the more clearely appeare what it is, I have here transcribed at large, without addition or diminution of word or syllable, as an Act to the observance whereof, I am obliged, and was bound in the loynes of myne Ancestors, who were then representatively present in the same Parliament, which act of Parliament is thus intituled, ‘A most joyfull and just Re­cognition of the immediate lawfull and undoubted succession, descent and right to the Crowne: The act it selfe is printed in the statutes at large, in these words.’

To the acknowledgment whereof to your Majestie, wee are the more deeply bounden and obliged, as well in regard of the extraordinary care and paines, which with so great wisedome, knowledge, experience, and dexterity, your Majestie (fithence the imperiall Crowne of this Realme descended to you) have taken for the continuance and establishment of the blessed peace, both of the Church of England in the true and sincere Religion, and of the Common-wealth, by due and speedy administration of Justice, as in respect of the gracious care, and inward affection, which it pleased you on the first day of this Parliament, so lively to expresse by your owne words, so full of high wisedome, learn­ing, and vertue, and so repleate with Royall and thankfull ac­ceptation of all our faithfull and constant endeavours, which is and ever will bee to our inestimable consolation and com­fort.

We therefore your most humble and loyall subjects, the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the Commons in this present Par­liament assembled, doe from the bottome of our hearts yield to the divine Majesty all humble thankes and praise, not onely for the said unspeakable and inestimable, benefits and blessings above mentioned, but also that he hath further inriched your highnesse with a most royall progeny of most rare and excellent gifts, and forwardnesse, and in his goodnesse is like to increase the happy number of them: And in most humble and lowly manner doe be­seech your most excellent Majesty, that (as a memoriall to all posterities, amongst the Records of your high Court of Parlia­ment, for ever to endure) of our loyall obedience, and hearty and humble affection; It may be published and declared in this high Court of Parliament, and enacted by authority of the same.

That we (being bounden thereunto both by the lawes of God and man) doe Recognise and acknowledge, (and thereby ex­presse [Page 35] our unspeakable joyes) That immediatly upon the disso­lution and decease of Elizabeth late Queene of England; the im­periall Crowne of this Realme of England, and of all the King­domes, dominions and rights belonging to the same, did by in­herent birth-right, and lawfull and undoubted succession, des­cend and come to your most excellent Majesty, as being lyneally, justly, and lawfully, next and sole Heyre of the blood-royall of this Realme, as is aforesaid: and that by the goodnesse of God Almighty, and lawfull right of descent under one imperial Crown, your Majesty is of the Realmes and Kingdomes of England, Scot­land, France, and Ireland, the most potent and mighty King, and by Gods goodnesse, more able to protect and governe us your lo­ving subjects, in all peace and plenty, then any of your noble progenitors; and thereunto we most humbly and faithfully doe submit and oblige our selves, our heyres and posterities for ever, untill the last drop of our bloods be spent: And doe beseech your Majesty, to accept the same as the first fruits in this high Court of Parliament, of our loyalty and faith to your Majesty, and your royall progeny and posterity for ever: which if your Majesty shall be pleased, (as an argument of your gracious acceptation) to a­dorne with your Majesties royall assent (without which, it can neither be compleat and perfect, nor remaine to all posterity, ac­cording to our most humble desires, as a memoriall of your prince­ly and tender affection towards us) we shall adde this also to the rest of your Majesties unspeakable and inestimable benefits.

‘And by the statute of 3. Jaco. cap. 4. by which statute the oath of allegiance is injoyned: It is declared, that if any person shall put in practice to absolve, perswade, or withdraw, any of his Majesties subjects from their obedience to his Majesty, his heires, or successors, or to move them, or any of them, to pro­mise obedience to any other Prince, State, or Potentate, that then every such person, their procurers, counsellers, ayders, and maintainers, shall be adjudged Traytors:’ And doe not the Par­liament, both in the first, and third yeare of this King, acknow­ledge King Charles; nay even in the petition of Right, and in e­very Parliament since to be their sovereigne Lord? Can it then be doubted (upon due consideration had of the fore-mentioned Acts of Parliament, and the severall declarations made by the [Page 36] Parliaments of all ages) that the right of the Crowne, is an he­reditary right, and that King Charles is our lawfull Sovereigne Lord, and supreame governour of the Realmes, or that allegiance is not due to him from all states of this kingdome, and from every one of his subjects within the same? Surely no, if you thinke that there can be any, I desire you will please to returne me the legall reasous of your opinion therein, upon consideration had of these Statutes, and why the power of both Houses of Parliament, is above the Kings; neither are the prerogatives afore cited due to him by the acknowledgment, recogniscions, and declarations of Parliament onely, but these are due unto him by the common fun­damentall and municipall Lawes of this Realme, according to the testimony of the learned Writers of the Law in all ages, and by the continuall language and judgements of the Sages of the law in all preceding Kings Reignes, since we have had Bookes and reports of the law published: For first it appeares by the an­cient Treatise, called Modus tenend [...] Parliamentum, which is a part of the Common law of the Land: and as Sir Edward Coke, 4. part of his Institutes, page 12. observes, was made before the Conquest, and rehearsed unto King William at his Conquest, who approved of the same; and according to the forme of it, held a Parliament, (as ti is reported to us in the yeare booke of 21. Ed. 3. fol. 60) that the King is Caput principium & finis Parliamenti, The King is the head, the beginning and the end of the Parlia­ment; and by the booke of 21. Hen. 7, fol. 20. it is held, that it is no statute, if the King assent not to it: and that the King may disassent; and by Andrew Hornes Booke, called the Mirrour of Justices, which was written in the time of King Edward the se­cond▪ it is said that they are guilty of perjury, that incroach any jurisdictions belonging to the King, or [...]alsifie their faith due to him: Bracton who wrote in the time of King Henry the third, (a learned Author of the Lawes of England) lib. 4. cap. 24, sect. 1. hath these words, ‘ Rex habet potestatem & jurisdictionem super [...]mnes qui in Regnosuo sunt, ea que sunt jurisdictionis & pacis ad nullum pertinent, nisi ad Regiam dignitatem, habet etiam coertion [...]m [...]t delinquentes puniat & coerceat; The King, saith he, hath pow­er and jurisdiction over all men which are in his kingdom; those things which are either of jurisdiction or peace, belong [Page 37] to none but to the Kingly dignity, he hath like wise a constrain­ing power to punish delinquents;’ and lib. 3. cap 7. he saith, that Treasons, felonies, and other pleas of the Crowne, are propriae causae Regis, are causes belonging to the Kings punishment onely; and in his fift Sect. of the same fourth booke, saith thus, ‘ Omnis sub Rege & ipse sub nullo, nisitantum Deo, non est inferior sibi subjectis, non parem habet in regno: in English thus, Every man is under the King, and he under none but God alone, he is not inferiour to his subjects, he hath no peere in his Realme:’ And in his fift booke, in his third Treatise of default, cap. 3. he saith thus, ‘ Rex non habet Superiorem nisi Deum, sat is habet ad penam quod expectat Deum ul­torem, The King hath no Superiour but God alone, and it is suf­ficient punishment for him because he must expect God to bee the revenger, if he doe commit wrong:’ It is said in Plowdens Commentaries, fol. 234. ‘That the King hath the sole government of his Subjects, and fol. 213. as also in Calvins case▪ That alle­giance is due to the naturall body of the King; and fol. 242. it is said, That the naturall body of the King, and his politique, make but one body;’ for as long as the naturall body lives, the politique is inherent, being meerely imaginary and invisible as it is said in Calvins case; whereupon I inferre, that the Kings poli­tique capacity (his body being absent) is not in the Parliament. And in 10. Eliz. Plowdens 316. it's affirmed, That the law makes not the servant greater then the Master, nor the subject greater then the King, for that were to subject order and measure; since ther­fore the King hath so undoubted a right to the Crowne, and is my lawfull Sovereigne, and mine allegiance is due unto the Kings person, by the Law of the Land, Recognized and acknowledged in so many severall Parliaments in all ages, and confirmed by so many undeniable authorities in Law, reported in our Books, and since it stands proved, that mine Allegiance is due unto his natu­rall person, both by the Law of God, nature, and the law of the Land, and can neither be abjured, released, or renounced, being in­separable from the person of the King, and indispensably due from me to him; I conclude that the Oath which binds me, if I take it, and keep it, to withdraw mine Allegiance from my Leige Lord the King, is against the law of the Land, and in taking it, I not only make an absolute breach upon the law of the Land, but also in my [Page 38] judgement I doe thereby incurre the crime of perjury by the law, in falsifying my faith and Allegiance to his Majesty King Charles, Gods anointed, and crowned my naturall liege Lord, sovereigne, and my lawfull King, both by descent, Coronation, investure, and undoubted right, which is not onely due to him by the Law of the Land from every of his subjects, but every one of them is to take this following Oath for performance of it.

Viz. You shall sweare that from this day forwards you shall be true and faithfull to our Sovereigne Lord King Charles, and his heyres, and faith and truth shall beare to him of life and member and terrene honour, and you shall neither know nor heare of any ill or dammage intended unto him, that you shall not defend, so helpe me Almighty God. Which forme of Oath every Subject by the Common Law is bound to take, as appeares by Britton 5. Edw. 1. cap. 24. And by Andrew Horne in the Mirrour of Justices, pag. 226. and in Calvins case as by perusall of their Bookes will ap­peare, and by diverse others which for brevities sake I omit.

And now Sir, I desire to know your opinion likewise, whether that by the Common Law, both houses of Parliament are in power above the King, or where their legall power to dispose of his Ma­jesties person, other then to his honour and good, according to their duty, Oathes, Protestations, Covenants, and Declarations, and obedience is to be found.

I come now to prove that this Oath is against the Law of reason, the Law of reason saith Doctor and Student, cap. 2. is written in ‘the hearts of every man, teaching him what is to be done, and what is to be fled: And because it is written in the heart, there­fore it may not be put away, nor is it ever changable by any di­versity of place or time; and therefore against this Law, pre­scription, statutes, or customes may not prevaile; and if any be brought in against it, they be no prescriptions, statutes, nor cu­stomes, but things done against justice and voyd; and in this it differeth from the Law of God, for that the Law of God is gi­ven by Revelation from God▪ Almighty, and this Law is given by a naturall light of understanding, and is given principally to direct our actions by, for the obtaining of felicity in this life, so us we guide them onely by the rule of Justice: This Law in­stract [...]th us, saith the same Author, that good is to be done, and [Page 39] evill is to be avoided, that thou shouldest do [...] to another, that which thou wouldest another should doe to thee:’ That justice is to be done to every man and not wrong: that a trespasse is to be punished & such like: Is it so then, that the law of reason directs me that good is to be done, and evill is to be avoyded? I then conclude that this oath is against this Law; for if I by this Oath shall withdraw mine Allegiance and subjection to my King from him, I lose the benefit or good I should have by his protection: for the rule in Law is, ‘ Quod Subjectio tra­hit protectionem, quia Rex ad tutelam Legis corporum & bonorum e­rectus est as Fortescue lib. de laudibus legum Angliae, c. 13. Obedience of the Subject drawes protectiō from the King, the King being ordai­ned for the defence of the Law, & the bodies, & goods of his Subjects.’

The holy Scriptures informe me, that I must obey my King for con­science sake, and this Law teacheth me, I must avoid evill; but it is evill for me to obey men in taking this Negative Oath which enjoynes me not to obey my King, rather then God, who enjoynes that duty of o­bedience, therefore I conclude that this Oath is against the Law of rea­son. This Law teacheth me to doe as I would men should doe unto me, but if I were a King I would not be dispoyled of the duty and service of my Subjects; therefore this Oath enjoynes me to a thing against the Law of reason: ‘It is injustice and wrong to take away the Kings right by this Law;’ but this Oath bindes me to take away his right and doe him wrong, therefore in this particular also this Oath is a­gainst the Law of reason. And lastly this Law of reason teacheth me, a Trespasser is to be punished, it teacheth me also to understand that to take this Oath is to trespasse upon my Kings interest in me as I am his Subject; to trespasse upon his Lawes as I am de jure under his govern­ment, and to trespasse upon his patience and goodnesse, if he doe not hereafter punish me for it: Therefore I conclude this Oath is against the Law of reason. The Law of reason generally taken, is ‘ a directive Rule unto goodnesse’ of operation, saith Hooker: so that by this Law wee ought to direct all our actions to a a good end, but by taking this Oath I direct not my actions to a good end; therefore I am not to take this Oath by this Law: ‘the Law of reason saith Sophocles is such that being proposed, no man can reject it as unjust and unreasonable,’ but the King may reject this manner of imposing of Oathes upon his Subjects whereby he isdeprived of their aid and assistance without his assent: And the Subjects may reject this Oath as unreasonable and un­just; because if they take it, they are thereby bound either to breake [Page 40] their Oath, which is a grievous sin, or to lose the benefit of protection, which by the Lawes they may claime, and ought to have from their naturall lawfull and sovereigne Liege Lord, and King; Therefore this Oath is against the Law of Reason.

‘Lastly, whereas the Law of Reason is never changeable by any di­versity of place or time,’ and whereas mine Allegiance is due to my Sovereigne in all places, in all cases, and at all times, I am forbidden by this unchangeable Law, to change so unchangeable and unalterable a duty by such an unwarrantable Oath in these changeable times. To conclude all in this point, as it is against reason to take this Oath; ‘so it is against reason to require it of me, for it is most unreasonable to offer any Christian man such an Oath as that by taking of it, he must by perjury, and sin of presumption (as he is perswaded) destroy his soule, or by refusing of it, because it is against his conscience to take it, either by perpetuall imprisonment or starving, destroy his body and estate.’ And it is likewise most unreasonable for any men to of­fer this Oath to another that have not taken it themselves: for by the rule of the civill Law, l. in Aren. ‘ Quod quis (que), which is a branch of the Law of reason, Quod quis (que) juris in alium statuerit ipsum quo (que) uti debere: No man ought to impose a Law upon another,’ which he himselfe hath not submitted unto.

I come now in the next place to make it appeare that I cannot take this Negative Oath with a good conscience. Conscience, as Doctor and Student well observes, l. 1. cap. 15. ‘Tis the direct applying of any science or knowledge to some particular act of a man, and of the most perfect and most true applying of the same to a mans particular acti­ons, follow the most perfect, the most pure, and the best conscience;’ which enabled St. Paul by his right applying of the Law of God to the Actions of his life, with confidence to plead his cause before the Counsell, and to cry out, men and brethren, I have in all good conscience served God unto this day, Acts 23. 1. And in the 24 14. ‘ being accused be­fore Felix by the Jewes, saith, But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my Fathers, be­leeving all things which are writ in the Law & the Prophets.’ And here­in I indeavour my selfe to have alwaies a cleere conscience towards God, and towards men: whereby it is cleerly proved that the applying of the Scriptures, and the knowledge of divine truth to the actions of ourlives, is, and ought to be, the only direction to our consciences; It is [Page 41] expedient then for the clearing of this point, that I should set forth and consider the actions of my [...] to this particular which con­cernes some Allegiance: [...] then I doe well remember that when I was matriculated in the University, I was sworne to be a faithfull and true Subject [...]o the King, and to beare him [...]ue Alle­giance: Secondly, I have taken th [...] of Oath, which I have particularly s [...] downe before, th [...] I w [...] and [...] bear [...] to him of life and m [...], and terre [...]. Thirdly, I have foure times taken the Oath [...] enjoyned by the Statute of 1. Eh [...]. cap. 1. and three [...] Oath of Allegiance enjoyned by the Statute 3 Iac. cap. 4.

It rests now that I should apply that divine knowledge and sci­ence, which I have obtained [...]y reading of the Scriptures, to th [...]se actions: First▪ then an Oath is to be carefully weighed before we take it, [...]ch as [...] duty towards our King, and [...] E [...]les. 8 [...] Ec [...] Pre [...]c [...]e [...], adviseth me thus, [...] of the [...]o [...]h of the King, and to the Oath of [...], upon which plac [...] thus gl [...]sse, that is, [...] King, [...] keepe the Oath that thou hast made for that cause. [...] Zachary gives us this comman­dement from God, Zach 8 17▪ [...]t none of you imagine evill in your hearts against his neighbour, and love no false Oath, for all these are the things that I hate, saith the Lord: And our blessed Saviour in his Sermon in the Mount, Matth. 5. 33. Delivers me this pre­c [...]p▪ Thou shalt not for sweare thy selfe, but shalt performe thy Oathes to the Lord: By applying of these Scriptures to my former Oathes, I finde I cannot take this Negative Oath without a great sinne a­gainst God, and trespasse against my conscience: for having bound my selfe by so many severall former oathes made to my King, to pay unto him mine Allegiance, faith▪ and truth to him, of life and member, and terre [...] honour, and acknowledged him to be su­preame Governour of this Realme; how can I now withdraw mine Allegiance from him, or sweare that I will not aide or assist him, o [...] adhere unto him by this latter? without manifest perjury, breach of myne Oath to the King, and by taking of a false Oath, or the name of God in vaine by a questionable authority imposed upon me, contradictory to those Oathes which by undoubted and lawfull power agreeable to the Lawes of God and the Realme, I [Page 42] have already bound my conscience to the observance of: It fareth not with us in Oaths, as it doth in cases of Lawes, Quod Leges po­steriores priores contrarias abrogant, That the latter Lawes repeale the former that are contrary unto them: for in the case of Lawes, the rule is admitted to bee true, where both are constituted and made by the same power, but it is cleane contrary in the case of Oathes: for when a man hath taken a lawfull Oath, by and from a lawfull authority, though it be grounded upon humane or posi­tive law onely, as upon a Statute or the like, that Oath is binding to his conscience untill the Statute that injoynes that Oath be re­pealed by the same power that made it; and if he afterwards take a contradictory Oath to that former Oath before, such repeale, and a lawfull authority to take the same; that Oath which he so takes, is both unlawfull and false; unlawfull in that it is against the law that warrants the Oath, he hath before taken; and false in regard that he ingages himself by that Oath to performe that thing which by the Law of God and conscience he is not enabled lawfully to performe; so that till the lawes that impose upō me the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance which I have taken, be lawfully by the same power as they were made, that is to say, by the King, Lords, and Commons, by Act of Parliament repealed: And this Nega­tive Oath by the same power of Act of Parliament imposed upon me, I cannot submit my conscience to take that Oath, without perjury and falshood. Againe, when a man hath taken an Oath to performe that which by the law of God and nature he is bound to performe, as to obey his King, or to honour his Father and Mo­ther, this Oath can never be abrogated or dispensed withall, nor a man absolved from the duty of observance of it by any power un­der heaven, and therefore if I shall take any Oath contradictory to the former Oathes of Allegiance and duty to my King, which duty and allegiance belongs to him from me, by the law of God and nature, as before is made manifest, that Oath were utterly un­lawfull and false, by the lawes of God and nature and against con­science; I conclude then that in conscience I cannot take this Negative Oath. I learne likewise by Saint Paul, Heb. 6. 16. That men verily sweare by him that is greater then themselves, and an Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife: and therefore Ioshua▪ when he had made a league with the Gibeonites, though it were [Page 43] grounded upon a fraude on their parts, did omit to question them for it, and forbore to breake the league with them to avoyde strife having confirmed that league with an Oath, saying in that case, Thus will we doe to them and let them live, least the wrath be upon us, because of the Oath which we sware to them, Ioshua 9. 20. And by that law of an O [...]h was Sh [...]mei put to death by Solomon for walking out of the City contrary to his Oath, because he had sworne hee would not goe out of it, which he ought to have observed as a confirmation of his undertaking to Solomon, and as an end of their strife, as we find [...], 1 Kings 2. 43. &c. and we finde a notable in­stance of the punishment of the breaking of the oath of Allegiance or subj [...]ction made by the King of Jerusalem to the King of Babel, reported unto us by the Prophet Ezekiel, Eze. 17 16. 18. in these words, As I live saith the Lord, he that is King (of Ierusalem) shall dye in the midst of Babel, in the place of the King, whose Oath he despis­ed, and whose covenant made with him he broke: Neither shall Pharoah with his mighty hoast and great multitude of people maintaine him in the Warre, when they have cast up Mounts, and builded Rampires to de­stroy many persons, for he hath despised the Oath, and broken the Cove­nant, yet he had given him his hand because he hath done these things he shall not escape. The application of these Scriptures to my present purpose I make thus, Is it so then that an Oath is taken for confir­mation? Is it so then that an Oath is and ought to bee the end of strife? Is it so that God punisheth the violation of Oathes, and that the greatest power on earth cannot protect a man against him, I learne then by the rule of a well informed conscience to discerne, that I ought not to breake my Oathes lawfully taken upon any grounds or pretence whatsoever: Nay by this Oath I finde that if I take it I should in stead of an end of strife in my conscience, incur great vexation, through the horrour of the sinn, as being an act un­lawfull, and because by it, I have offended God in the breaking my former Oathes lawfully taken, I should raise strife and trouble in my soule and conscience, and great strife and perturbation of minde for feare of punishment. I conclude therefore that I cannot take this Oath by the rule of Gods law, with a sound and good consci­ence, against the light whereof, if I should take it, I should de­clare my selfe either to be an Athoist, in thinking there were no God to punish for s [...] great a wickednesse, or else to imagine that [Page 44] he were either unjust and would not punish, or unable and could not, or so carelesse of the actions of men, that he either not seeth or not regardeth their wicked acts; which opinion even the very heathens confuted and rejected, as you may finde at large in Tullys first booke, De natura Deorum: But if I were minded to bee so wicked▪ as to lay aside all the former considerations of Religion, na­ture, law, reason, and conscience, to gaine my estate, which God forbid; yet in honour, neither my selfe, nor any that have served his Majesty in this late War, can take it, as I conceive: when I speake of honour I meane not that Membranall or Parchment ho­nour of dignities, and titles conferred upon men sometimes for money, sometimes for affection, sometimes for alliance to favorits, sometimes for flattery, [...]u [...] most commonly more for some sinister respects, then proper [...], by letters patents of Kings and free Princes, but I meane that [...]all honour that is inherent, in every truly noble minde▪ and direct▪ it ends alwayes to that which is Lundabile & honestum, la [...]daol [...], just, and honest, of which honour the Poet Juvenall [...]i [...]h thus, Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus, vertue is the onely [...]ue nobility; and in another place describing this kinde of honour in the person of a Father to his Son, saith thus,

That is, that he had rather his son were the son of Thersites (a base and ill conditioned fellow) and were like Aeacides a person of great valour, honour, and justice, then that he were descended of Achilles the noblest house of the Grecians, and should be such a base fellow as Thersites; the application is easie, ‘It is an hono­rable minde, which makes a man honourable▪ and it are his ho­nourable actions, which are the proper effects of vertue, that render a man truly honourable; and gaine him esteeme: The E­thicke Philosophers say that Honor est plus in honorante quam in he­ [...], there is more honour in him that gives the honour, then in him that receives it, or is honoured;’ and it is true every way: for as there is more honour in a King that bestowes it, then in the subject that receives it from his Prince; so is there more honour proceeds from him that bestowes it in report or esteeme upon him that deserves it for his noble and vertuous actions, then there is in the party deserving it himselfe: and the reason is plaine; for let a [Page 45] man do never so many honourable actions yet if they are not estee­med [...]y others, he reaps not the fruit of his labours, his honour is lesse (though the actions in themselves be honourable) then if they were esteemed: This honour and esteeme is the life of every Soul­dier and Gentleman, which if he once lose by any voluntary act of his owne, he had as good lose his life. Now for any man that hath served the King in his Wars, for him to swear that he will no more aide nor assist the King in the War wherein he ingaged him­selfe by his oath, and upon his honour to serve him with his life and to his uttermost power, it would lose that Souldier his honor and esteeme amongst all sorts of men, amongst his owne party for de­serting a cause they hold just amongst the adverse party for light­nesse and inconstancie, as one that would not stand to his princi­ples, he should amongst all men get the opinion of a Coward, or a base fellow, that for feare of death, punishment, or perpetuall im­prisonment, would be starved into an oath, or [...]ut of his allegiance, or of a K [...]ve that to redeeme his liber [...]y would sweare any thing; therefore least I should gaine such an opinion and lose my esteem in the world (being now brought into that condition that I must be a Souldier) I cannot take this Oath by the rules of honour, and as it is not honourable in me to take it for the reasons aforesaid, so is it against honour that an oath that would bring so much incon­veniency of losse of honour and esteeme amongst all men should be offered to any man, Quia in juramentis administrandis dantis & recipient is eadem est ratio & idem jus, In administring of Oathes the same reason and law ought to binde the giver as well as the re­ceiver: It is also against pollicy either to take or require this oath, the life of a Souldier is his honour, when that is lost, his life is as good as lost; by taking this oath, a Souldier loseth his honour, what King, Prince, or State, will entertaine that Souldier in his pay that hath abjured his naturall Sovereigne Liege Lord, or Masters service and allegiance: his owne King will never trust him more, the adverse party will not trust him, nor any other Prince or State whatsoever, and therefore in pollicy a Souldier ought not to take this oath. And lastly, there is no pollicy in pressing this oath upon any, for the Parliament gaines no security by taking it, for I thinke very few of the Kings party hold that Oath lawfull, and then what security to the Parliament in it, since no other thing can be expect­ed from him of the performance of an oath given unto him, that ‘either doubts the power unlawfull that administred it, or that [Page 46] holds the matter or thing he is bound to performe by his oath un­lawfull, that then he will keep such an oath no longer then till the first time he hath occasion or oppertunity to breake it; Nay the same Religion or new light that hath taught him to break the Kings Oath will or may teach him to break the Parliaments.’

Having now made my doubts according to my conscience, if I come over and be made a prisoner, because I will not take these oathes and covenants, or suffer any other prejudice either in mine estate or person, for declaring my conscience herein, I would, and in the case I am, I will with holy Job content my selfe saying, Na­ked came I out of my mothers wombe and naked shall I returne thither, the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away▪ blessed be the name of the Lord, Job 1. 21. Comforting my selfe with this of the P [...]almist, Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, or who shall rise up in his holy place? even he that hath cleane hands and a pure heart, and that hath not lift up his minde unto vanity, nor sworne to deceive his neighbour, he shall receive the blessing of the Lord, and righteousnesse from the God of his salvation, Psalm. 24. 3▪ 4, 5. And according to the instructions of St. Paul 1. Rom 12. 12. Shall rejoyce in hope, be patient in tribulation, and conti­nue in prayers, strengthened with all might according to Gods glorious power, unto all patience and long suffering▪ with joyfulnesse, Colos. 1. 11. Knowing that all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecu­tion, 2 Tim. 2. 12. Taking the Prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord for ensamples, of suffering affliction and pati­ence, Jomes 5. 10. And accompting it alwayes thank-worthy, if for conscience towards God, I endure grief, suffering wrongfully, for even hereunto are we called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that we should follow his steps, 1 Pet. 19. 20. And in this resolution by Gods gracious assistance, in peace of a good conscience, and in all patience will I abide till my dissolution shall come, looking for that blessed hope and appearing of that glory of that mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Tit. 2. 13. Chusing rather to suffer adversity with the people of God, then to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season, Heb. 11. 25. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gaine the whole World, and lose his owne Soule, Mar. S. 36. In this opinion therfore will I abide putting my whole trust and confidence in God my Lord which executeth justice for the oppressed, which gives bread to the hungry, and loseth the prisoners, for the Lord heareth the poore, and dispiseth not his prisoners, Psalme 66. 33. and 146. 7.

[Page 47]To conclude Sir, whereas you signifie unto me that you will returne me a sa­tisfactory answer to my doubts, from godly and learned Devines, and men of judgement in the Lawes of the Land, [...] desire you that you will please to take ad­vice only from such Devines, as neither have renounced their Orders, or obedi­ence to their Ordinaries, and such that are without partiallity or hypocrisie in this publique cause, and from such Judges and learned Lawyers as serve not the times, so much as the truth, and such as have not mens persons in admiration because of advantage; for I must deale plainly with you, that there is great scan­dall in th [...]se forraigne parts upon the men of these professions, it being reported of the first, that they goe about to prophane and blespheme the Church their Mo­ther with stigmaticall imputations of Antichristian impieties, and th [...] the latter have adulterated the Lawes, the Nurses that have fed them; applying them to the humors and ends of those that have put them in authority, and as the Proph [...] Mich. 3 9. saith, abhorring judgement, and p [...]v [...]rting all equity, in that they take u­pon them to give sentence of death upon [...]ose that have served his Majesty, ac­cording to their duty of Allegiance in these [...]at Wa [...]s, as fellons, when they have but taken an horse or armes for the Kings service, though they tooke them from those that were actually in armes against the Kings Majesty▪ with an intention on­ly to ayd his Majesty against those that had risen up against him, and not animo furan [...]i, or with a fellonious intent: Nay, we heare that some of the Judges late­ly put into Commission by both Houses of Parliament have delivered it for Law, that such a one as hath served the King in these late wars (or any such that they call Malignants) may not sue for their rights, and are incapable to receive justice, though they be neither outlawed or committed, that whatsoever they recover or purchase before they have made their Compositions ought to be seized on, and se­questred to the use of the State; I pray you Sir, where, or in what bookes of the Lawes of England do you reade of such definition of felony or inhabilities or in­capacities of the Kings Loyall Subjects? Mr. Littleton who reckons up all the inha­bilities of the Subjects of England, mentions none such, neither are any such else where to be found: but these men put the Kings Liege, and loyall people into a worse condition then slaves, villaines, or aliens. And yet they account it Lawfull taking, and no depredation when any man that hath served both Houses of Par­liament in this late war hath plundered or taken any mans goods or estate from him, that they did but imagine bare good affection to the King, and give their judgements that it is lawfull to seize, sequester, nay to [...]ell away mens estates that have served the King before they have legally convicted them of any offence. O horrible perverting of judgement and justice if this be true, I pray you sir may it not be saied of these men as the Prophet Amos 3. 10. saith, They know not to doe right saith the Lord, who store up violence and robbery in their Pallaces, that turne judge­ment into Wormewood, and lea [...] of righteousnesse in the earth, Amos 5 7. and are not they such as Solomon speakes of, Prov▪ 4. 16. That they sleepe not except they have done mischiefe, and their sleepe is tak [...]n away un [...]sse they cause some to fall, for they eat the bread of wickednesse, and drinke the wine of violence, or as David saith, Ps. 58. 2. that weigh the violence of their hands in the earth. But Sin, I speake not this with refer­rence to you, for I know you to be a man of learning, and I heare that you are a man of moderation, and I desire you since that you have taken that imployment u­po [...] you to continue so: Remember your Oath that thereby you are to dispence justice indifferently to the Kings people, according to the knowne and established [Page 48] Lawes of the Land, not by arbitrement o [...] fancy; consider the infirmity of your Commission upon what hath been said before, set before your eyes the mortallity of the 44 Judges remooved and put to death by King [...]s [...] for violence, injustice, and c [...]rr [...]p [...] ac [...]d upon the people of this Land [...] his [...]me, of whose offences and [...]a [...]a [...]s you may read in H [...]e his mirrour of Justices, behold and weigh the punishment and d [...]ny of Sir Thomas Weyland, Sir R [...]ph Heng [...]a [...], Sir Iohn L [...]o [...], Sir William B [...]mpt [...], Sir Solomon R [...]c [...]ster, Sir [...]ic [...]a [...] B [...]nd, and their fellowes, [...]flected upon them for their injustice by King Edw. the [...] Consider the instability of all [...]umane estates, thinke not that you are in a sure and unque­ [...]io [...]able [...]; but remember that Iob tells you, Iob 1 [...]. 18. That the Lord loo [...] the bonds of King [...], and guirdeth their loynes wi [...] a g [...]d [...]e, and I prov you take the counsell of the w [...]sem [...], P. o. [...]7. 1. Boast not thy [...]fe [...] to morrow, for thou know­est not what a day may [...]ng [...]o [...]th: he [...]k [...] to St. Iames, J [...]. 4 13 Go [...] to now y [...]e that say to day or to morrow wee will g [...]e into such a City, and continue there a yeare, and buy, and sell▪ and get ga [...]e? whereas y [...] know not when shall be on the morrow for what is [...] life, it is even a valour that appeares for a little time, and then v [...]sh [...] [...]way? do [...] just [...] therefore and execute [...] g [...] ▪ us judgements, rejoyce not in your [...], for all such [...] young i [...] [...]v [...]ll; and remember with the same Apostle, that to him that know­eth [...] [...] good, and doth it not, to him it is sin: I know you are learned in the L [...]w [...], and a great Student in the holy Scriptures, I therefore summe up all with these ex­hortations but of Gods holy Writ, not only to you, but to all the Judges of the

[...] no, beginning it with the charge given by Moses to the Judges of Israel. Heare the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him; yee shall not respect persons in judgement, but you shall heare the small as well as the great, you shall not be a­fraid of the face of man, for the judgement is Gods. Deut. 1. 16. 17 and with the good King Iehosaphat to his Judges, 2 Cron 19 6. Take [...]eed what you do for yee Judge not for ma [...], out for the Lord who is with you in the judgement: take like­wise the Prophets instruction, Es [...]y▪ 1. 17. Learne to do well, seek▪ judgement, re­lieve the oppressed, judge the fatherlesse, plead for the widdow; and if these serve no [...] to perswade you, heare Gods owne words, Levit. 19. 15. you shall not do un­righteousnesse in judgement, thou shalt not respect the person of the poore, nor ho­nour the person of the mighty▪ But in righteousnes shall thou judge thy neighbour▪ and [...]x [...]d. 23 6 thou shall not wrest the judgement of the poore in his cause▪ nay more, follow our blessed Saviours Precept, Jo [...]. 24. Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement, that is according to your Oathes, and the knowne and established Lawes of the Land; if yee do otherwise, you have our Saviours promise that you shall [...]e are of it, Mat. 7. 2. For with what judgement ye judge, yee shall be judged, and with what measure yee m [...]a [...]e, it shall be measu­red to you againe. The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces, out of heaven shall [...]e thunder upon them, the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth, and shall give strength u [...]to the King, and exa [...]t the ho [...] of his Anointed, for God himselfe is Judge, Psal. 50 6. and he shall judge the world in righteousnesse, Psal. 9. 8. to whose protection I commit you, and to whom with our blessed Savi­our Jesus Christ, and the blessed Spirit be all honour, and glory, world without end.

Amen.