A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation, on account of the oaths with an answer to the History of passive obedience, so far as relates to them.
         Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
      
       
         
           1689
        
      
       Approx. 97 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 25 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
       
         Text Creation Partnership,
         Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
         2004-05 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
         A61547
         Wing S5584
         ESTC R16935
         13153719
         ocm 13153719
         98150
         
           
            This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
             Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
            . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
          
        
      
       
         Early English books online.
      
       
         (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A61547)
         Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 98150)
         Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 751:43)
      
       
         
           
             A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation, on account of the oaths with an answer to the History of passive obedience, so far as relates to them.
             Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.
          
           [4], 42, [2] p.
           
             Printed for Richard Chiswell ...,
             London :
             1689.
          
           
             Errata: prelim. p. [4].
             Advertisement: p. [1]-[2] at end.
             Includes bibliographical references.
             Attributed to Edward Stillingfleet. Cf. NUC pre-1956.
             Reproduction of original in Duke University Library.
          
        
      
    
     
       
         Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
         Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
      
       
         EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
         EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
         The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
         Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
         Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
         Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
         The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
         Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
         
          Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
           Text Creation Partnership web site
          .
        
      
       
         
         
      
    
     
       
         eng
      
       
         
           Seller, Abednego, 1646?-1705. -- History of passive obedience since the Reformation.
           Dissenters, Religious -- England.
        
      
    
     
        2004-02 TCP
        Assigned for keying and markup
      
        2004-02 Aptara
        Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
      
        2004-03 Olivia Bottum
        Sampled and proofread
      
        2004-03 Olivia Bottum
        Text and markup reviewed and edited
      
        2004-04 pfs
        Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
      
    
  
   
     
       
         
         
         
           A
           DISCOURSE
           Concerning
           the
           UNREASONABLENESS
           OF
           
             A
             New
             Separation
          
           ,
           On
           account
           of
           the
           OATHS
           .
           WITH
           An
           ANSWER
           to
           the
           HISTORY
           of
           PASSIVE
           OBEDIENCE
           ,
           So
           far
           as
           relates
           to
           THEM
           .
        
         
           LICENS'D
           ,
           October
           the
           25th
           .
           1689.
           
        
         
           LONDON
           ,
           Printed
           for
           
             Richard
             Chiswell
          
           ,
           at
           the
           Rose
           and
           Crown
           in
           St.
           
             Paul's
             Church-Yard
          
           ,
           MDCLXXXIX
           .
        
      
       
         
         
         
           THE
           CONTENTS
           .
        
         
           
             SOme
             general
             Reflections
             upon
             the
             New
             Separation
             ,
             on
             account
             of
             the
             Oaths
             p.
             1
             ,
             &c.
             
          
           
             Of
             Oaths
             in
             general
             p.
             3.
             
          
           
             Whether
             the
             Obligation
             of
             the
             former
             Oaths
             continues
             ibid.
             
          
           
             The
             general
             Good
             the
             Measure
             of
             Obligation
             p.
             5
          
           
             Of
             the
             State
             of
             Slavery
             p.
             6
          
           
             No
             such
             thing
             as
             absolute
             Power
             in
             Nature
             p.
             7
          
           
             Of
             a
             State
             of
             Vsurpation
             p.
             8
          
           
             Allegiance
             to
             be
             measured
             by
             the
             Laws
             ibid.
             
          
           
             No
             Apostasie
             from
             the
             Church
             of
             England
             by
             taking
             the
             present
             Oaths
             .
          
           
             The
             History
             of
             Passive
             Obedience
             considered
             ,
             and
             the
             Force
             of
             the
             whole
             resolved
             into
             three
             Points
             ,
             viz.
             p.
             9.
             
          
           
             1.
             
             That
             the
             present
             Oath
             is
             to
             the
             Prejudice
             of
             a
             third
             Person
          
           
             2.
             
             That
             it
             is
             contradictory
             to
             our
             former
             Oaths
             p.
             11
          
           
             3.
             
             That
             the
             Person
             who
             had
             the
             Right
             hath
             given
             no
             release
             p.
             12
          
           
             Dr.
             
             Hammond's
             Arguments
             considered
             ibid.
             
          
           
             Our
             Constitution
             considered
             ,
             and
             that
             it
             is
             a
             Branch
             of
             it
             for
             the
             three
             Estates
             to
             limit
             the
             Succession
             ,
             and
             determine
             the
             Oaths
             of
             Allegiance
             p.
             13
          
           
             So
             it
             was
             under
             the
             British
             and
             Saxon
             Government
             ibid.
             
          
           
             England
             a
             true
             successive
             Monarchy
             ,
             and
             yet
             Reason
             of
             State
             and
             the
             publick
             Good
             was
             wont
             to
             overrule
             p.
             19
          
           
             And
             it
             was
             lawful
             to
             transfer
             Allegiance
             accordingly
             ibid.
             
          
           
             Of
             the
             Norman
             Line
             p.
             20
          
           
             The
             Case
             of
             Maud
             and
             Stephen
             ibid.
             
          
           
             of
             York
             and
             Lancaster
             p.
             23
          
           
             The
             Agreement
             of
             Richard
             Duke
             of
             York
             and
             
               Hen.
               vi
            
             .
             ibid.
             
          
           
             An
             Oath
             of
             Allegiance
             ,
             declarative
             of
             Right
             or
             Submissive
             p.
             25
          
           
             Of
             a
             King
             in
             Possession
             ,
             according
             to
             our
             Constitution
             ,
             and
             the
             difference
             between
             a
             King
             
               de
               Jure
               &
               de
               Facto
            
             ,
             and
             an
             Vsurper
             p.
             28
             ,
             29
             ,
             30
          
           
             Of
             the
             Rise
             and
             Reason
             of
             that
             Difference
             
               de
               facto
               &
               de
               jure
               p.
            
             32
          
           
             The
             Case
             of
             the
             Lady
             
               Jane
               p.
            
             31
          
           
             The
             Case
             of
             K.
             John
             and
             Lewis
             .
             The
             Homilies
             considered
             p.
             32
          
           
             The
             Case
             of
             
               Tiberius
               p.
            
             34
          
           
             and
             of
             the
             Jews
             under
             him
             p.
             36
          
        
      
       
         
         
           ERRATA
           .
        
         
           PAge
           8.
           line
           21.
           read
           of
           England
           .
           P.
           10.
           l.
           24.
           r.
           
             to
             preserve
             the
             Right
             of
          
           ,
           &c.
           
           P.
           18.
           l.
           8.
           r.
           tied
           .
           P.
           27.
           l.
           28.
           
           
             But
             it
             may
             be
             said
          
           ,
           Our
           —
           P.
           36.
           l.
           ult
           .
           after
           place
           r.
           ,
           P.
           37.
           l.
           1.
           r.
           
             as
             at
             that
          
           —
           and
           after
           state
           r.
           ,
           P.
           38.
           l.
           ult
           .
           for
           can
           r.
           such
           :
           Marg.
           l.
           6.
           r.
           confestim
           .
        
      
    
     
       
         
         
           A
           DISCOURSE
           Concerning
           the
           Unreasonableness
           of
           a
           New
           Separation
           On
           account
           of
           the
           OATHS
           .
        
         
           
             SIR
             ,
          
        
         
           
             YOur
             former
             Letter
             gave
             me
             an
             Account
             of
             Your
             own
             and
             others
             Dissatisfaction
             about
             the
             Oaths
             ;
             but
             your
             second
             carries
             the
             Point
             a
             great
             deal
             farther
             ;
             for
             therein
             you
             tell
             me
             ,
          
           Those
           who
           are
           unsatisfied
           ,
           think
           themselves
           bound
           to
           separate
           from
           the
           Communion
           of
           those
           who
           have
           taken
           them
           ;
           and
           that
           if
           Ease
           be
           not
           given
           to
           the
           Scrupulous
           ,
           new
           Congregations
           will
           be
           immediately
           formed
           ;
           and
           therefore
           you
           beg
           my
           Assistance
           in
           clearing
           these
           Points
           ,
           in
           order
           to
           the
           preventing
           a
           New
           Separation
           .
        
         
           I
           was
           not
           a
           little
           surprized
           at
           the
           reading
           these
           Passages
           ;
           and
           I
           soon
           apprehended
           the
           mischievous
           Consequence
           of
           a
           
             new
             Schism
          
           ,
           especially
           among
           the
           Members
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           :
           But
           I
           can
           hardly
           think
           it
           possible
           that
           those
           who
           have
           expressed
           so
           great
           a
           Sense
           of
           the
           Mischief
           of
           it
           in
           others
           ,
           should
           be
           so
           ready
           to
           fall
           into
           it
           themselves
           ,
           and
           that
           upon
           the
           meer
           Account
           of
           Scruples
           ;
           when
           the
           Difference
           is
           only
           about
           the
           Resolution
           of
           a
           Case
           of
           Conscience
           ,
           wherein
           Wise
           and
           Good
           Men
           may
           easily
           differ
           :
           But
           it
           
           cannot
           be
           a
           Mark
           either
           of
           Wisdom
           or
           Goodness
           ,
           to
           separate
           from
           those
           who
           do
           so
           .
           Some
           think
           the
           Oaths
           lawful
           ,
           and
           therefore
           take
           them
           ;
           others
           do
           not
           ,
           and
           therefore
           forbear
           :
           But
           is
           taking
           the
           Oaths
           made
           a
           Condition
           of
           Communion
           with
           us
           ?
           Is
           it
           required
           of
           all
           who
           joyn
           in
           our
           Worship
           ,
           at
           least
           ,
           to
           declare
           ,
           That
           they
           think
           the
           taking
           of
           them
           to
           be
           lawful
           ?
           If
           not
           ,
           what
           Colour
           can
           there
           be
           for
           breaking
           Communion
           on
           the
           Account
           of
           the
           Oaths
           ?
        
         
           Suppose
           those
           who
           take
           the
           Oaths
           are
           to
           blame
           ;
           If
           they
           act
           according
           to
           their
           Consciences
           therein
           ,
           what
           Ground
           can
           there
           be
           of
           Separation
           from
           them
           for
           so
           doing
           ,
           unless
           it
           be
           lawful
           to
           separate
           from
           all
           such
           who
           follow
           the
           Dictate
           of
           an
           Erroneous
           Conscience
           ?
           And
           so
           there
           can
           be
           no
           End
           of
           Separations
           ,
           till
           all
           Men's
           Consciences
           judge
           alike
           :
           for
           a
           Man's
           Conscience
           in
           his
           practical
           Judgment
           concerning
           Moral
           Actions
           ;
           and
           there
           are
           so
           many
           Circumstances
           ,
           which
           vary
           the
           Nature
           of
           such
           Moral
           Actions
           ,
           as
           Oaths
           ,
           that
           I
           do
           not
           wonder
           to
           see
           Men
           differ
           about
           them
           ;
           but
           I
           should
           wonder
           and
           lament
           to
           see
           them
           separate
           from
           each
           other
           for
           the
           sake
           of
           such
           a
           Difference
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           there
           is
           a
           great
           deal
           of
           Difference
           between
           a
           Tenderness
           and
           a
           Sowreness
           of
           Conscience
           .
           There
           is
           a
           natural
           Tenderness
           in
           the
           Eye
           ,
           which
           makes
           it
           apt
           to
           be
           offended
           with
           Mores
           ;
           and
           in
           that
           Case
           it
           is
           to
           be
           gently
           dealt
           with
           :
           But
           when
           an
           ill
           Humour
           falls
           into
           it
           ,
           there
           seems
           to
           be
           greater
           Tenderness
           ,
           but
           from
           a
           worse
           Cause
           ;
           and
           then
           the
           best
           way
           of
           Cure
           is
           to
           sweeten
           or
           remove
           the
           bad
           Humor
           which
           caused
           it
           .
           I
           cannot
           imagine
           why
           ,
           because
           some
           Men's
           Consciences
           are
           so
           tender
           in
           the
           Point
           of
           Loyalty
           ,
           that
           they
           cannot
           take
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           that
           they
           must
           be
           so
           tender
           too
           ,
           as
           not
           to
           joyn
           in
           Communion
           with
           those
           who
           do
           it
           .
           This
           seems
           to
           come
           from
           another
           Cause
           ,
           and
           not
           from
           the
           Original
           Scruple
           :
           Are
           they
           afraid
           of
           joyning
           with
           others
           ,
           not
           so
           tender
           as
           themselves
           ?
           This
           is
           the
           Scruple
           about
           
             mixt
             Communion
          
           ,
           which
           hath
           been
           so
           long
           
           exploded
           among
           us
           .
           What
           then
           ?
           Have
           we
           hereby
           changed
           the
           Standard
           of
           our
           Communion
           ,
           or
           are
           there
           in
           this
           Case
           imposed
           any
           new
           Terms
           of
           Communion
           with
           us
           ?
           How
           then
           comes
           a
           Scruple
           about
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           to
           lead
           men
           to
           think
           of
           a
           Separation
           ?
           How
           come
           they
           to
           make
           so
           much
           Conscience
           of
           one
           ,
           and
           so
           little
           of
           the
           other
           ?
           Is
           a
           Separation
           from
           our
           Church
           become
           a
           Duty
           with
           those
           ,
           who
           so
           lately
           looked
           on
           it
           as
           so
           great
           a
           Fault
           in
           others
           ?
           But
           ,
           I
           perceive
           ,
           a
           tender
           Conscience
           is
           like
           a
           tender
           Constitution
           ,
           it
           is
           soon
           put
           out
           of
           Order
           :
           So
           much
           greater
           Care
           then
           ought
           those
           to
           have
           who
           forsake
           any
           worldly
           Advantages
           for
           the
           sake
           of
           their
           Consciences
           ,
           lest
           that
           which
           begun
           with
           a
           Scruple
           ,
           at
           last
           end
           in
           Humour
           and
           Faction
           ,
           and
           the
           Ruine
           of
           that
           Church
           ,
           which
           they
           have
           alwaies
           pretended
           to
           value
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           leave
           these
           general
           Reflections
           ,
           I
           shall
           now
           apply
           my self
           to
           the
           main
           Point
           ,
           Whether
           there
           be
           any
           Reason
           for
           these
           Scruples
           about
           the
           Oaths
           ?
           for
           if
           there
           be
           not
           ,
           it
           will
           be
           granted
           that
           there
           can
           be
           no
           Reason
           for
           a
           Separation
           on
           the
           Account
           of
           them
           .
           If
           there
           be
           any
           Reason
           ,
           it
           must
           arise
           ,
           either
           from
           the
           continuing
           Obligation
           of
           the
           former
           Oaths
           ;
           or
           from
           the
           Nature
           of
           the
           present
           Oaths
           :
           And
           therefore
           I
           shall
           enquire
           into
           two
           things
           :
        
         
           First
           ,
           The
           Nature
           and
           Measure
           of
           the
           Obligation
           of
           Political
           Oaths
           in
           general
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           The
           Difficulties
           which
           relate
           to
           our
           Oaths
           in
           particular
           .
        
         
           First
           ,
           As
           to
           the
           Nature
           and
           Obligation
           of
           Political
           Oaths
           ;
           by
           which
           I
           mean
           such
           as
           have
           immediate
           and
           particular
           Respect
           to
           Human
           Society
           ,
           and
           the
           Government
           we
           live
           under
           ;
           as
           all
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           do
           .
        
         
           And
           herein
           the
           Difference
           lies
           between
           those
           and
           the
           common
           Oaths
           between
           Man
           and
           Man
           ;
           because
           these
           are
           founded
           on
           an
           Equality
           of
           Right
           ,
           but
           the
           other
           on
           the
           general
           Security
           of
           Human
           Society
           .
        
         
         
           In
           
             Political
             Oaths
          
           we
           must
           distinguish
           the
           particular
           Intention
           and
           Designs
           of
           the
           Persons
           to
           whom
           they
           are
           made
           ,
           from
           the
           general
           End
           and
           Scope
           of
           the
           
             Oaths
             themselves
          
           .
           I
           do
           not
           deny
           but
           such
           Oaths
           at
           first
           came
           from
           the
           Mistrust
           ,
           which
           those
           in
           Power
           had
           ,
           of
           such
           as
           were
           at
           present
           in
           Subjection
           to
           them
           .
           And
           because
           the
           Fears
           of
           a
           Deity
           made
           the
           strongest
           Impressions
           on
           People's
           Minds
           ,
           therefore
           they
           were
           not
           contented
           with
           bare
           Promises
           ,
           but
           they
           added
           the
           Solemnities
           of
           Oaths
           ,
           that
           they
           might
           look
           on
           God
           as
           concerned
           ,
           both
           as
           a
           Witness
           and
           a
           Judge
           .
        
         
           But
           if
           we
           search
           narrowly
           into
           this
           Matter
           ,
           the
           Obligation
           comes
           not
           from
           the
           bare
           Oath
           ,
           but
           from
           something
           antecedent
           to
           it
           ,
           or
           from
           the
           Promise
           contained
           in
           it
           ,
           to
           which
           the
           Oath
           adds
           greater
           Solemnity
           on
           the
           Account
           of
           Religion
           .
           
           And
           therefore
           it
           is
           generally
           resolved
           by
           the
           Civilians
           as
           well
           as
           Casuits
           ,
           That
           
             an
             Oath
             follows
             the
             Nature
             of
             the
             thing
             about
             which
             it
             is
             conversant
             ;
             for
             that
             ,
          
           say
           they
           ,
           
             is
             the
             Principal
             ,
             and
             the
             other
             is
             but
             the
             Accessary
             ;
             and
             the
             Accessary
             still
             follows
             the
             Nature
             of
             the
             Principal
             .
          
        
         
           Even
           Molina
           ,
           
           who
           is
           noted
           for
           singularity
           in
           this
           Matter
           ,
           (
           for
           asserting
           ,
           That
           an
           Oath
           added
           an
           Obligation
           of
           Justice
           besides
           that
           of
           Religion
           )
           yet
           when
           he
           comes
           to
           explain
           himself
           ,
           he
           founds
           it
           on
           the
           Promise
           included
           in
           the
           Oath
           ,
           and
           not
           in
           the
           Oath
           it self
           :
           For
           after
           an
           Oath
           taken
           ,
           such
           as
           the
           Obligation
           was
           before
           ,
           such
           is
           it
           after
           ,
           and
           the
           Promise
           contained
           in
           an
           Oath
           admits
           of
           the
           same
           Conditions
           ,
           which
           it
           would
           have
           had
           ,
           if
           no
           Oath
           had
           been
           joyned
           with
           it
           .
        
         
           If
           there
           be
           a
           Law
           ,
           which
           makes
           a
           Contract
           void
           ,
           on
           the
           Account
           of
           the
           Publick
           Good
           ,
           the
           adding
           an
           Oath
           to
           such
           a
           Contract
           doth
           not
           make
           it
           valid
           :
           As
           for
           Instance
           ,
           if
           the
           Law
           of
           a
           Country
           makes
           void
           all
           clandestine
           Marriages
           ;
           if
           a
           Man
           marries
           a
           Woman
           after
           such
           a
           manner
           ,
           although
           this
           be
           an
           Obligation
           of
           the
           strictest
           Nature
           :
           Yet
           such
           is
           the
           Force
           and
           Power
           of
           Laws
           made
           for
           a
           Publick
           
           Good
           ,
           that
           although
           the
           Intention
           of
           one
           Person
           was
           to
           tie
           the
           other
           in
           an
           indissoluble
           Bond
           ;
           yet
           the
           Law
           supersedes
           that
           Obligation
           ,
           or
           else
           it
           is
           made
           to
           no
           purpose
           ,
           at
           least
           ,
           so
           far
           as
           it
           relates
           to
           the
           
             Civil
             Contract
          
           ,
           which
           is
           as
           much
           as
           is
           necessary
           to
           my
           purpose
           ;
           for
           ,
           even
           that
           hath
           an
           obligation
           of
           Conscience
           going
           along
           with
           it
           ,
           which
           however
           in
           this
           Case
           is
           superseded
           for
           the
           Publick
           Good.
           
        
         
           I
           do
           not
           deny
           ,
           that
           the
           chief
           Intention
           of
           those
           who
           require
           
             Oaths
             of
             Allegiance
          
           to
           themselves
           ,
           is
           to
           bind
           men
           as
           fast
           as
           may
           be
           to
           them
           ;
           and
           there
           is
           a
           Personal
           Obligation
           consequent
           upon
           it
           .
           But
           then
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           that
           the
           Rule
           &
           measure
           of
           it
           ,
           is
           not
           to
           be
           taken
           from
           such
           Intention
           of
           the
           persons
           ,
           but
           from
           the
           
             General
             Good
          
           ,
           which
           was
           chiefly
           intended
           in
           such
           things
           .
           For
           ,
           there
           is
           a
           Common
           Good
           of
           humane
           Society
           ,
           which
           Mankind
           have
           an
           obligation
           to
           ,
           antecedent
           to
           that
           obligation
           they
           are
           under
           to
           particular
           persons
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           Magistrates
           were
           designed
           for
           a
           general
           Good
           ,
           so
           the
           obligation
           to
           them
           must
           be
           understood
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           still
           in
           subordination
           to
           the
           main
           end
           .
        
         
           And
           it
           is
           agreed
           on
           all
           hands
           ,
           That
           an
           Antecedent
           and
           Superiour
           Obligation
           doth
           void
           that
           which
           is
           subsequent
           and
           inferiour
           ,
           when
           they
           contradict
           each
           other
           ;
           else
           an
           Oath
           might
           bind
           a
           Man
           to
           sin
           ;
           which
           no
           man
           will
           assert
           .
        
         
           Therefore
           whatsoever
           the
           Intention
           of
           the
           Persons
           was
           ,
           How
           strict
           soever
           the
           Expressions
           may
           be
           ,
           if
           the
           keeping
           of
           the
           Oath
           be
           really
           and
           truly
           inconsistent
           with
           the
           welfare
           of
           a
           People
           ,
           in
           subverting
           the
           Fundamental
           Laws
           ,
           which
           support
           it
           ;
           I
           do
           not
           see
           how
           such
           an
           Oath
           continus
           to
           oblige
           :
           For
           ,
           there
           is
           no
           Relation
           of
           Mankind
           one
           to
           another
           ,
           but
           there
           is
           some
           good
           antecedent
           ,
           which
           is
           the
           just
           measure
           of
           that
           Obligation
           they
           stand
           in
           to
           each
           other
           .
           Thus
           it
           is
           between
           Parents
           and
           Children
           ,
           Husbands
           and
           Wives
           ,
           Masters
           and
           Servants
           ;
           and
           therefore
           it
           is
           most
           reasonable
           to
           be
           so
           between
           Princes
           and
           their
           Subjects
           .
        
         
         
           A
           Vow
           to
           God
           is
           as
           solemn
           a
           thing
           as
           an
           Oath
           ;
           but
           our
           Saviour
           declares
           ,
           if
           it
           hinders
           that
           Good
           which
           Children
           are
           bound
           to
           take
           care
           of
           with
           respect
           to
           Parents
           ,
           it
           ceaseth
           to
           oblige
           .
           If
           Parents
           ,
           instead
           of
           regarding
           the
           Good
           of
           their
           Children
           ,
           do
           openly
           design
           their
           Ruin
           ,
           and
           contrive
           ways
           to
           bring
           it
           about
           ;
           none
           will
           say
           but
           that
           they
           are
           bound
           to
           take
           care
           of
           their
           own
           welfare
           ,
           although
           such
           Parents
           may
           call
           it
           
             Obstinate
             Disobedience
          
           .
           For
           ,
           even
           the
           Government
           of
           Parents
           ,
           as
           natural
           as
           it
           is
           ,
           is
           not
           Absolute
           ,
           but
           is
           limited
           by
           Reason
           and
           the
           Good
           of
           their
           Children
           .
           And
           when
           they
           are
           of
           age
           ,
           they
           are
           allow'd
           to
           judge
           of
           what
           concerns
           their
           welfare
           ,
           and
           (
           if
           it
           be
           necessary
           )
           to
           withdraw
           from
           their
           Parents
           immediate
           care
           ,
           but
           preserving
           a
           due
           Reverence
           and
           Respect
           to
           them
           .
        
         
           The
           hardest
           Case
           we
           can
           suppose
           ,
           is
           that
           of
           
             Slavery
             ,
             i.e.
          
           of
           
             Dominion
             by
             Force
          
           ;
           but
           altho'
           the
           Law
           of
           Nations
           allows
           it
           ,
           yet
           it
           is
           with
           such
           limitations
           ,
           as
           still
           shew
           ,
           That
           whatever
           the
           condition
           of
           men
           be
           ,
           with
           respect
           to
           one
           another
           ,
           there
           is
           still
           a
           Regard
           to
           be
           had
           to
           the
           Benefit
           of
           those
           who
           are
           in
           subjection
           to
           others
           .
        
         
           The
           only
           thing
           which
           makes
           a
           state
           of
           Slavery
           reasonable
           ,
           is
           ,
           That
           when
           men
           are
           taken
           Captive
           by
           others
           ,
           they
           are
           at
           their
           Mercy
           ;
           and
           the
           giving
           of
           life
           is
           so
           great
           a
           benefit
           ,
           as
           cannot
           be
           compensated
           by
           any
           thing
           less
           than
           a
           perpetual
           Service
           ;
           and
           in
           consideration
           of
           it
           ,
           the
           Master
           is
           to
           afford
           Protection
           and
           Maintenance
           .
           Still
           we
           see
           all
           reasonable
           subjection
           is
           in
           order
           to
           some
           Good
           of
           those
           who
           are
           under
           it
           ;
           and
           without
           it
           ,
           as
           Aristotle
           saith
           ,
           
             They
             are
             not
             used
             as
             Men
             ,
             but
             as
             Tools
             .
          
           And
           it
           is
           agreed
           by
           the
           best
           Writers
           on
           this
           Subject
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           Slave
           be
           kept
           in
           Chains
           ,
           he
           is
           under
           no
           obligation
           of
           Conscience
           to
           him
           that
           keeps
           him
           ;
           but
           he
           may
           find
           his
           own
           way
           to
           escape
           ,
           because
           he
           is
           treated
           as
           an
           Enemy
           ,
           and
           therefore
           hath
           all
           the
           Right
           of
           War
           on
           his
           side
           .
           But
           if
           he
           yields
           upon
           Terms
           ,
           then
           he
           is
           under
           Obligation
           ,
           but
           it
           is
           according
           to
           the
           Terms
           upon
           which
           he
           yielded
           himself
           .
        
         
         
           Mr.
           Hobbs
           indeed
           saith
           ,
           
           
             That
             those
             who
             submit
             upon
             Compact
             ,
             are
             capable
             of
             no
             Injury
             afterwards
             ;
             because
             they
             have
             given
             up
             their
             Wills
             already
             ,
             and
             there
             can
             be
             no
             Injury
             to
             a
             willing
             mind
             .
          
           But
           this
           is
           very
           false
           reasoning
           ;
           for
           himself
           grants
           ,
           That
           where
           there
           is
           such
           a
           Compact
           ,
           there
           goes
           some
           Liberty
           or
           Priviledge
           along
           with
           it
           .
           And
           it
           is
           not
           to
           be
           imagined
           ,
           that
           such
           who
           entred
           into
           compact
           for
           their
           Benefit
           ,
           should
           renounce
           all
           right
           to
           it
           when
           they
           have
           done
           it
           ;
           and
           if
           they
           have
           Right
           ,
           they
           may
           be
           wronged
           .
           And
           in
           the
           case
           of
           the
           greatest
           Slavery
           ,
           
             Natural
             Equity
          
           was
           required
           ,
           and
           a
           
             Common
             Right
          
           was
           still
           due
           to
           Slaves
           ,
           
           as
           Men
           :
           So
           that
           Nature
           owns
           no
           such
           thing
           ,
           as
           meer
           
             Absolute
             Power
          
           in
           some
           over
           others
           ,
           meerly
           for
           their
           own
           advantage
           ;
           but
           all
           
             Reasonable
             Power
          
           supposes
           Consent
           ,
           and
           a
           Good
           to
           be
           attained
           by
           it
           .
           But
           when
           it
           is
           carried
           to
           a
           contrary
           end
           ,
           it
           is
           against
           the
           Intention
           of
           Nature
           ,
           which
           lays
           an
           obligation
           on
           some
           men
           towards
           others
           ,
           with
           regard
           to
           a
           
             Common
             Good
          
           ,
           which
           cannot
           otherwise
           be
           attained
           .
        
         
           It
           is
           not
           denied
           by
           the
           strictest
           Casuists
           in
           these
           matters
           ,
           but
           that
           
             under
             a
             state
             of
             usurpation
             ,
             notwithstanding
             their
             Oaths
             to
             the
             Rightful
             Prince
             ,
             men
             are
             bound
             to
             do
             those
             things
             which
             tend
             to
             the
             Publick
             Safety
             as
             well
             as
             their
             own
             .
          
           But
           then
           they
           found
           it
           upon
           
             a
             presumptive
             Consent
             of
             the
             absent
             Prince
          
           ;
           whereas
           ,
           the
           true
           Reason
           is
           ,
           That
           Men
           are
           in
           the
           first
           place
           bound
           to
           promote
           the
           Publick
           Good
           ,
           and
           consequentially
           ,
           and
           with
           respect
           to
           it
           ,
           to
           regard
           the
           Will
           of
           their
           Princes
           ,
           who
           are
           appointed
           by
           God
           and
           Nature
           for
           that
           end
           .
           And
           if
           such
           be
           rendred
           uncapable
           of
           doing
           it
           ,
           yet
           the
           Obligation
           on
           others
           remains
           .
           Whereas
           ,
           if
           it
           depended
           on
           the
           Will
           of
           the
           absent
           Prince
           ,
           his
           
             presumptive
             Will
          
           would
           not
           be
           sufficient
           ;
           for
           that
           can
           lay
           no
           obligation
           .
        
         
           But
           ,
           that
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           is
           the
           true
           and
           just
           measure
           of
           the
           Obligation
           in
           these
           Oaths
           ,
           doth
           further
           appear
           ,
           in
           that
           the
           Oaths
           are
           reciprocal
           .
           Whereas
           ,
           if
           only
           the
           Good
           of
           the
           Persons
           to
           whom
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           are
           made
           ,
           were
           to
           be
           
           our
           Rule
           ,
           then
           there
           would
           be
           no
           mutual
           Oaths
           .
           I
           am
           not
           now
           enquiring
           how
           far
           in
           
             reciprocal
             Oaths
          
           one
           Party's
           failing
           disobliges
           the
           other
           ,
           but
           I
           am
           shewing
           ,
           That
           it
           must
           be
           a
           General
           Good
           that
           is
           aimed
           at
           when
           both
           Parties
           are
           sworn
           to
           each
           other
           ;
           so
           it
           was
           in
           the
           strictest
           
             Feudal
             Allegiance
          
           ,
           the
           Lord
           was
           as
           much
           sworn
           to
           the
           Tenant
           to
           protect
           and
           defend
           him
           in
           his
           Rights
           ,
           as
           the
           other
           was
           to
           attend
           him
           in
           his
           Wars
           for
           the
           security
           of
           his
           Person
           .
           And
           this
           was
           certainly
           founded
           on
           a
           mutual
           Contract
           ,
           called
           by
           the
           old
           Feudists
           Liga
           ,
           and
           thence
           Ligeas
           and
           Ligeantia
           ,
           and
           so
           our
           Allegiance
           .
           The
           words
           of
           Glanvil
           and
           Bracton
           and
           the
           Customary
           of
           Normandy
           ,
           
           are
           plain
           ,
           to
           shew
           the
           
             Reciprocal
             Obligation
          
           in
           this
           Case
           ,
           and
           the
           measures
           on
           both
           sides
           were
           to
           be
           
             the
             Rights
             ,
             and
             Customs
             ,
             and
             Laws
             of
             the
             Land.
          
           So
           that
           Allegiance
           originally
           implies
           a
           Compact
           ,
           and
           is
           to
           be
           measured
           by
           the
           Laws
           ,
           which
           are
           the
           Standard
           of
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           of
           a
           Country
           .
        
         
           2ly
           ,
           Having
           thus
           in
           general
           fixed
           these
           grounds
           to
           proceed
           upon
           ,
           I
           come
           to
           the
           particular
           examination
           of
           the
           difficulties
           which
           relate
           to
           the
           present
           Oaths
           ;
           and
           because
           we
           are
           charged
           with
           
             Apostacy
             from
             the
             Principles
             of
             the
             Church
             of
          
           England
           ,
           and
           that
           is
           made
           the
           main
           ground
           of
           the
           designed
           Separation
           ,
           I
           would
           fain
           know
           what
           this
           Charge
           is
           built
           upon
           ,
           with
           respect
           to
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           for
           that
           is
           all
           we
           are
           concerned
           in
           .
           If
           any
           particular
           Persons
           have
           advanced
           new
           Hypotheses
           of
           Government
           ,
           contrary
           to
           the
           Sense
           of
           our
           Church
           ,
           let
           them
           answer
           for
           themselves
           .
           The
           Case
           of
           the
           Oaths
           is
           quite
           of
           another
           Nature
           .
        
         
           Here
           is
           no
           
             Renouncing
             the
             Doctrine
             of
             Passive
             Obedience
             ,
          
           or
           
             asserting
             the
             Lawfulness
             of
             Resistance
          
           ;
           but
           the
           single
           Point
           is
           ,
           
             Whether
             the
             Law
             of
             our
             Nation
             doth
             not
             bind
             us
             to
             Allegiance
             to
             a
             King
             and
             Queen
             in
             actual
             Possession
             of
             the
             
             Throne
             ,
             by
             consent
             of
             the
             Three
             Estates
             of
             the
             Realm
             ?
             and
             whether
             such
             an
             Oath
             may
             not
             lawfully
             be
             taken
             ,
             notwithstanding
             any
             former
             Oath
             ?
          
        
         
           And
           by
           this
           very
           stating
           of
           the
           case
           ,
           any
           one
           may
           see
           how
           impertinent
           to
           this
           purpose
           the
           Book
           called
           the
           History
           of
           
             Passive
             Obedience
          
           is
           ;
           the
           truth
           is
           ,
           there
           are
           not
           many
           passages
           in
           it
           which
           come
           near
           the
           business
           ;
           but
           those
           that
           do
           ,
           contain
           in
           them
           the
           main
           difficulties
           which
           relate
           to
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           and
           therefore
           I
           shall
           impartially
           consider
           them
           .
           Which
           are
           these
           ,
           
             
               I.
               That
               they
               are
               to
               the
               prejudice
               of
               a
               third
               Person
               .
            
             
               II.
               That
               they
               are
               contradictory
               to
               a
               former
               Oath
               .
            
             
               III.
               That
               the
               Person
               to
               whom
               they
               were
               made
               ,
               hath
               given
               no
               release
               or
               discharge
               from
               them
               .
            
          
        
         
           
             For
             the
             first
             we
             have
             these
             Testimonies
             ;
             Bishop
          
           Hall
           ,
           
             p.
             46.
             saith
          
           ,
           That
           a
           Promissory
           Oath
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           the
           certain
           Prejudice
           of
           another
           man's
           Right
           ,
           cannot
           be
           attended
           with
           Iustice.
           
        
         
           Bishop
           Sanderson
           ,
           p.
           61.
           
           An
           Oath
           imposed
           by
           one
           that
           hath
           not
           a
           just
           Authority
           ,
           is
           to
           be
           declined
           as
           much
           as
           we
           can
           ;
           if
           it
           be
           forcibly
           imposed
           ,
           it
           is
           to
           be
           taken
           with
           reluctancy
           ,
           upon
           this
           condition
           ,
           that
           the
           words
           imply
           nothing
           unlawful
           or
           prejudicial
           to
           the
           Rights
           of
           a
           third
           Person
           ;
           for
           if
           so
           ,
           we
           must
           refuse
           the
           Oath
           at
           the
           peril
           of
           our
           lives
           .
        
         
           I
           grant
           ,
           it
           is
           a
           Rule
           among
           the
           Casuists
           ,
           That
           an
           Oath
           ought
           not
           to
           be
           taken
           
             to
             the
             Prejudice
             of
             a
             third
             Person
          
           ;
           but
           so
           it
           is
           likewise
           ,
           
             That
             it
             ought
             not
             to
             be
             taken
             against
             the
             Publick
             Good
          
           ;
           
           and
           these
           two
           are
           often
           put
           together
           .
           
             It
             is
             a
             sin
          
           ,
           saith
           
             Zoesius
             ,
             to
             make
             a
             compact
             to
             the
             publick
             prejudice
             and
             injury
             of
             another
             ;
             and
             an
             Oath
             that
             is
             conversant
             about
             such
             a
             matter
             ,
             is
             unjust
             ,
             and
             not
             to
             be
             kept
             .
          
           So
           that
           the
           
             Right
             of
             a
             Third
             Person
          
           is
           not
           to
           be
           taken
           as
           distinct
           from
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           ;
           for
           ,
           if
           it
           be
           inconsistent
           with
           it
           ,
           there
           is
           no
           ground
           to
           set
           up
           a
           
             personal
             Interest
          
           against
           a
           
             General
             Good.
          
           And
           so
           far
           
             a
             Mischief
             is
             better
             than
             an
             Inconvenience
          
           ;
           for
           it
           is
           a
           standing
           
           Rule
           in
           Reason
           as
           well
           as
           Law
           ,
           
           
             The
             publick
             Right
             cannot
             be
             changed
             by
             the
             Contracts
             of
             particular
             Persons
             ,
             ff
             .
             l.
             2.
             tit
             .
          
           14.
           
           If
           a
           Man
           takes
           an
           Oath
           to
           a
           
             third
             Person
          
           ,
           to
           do
           something
           which
           the
           Law
           forbids
           ;
           although
           
             he
             suffers
             by
             it
          
           ,
           yet
           it
           is
           concluded
           ,
           That
           such
           an
           Oath
           doth
           not
           bind
           ,
           because
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           is
           to
           be
           preferred
           ,
           
             As
             often
             as
             a
             Compact
             doth
             depart
             from
             the
             Common
             Right
             ,
             it
             ought
             not
             to
             be
             kept
             ;
             nor
             is
             an
             Oath
             requiring
             it
             to
             be
             observed
             .
          
           ff
           .
           
             l.
             2.
             tit
             .
             14.
             
             Iuris
             Gentium
             §
             .
          
           16.
           
           And
           again
           ,
           
             An
             Oath
             against
             the
             Force
             of
             Law
             and
             Authority
             of
             Right
             is
             of
             no
             moment
             .
          
           What
           is
           the
           Reason
           that
           an
           Oath
           doth
           not
           bind
           against
           the
           Law
           ?
           Is
           not
           the
           Authority
           of
           God
           above
           that
           of
           Men
           ?
           No
           doubt
           of
           it
           ;
           but
           since
           God
           hath
           established
           Government
           and
           Laws
           for
           a
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           ,
           their
           meaning
           is
           ,
           That
           Men
           cannot
           by
           any
           Act
           of
           their
           own
           be
           bound
           to
           overthrow
           it
           ,
           in
           what
           solemn
           manner
           soever
           it
           be
           done
           .
        
         
           It
           is
           resolved
           in
           the
           Text
           of
           the
           Canon
           Law
           ,
           in
           the
           
             King
             of
          
           Hungary's
           
             Case
             ,
             That
             an
             Oath
             taken
             against
             the
             good
             of
             the
             Kingdom
             ,
             doth
             not
             oblige
             ,
             de
             jurejur
             .
             c.
             33.
             intellecto
          
           ;
           although
           it
           were
           to
           the
           Prejudice
           of
           others
           ,
           because
           it
           was
           
             in
             Praejudicium
             Regni
             sui
             ,
             to
             the
             Prejudice
             of
             his
             Kingdom
          
           ;
           which
           was
           more
           to
           be
           regarded
           ;
           and
           because
           it
           was
           contrary
           to
           the
           Oath
           which
           he
           took
           at
           his
           Coronation
           ,
           
             Iura
             Regni
             sui
             illibata
             servare
             ,
             That
             the
             Rights
             of
             the
             Kingdom
             were
             to
             be
             preserved
             inviolable
             .
          
        
         
           Sylvester
           in
           sum
           .
           6.
           juram
           .
           4.
           n.
           16.
           
             saith
             roundly
          
           ,
           That
           an
           Oath
           doth
           not
           bind
           against
           the
           Publick
           Good
           in
           the
           first
           Place
           ;
           but
           if
           it
           be
           for
           a
           Private
           Benefit
           principally
           ,
           and
           consequentially
           for
           the
           Publick
           ,
           then
           the
           Oath
           holds
           ;
           
             because
             still
             the
             publick
             Good
             is
             to
             overrule
             in
             all
             such
             Oaths
             .
          
        
         
           If
           a
           Man
           swears
           to
           keep
           a
           Secret
           ,
           and
           that
           be
           to
           the
           
             Prejudice
             of
             a
             third
             Person
          
           ,
           the
           Casuists
           say
           ,
           That
           Oath
           doth
           not
           oblige
           ;
           how
           much
           less
           ,
           where
           the
           Publick
           Interest
           and
           safety
           is
           concerned
           ?
        
         
         
           And
           it
           is
           generally
           agreed
           by
           our
           Divines
           ,
           That
           an
           Oath
           of
           Secrecy
           ,
           where
           the
           
             Publick
             Safety
          
           is
           in
           Danger
           ,
           doth
           not
           bind
           ;
           as
           in
           
             Garnet's
             Case
          
           ,
           who
           pleaded
           his
           Oath
           for
           not
           discovering
           the
           Gun-powder-Treason
           .
           Now
           if
           an
           Oath
           doth
           oblige
           against
           the
           common
           Good
           ,
           Garnet
           made
           a
           good
           Plea
           ;
           for
           his
           Discovery
           was
           to
           the
           Prejudice
           of
           others
           :
           but
           if
           his
           Plea
           was
           naught
           ,
           then
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           doth
           make
           the
           Obligation
           of
           an
           Oath
           to
           cease
           .
        
         
           Suppose
           a
           Man
           makes
           a
           Contract
           with
           another
           ,
           who
           thereby
           acquires
           a
           Right
           ;
           yet
           if
           that
           Contract
           be
           against
           the
           common
           Good
           ,
           and
           be
           confirmed
           with
           an
           Oath
           ;
           that
           Oath
           doth
           not
           oblige
           ,
           saith
           Bonacina
           ,
           de
           contract
           .
           disp
           .
           3.
           q.
           1.
           p.
           1.
           
        
         
           There
           are
           two
           sorts
           of
           Law
           ,
           saith
           Suarez
           ,
           which
           respect
           the
           Publick
           Good
           ;
           
             some
             which
             concern
          
           ipsum
           statum
           Reipub.
           &
           utilitatem
           communitatis
           ;
           
             the
             general
             State
             of
             the
             Commonwealth
             ,
             and
             Benefit
             of
             the
             Community
             :
             Others
             which
             concern
          
           Bonum
           commune
           mediante
           privato
           ;
           
             that
             common
             Good
             which
             results
             from
             every
             Man
             's
             Good
             :
          
           against
           the
           former
           ,
           
             he
             saith
          
           ,
           an
           Oath
           cannot
           oblige
           ;
           
             but
             in
             the
             latter
             ,
             it
             may
             ,
             as
             far
             as
             concerns
             his
             own
             Benefit
             .
          
           Suarez
           de
           juram
           .
           l.
           2.
           c.
           26.
           
           No
           Obligation
           ,
           though
           sworn
           to
           ,
           is
           of
           any
           Force
           against
           those
           things
           which
           are
           owing
           to
           God
           and
           the
           Kingdom
           ,
           saith
           Zei●lerus
           
             in
             his
             Notes
             on
          
           Grotius
           de
           jure
           B.
           &
           P.
           l.
           2.
           c.
           13.
           
           §
           .
           7.
           
        
         
           From
           all
           this
           it
           appears
           ,
           That
           if
           the
           
             Right
             of
             a
             third
             person
          
           be
           inconsistent
           with
           the
           
             publick
             Good
          
           ,
           such
           an
           Oath
           doth
           not
           oblige
           .
           And
           it
           is
           to
           be
           observed
           ,
           That
           those
           Persons
           ,
           whose
           Testimonies
           are
           alledged
           ,
           never
           put
           the
           Case
           of
           the
           Right
           in
           a
           third
           Person
           and
           a
           Publick
           Good
           standing
           in
           Competition
           ;
           and
           therefore
           they
           do
           not
           reach
           our
           present
           Case
           .
        
         
           II.
           It
           is
           alledged
           ,
           That
           this
           Oath
           is
           contradictory
           to
           a
           former
           Oath
           .
        
         
           Bishop
           Hall
           
             again
             ,
             History
             of
          
           passive
           Obedience
           ,
           p.
           46.
           
           No
           Oath
           is
           or
           can
           be
           of
           Force
           that
           is
           made
           against
           a
           lawful
           Oath
           
           formerly
           taken
           ;
           so
           that
           he
           that
           hath
           sworn
           Allegiance
           to
           his
           Sovereign
           ,
           and
           thereby
           bound
           himself
           to
           maintain
           the
           Right
           ,
           Power
           and
           Authority
           of
           his
           said
           Soveraign
           ,
           cannot
           by
           his
           second
           Oath
           be
           tied
           to
           do
           ought
           that
           may
           tend
           to
           the
           infringement
           thereof
           ;
           and
           if
           he
           hath
           so
           tied
           himself
           ,
           the
           Obligation
           is
           ,
           
             ipso
             facto
          
           ,
           void
           and
           frustrate
           .
        
         
           No
           Doubt
           ,
           if
           the
           first
           Oath
           continues
           in
           Force
           ,
           the
           second
           is
           void
           ,
           so
           far
           as
           it
           contradicts
           it
           .
           But
           we
           say
           ,
           The
           former
           Oath
           is
           not
           in
           Force
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           repugnant
           to
           the
           publick
           Good
           ,
           and
           so
           the
           second
           may
           be
           taken
           without
           any
           Contradiction
           :
           And
           if
           the
           Doctrine
           there
           laid
           down
           holds
           in
           our
           Case
           ,
           I
           cannot
           see
           how
           it
           is
           consistent
           with
           the
           former
           Oath
           ,
           for
           any
           such
           Persons
           to
           continue
           under
           the
           Protection
           of
           the
           present
           Government
           ,
           or
           to
           enjoy
           the
           Benefit
           of
           the
           Laws
           ;
           or
           to
           take
           out
           a
           Writ
           in
           their
           Names
           ,
           any
           more
           than
           to
           pray
           for
           them
           ;
           the
           one
           being
           owning
           their
           Authority
           as
           much
           as
           the
           other
           .
        
         
           III.
           Because
           the
           Person
           who
           had
           the
           Right
           hath
           given
           no
           Release
           .
        
         
           
             For
             this
             Dr.
          
           Hammond
           
             is
             quoted
             ,
             in
             his
          
           Practical
           Catechism
           ,
           History
           of
           Passive
           Obed.
           
             p.
             54.
             
             S.
          
           but
           was
           not
           Tiberius
           an
           Vsurper
           ,
           and
           yet
           Christ
           saith
           ,
           
             Render
             to
             Caesar
             the
             things
             that
             are
             Caesar's
             .
             C.
             Julius
             Caesar
          
           wrested
           the
           Power
           out
           of
           the
           Hand
           of
           the
           Senate
           ;
           but
           before
           the
           Time
           of
           Tiberius
           the
           Business
           was
           accorded
           between
           the
           Senate
           and
           the
           Emperors
           ,
           That
           the
           Emperors
           now
           reigned
           unquestion'd
           ,
           without
           any
           Competition
           from
           the
           Senate
           ;
           which
           Case
           ,
           
             he
             saith
          
           ,
           is
           distant
           from
           other
           forcible
           Vsurpations
           ,
           where
           the
           Legal
           Sovereign
           doth
           still
           claim
           his
           Right
           to
           his
           Kingdoms
           ,
           and
           to
           the
           Allegiance
           of
           his
           Subjects
           ,
           no
           way
           acquitting
           them
           from
           their
           Oaths
           ,
           or
           laying
           down
           his
           Pretensions
           .
        
         
           To
           clear
           this
           Matter
           ,
           I
           shall
           enquire
           into
           two
           things
           .
        
         
           1.
           
           How
           far
           a
           Discharge
           is
           necessary
           from
           the
           Person
           concerned
           .
        
         
         
           2.
           
           How
           far
           our
           Saviour's
           Rule
           holds
           in
           our
           Case
           ?
        
         
           As
           to
           the
           former
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           The
           Resolution
           of
           Conscience
           in
           this
           Case
           doth
           not
           depend
           upon
           the
           Will
           and
           Pleasure
           of
           the
           Person
           to
           whom
           the
           former
           Oath
           was
           made
           ,
           but
           upon
           the
           Grounds
           on
           which
           it
           was
           made
           ,
           and
           from
           which
           it
           had
           its
           force
           to
           oblige
           :
           And
           if
           those
           cease
           ,
           the
           Obligation
           of
           the
           Oath
           ceases
           together
           with
           them
           .
           And
           whether
           they
           do
           or
           not
           ,
           no
           particular
           Person
           is
           so
           fit
           to
           judge
           as
           the
           three
           Estates
           of
           the
           Realm
           ;
           as
           I
           shall
           now
           prove
           from
           several
           remarkable
           Instances
           to
           this
           purpose
           in
           
             our
             Histories
          
           and
           
             Parliament
             Records
          
           ;
           whereby
           I
           shall
           make
           it
           appear
           ,
           That
           when
           a
           Dispute
           hath
           happened
           about
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           ,
           and
           to
           whom
           the
           
             Oaths
             of
             Allegiance
          
           were
           to
           be
           made
           ,
           they
           have
           looked
           on
           it
           as
           their
           proper
           Right
           ,
           To
           limit
           the
           Succession
           ,
           and
           to
           determine
           the
           Oaths
           .
        
         
           Under
           the
           
             British
             Government
          
           ,
           we
           find
           a
           considerable
           Instance
           to
           our
           Purpose
           ;
           Vortigern
           the
           British
           King
           had
           entered
           into
           a
           
             Secret
             League
          
           ,
           To
           bring
           over
           the
           Saxons
           ;
           upon
           which
           
             the
             Great
             Men
             of
             the
             Nation
             deserted
             him
             ,
             and
             chose
          
           Vortimer
           
             in
             his
             room
          
           .
           Here
           it
           is
           plain
           ,
           They
           thought
           the
           introducing
           a
           Foreign
           Power
           ,
           
           a
           sufficient
           Discharge
           of
           their
           Obligation
           to
           him
           ,
           it
           being
           so
           directly
           contrary
           to
           the
           
             publick
             Good
          
           of
           the
           Nation
           ,
           although
           Vortigern
           gave
           them
           no
           Discharge
           .
        
         
           In
           the
           Saxon
           Times
           ,
           Sigebert
           King
           of
           the
           
             West
             Saxons
          
           ,
           was
           complained
           of
           for
           
             Misgovernment
             ,
             and
             for
             changing
             their
             Laws
          
           for
           his
           own
           Ends
           ;
           but
           when
           he
           persisted
           in
           his
           Way
           ,
           there
           was
           a
           Convention
           of
           the
           Nobility
           and
           People
           ,
           
             (
             convenêrunt
             Proceres
             Regni
             cum
             Populo
             universo
             ,
          
           saith
           
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           )
           and
           they
           declared
           themselves
           free
           from
           Allegiance
           to
           him
           ,
           
           and
           chose
           Kineulfus
           in
           his
           room
           .
        
         
           
             In
             the
             Kingdom
             of
          
           Mercia
           Beornredus
           
             for
             not
             governing
             by
             the
             Laws
             ,
             was
             by
             a
          
           Convention
           
             of
             the
             Nobility
             and
             People
             set
             aside
             from
             the
             Government
             ,
             and
          
           Offa
           
             chosen
             King
             ;
             who
             was
             of
             the
             Royal
             Stem
             ,
             but
             not
             the
             next
             Heir
             ;
             and
             so
          
           William
           of
           Malmsbury
           
             observes
             ,
             in
             the
          
           West
           Saxon
           Kingdom
           after
           Ina
           ,
           
           That
           no
           lineal
           Succession
           was
           then
           observed
           ;
           but
           still
           some
           of
           the
           Royal
           Line
           sat
           in
           the
           Throne
           .
           
           
             And
             of
          
           Ina
           himself
           ,
           
           That
           he
           was
           rather
           put
           into
           the
           Throne
           for
           his
           Virtue
           ,
           than
           by
           Right
           of
           Succession
           .
        
         
           Aethelulphus
           ,
           
           King
           of
           the
           
             West
             Saxons
          
           ,
           went
           to
           Rome
           ,
           and
           there
           crowned
           Alfred
           ,
           his
           youngest
           Son
           ,
           King
           ,
           and
           married
           the
           King
           of
           
           France's
           Daughter
           in
           his
           Return
           ,
           and
           made
           her
           Queen
           ,
           against
           their
           Laws
           ;
           for
           which
           Reasons
           he
           was
           excluded
           his
           Kingdom
           :
           His
           eldest
           Son
           and
           Alstan
           ,
           Bishop
           of
           Shireburn
           being
           at
           the
           Top
           of
           this
           Act
           of
           Exclusion
           ;
           and
           he
           came
           back
           only
           upon
           the
           Terms
           of
           receiving
           his
           Son
           into
           a
           Share
           of
           the
           Kingdom
           :
           Which
           shews
           ,
           That
           they
           looked
           on
           the
           Laws
           as
           the
           Measure
           of
           their
           Allegiance
           ;
           and
           where
           those
           were
           openly
           broken
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           in
           their
           Power
           to
           transfer
           it
           .
        
         
         
           If
           our
           Allegiance
           cannot
           be
           transferred
           by
           the
           States
           of
           the
           Realm
           ,
           it
           must
           be
           because
           (
           as
           some
           think
           )
           by
           the
           fundamental
           Constitution
           of
           this
           Kingdom
           we
           are
           bound
           in
           Allegiance
           to
           the
           
             next
             right
             Heir
             in
             a
             Lineal
             Succession
          
           ;
           but
           I
           find
           no
           such
           thing
           in
           the
           
             Saxon
             Times
          
           :
           for
           although
           generally
           they
           kept
           to
           the
           
             Royal
             Line
          
           ,
           yet
           not
           so
           ,
           but
           that
           when
           it
           appeared
           to
           be
           much
           more
           for
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           ,
           they
           did
           not
           stick
           upon
           the
           Point
           of
           Proximity
           .
           I
           shall
           not
           meddle
           with
           the
           Kingdom
           of
           the
           Northumbers
           ,
           which
           alone
           was
           
             originally
             Elective
          
           ,
           
           as
           appears
           by
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           ;
           wherein
           there
           happened
           so
           great
           Disorders
           and
           Confusions
           ,
           
           that
           at
           last
           William
           of
           Malmsbury
           saith
           ,
           
           
             None
             could
             be
             perswaded
             to
             accept
             of
             the
             Kingdom
          
           ;
           and
           so
           it
           continued
           thirty
           three
           Years
           ,
           till
           at
           last
           Egbert
           took
           it
           into
           his
           Hands
           ;
           and
           so
           it
           became
           a
           Part
           of
           the
           
             English
             Monarchy
          
           ;
           which
           was
           established
           in
           him
           .
        
         
           But
           if
           by
           the
           fundamental
           Constitution
           ,
           Allegiance
           were
           indispensably
           due
           to
           the
           next
           
             Rightful
             Heir
          
           in
           this
           Monarchy
           ,
           how
           came
           Athelstan
           to
           be
           crowned
           ,
           
             magno
             consensu
             Optimatum
          
           ,
           saith
           Malmsbury
           ,
           when
           he
           was
           not
           the
           Rightful
           Heir
           ?
           Some
           say
           (
           from
           an
           old
           Monk
           in
           
             Malmsbury
             )
             That
             his
             Father
             left
             him
             the
             Crown
             by
             his
             Testament
          
           ;
           (
           which
           doth
           not
           clear
           the
           Difficulty
           as
           to
           the
           inviolable
           Right
           of
           Succession
           by
           the
           
             Constitution
             )
          
           .
           But
           this
           cannot
           be
           true
           ,
           for
           his
           elder
           Brother
           Elwardus
           died
           after
           his
           Father
           ;
           and
           none
           pretend
           that
           his
           Father
           disinherited
           him
           :
           And
           if
           Athelstan
           were
           lawful
           Heir
           ,
           what
           made
           him
           to
           dispatch
           his
           Brother
           Edwin
           out
           of
           the
           way
           ,
           
           and
           to
           build
           two
           Monasteries
           for
           Expiation
           of
           that
           Guilt
           ?
           
           How
           came
           Alfred
           to
           oppose
           his
           Election
           ,
           
           as
           being
           illegitimate
           ,
           as
           Malmsbury
           confesses
           ?
           But
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           gives
           the
           Reason
           ,
           The
           Times
           were
           then
           difficult
           ,
           and
           
           Edward's
           other
           Sons
           were
           too
           young
           to
           manage
           the
           Government
           ,
           and
           therefore
           they
           set
           up
           Athelstan
           ,
           as
           one
           fit
           for
           Business
           .
        
         
         
           How
           came
           Edred
           to
           succeed
           Edmond
           ,
           and
           not
           his
           Sons
           Edwin
           and
           Edgar
           ?
           
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           and
           Bromton
           give
           the
           same
           Reason
           ;
           They
           were
           uncapable
           by
           reason
           of
           their
           Age
           ,
           
             Repugnante
             illegitimâ
             aetate
             ,
             Patri
             succedere
             non
             valebant
             .
             Florence
          
           of
           Worcester
           saith
           ,
           The
           Northumbers
           sware
           Allegiance
           to
           Edred
           ;
           and
           he
           saith
           ,
           
             He
             was
             next
             Heir
          
           ,
           and
           yet
           there
           were
           two
           Sons
           of
           Edmond
           before
           him
           ;
           for
           he
           confesses
           ,
           That
           they
           were
           the
           Sons
           of
           Edmond
           and
           Algiva
           his
           Queen
           .
        
         
           After
           the
           Death
           of
           Edred
           ,
           the
           eldest
           Son
           of
           Edmond
           succeeded
           ;
           but
           being
           found
           under
           a
           
             Moral
             Incapacity
          
           ,
           (
           for
           in
           Florentius
           his
           Words
           ,
           
           and
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
             ,
             In
             commisso
             Regimine
             insipienter
             egit
             )
          
           he
           was
           set
           aside
           ,
           as
           to
           all
           the
           Government
           beyond
           Thames
           ,
           and
           Edgar
           put
           into
           it
           :
           And
           not
           long
           after
           into
           the
           whole
           Kingdom
           ,
           by
           general
           Consent
           .
        
         
           How
           came
           a
           Dispute
           to
           happen
           about
           the
           Election
           ,
           after
           the
           Death
           of
           Edgar
           ,
           between
           his
           eldest
           Son
           Edward
           ,
           and
           Etheldred
           his
           youngest
           ?
           I
           lay
           no
           Force
           on
           his
           Mother's
           Endeavours
           to
           advance
           him
           ;
           but
           if
           there
           had
           been
           such
           an
           unalterable
           Right
           of
           Succession
           ,
           there
           had
           not
           been
           any
           Colour
           or
           Pretence
           for
           it
           ;
           especially
           since
           it
           is
           said
           ,
           That
           his
           Father
           declared
           his
           Mind
           ,
           That
           the
           elder
           should
           succeed
           .
           
           But
           saith
           
             Florentius
             Wigorn.
          
           There
           was
           a
           great
           Contention
           among
           the
           great
           Men
           ,
           about
           the
           Choice
           of
           the
           King
           :
           How
           could
           there
           be
           any
           Dispute
           ,
           if
           they
           knew
           the
           Constitution
           of
           the
           Kingdom
           to
           be
           ,
           That
           the
           next
           Heir
           must
           inherit
           the
           Crown
           ;
           and
           that
           those
           are
           perjured
           who
           transfer
           their
           Allegiance
           ?
        
         
           After
           the
           Death
           of
           Ethelred
           ,
           
           the
           Nobility
           and
           People
           were
           divided
           ,
           some
           chusing
           Canutus
           the
           Dane
           ,
           and
           swearing
           Allegiance
           to
           him
           ;
           others
           to
           Edmund
           the
           Son
           of
           Ethelred
           .
        
         
         
           
             The
             former
             pleaded
             for
             themselves
          
           ,
           
           That
           Ethelred
           had
           broken
           his
           Faith
           with
           them
           ,
           and
           therefore
           they
           deserted
           him
           ,
           so
           as
           he
           was
           fain
           to
           fly
           into
           Normandy
           ;
           
             and
             that
          
           Edmond
           
             was
             not
             his
          
           legitimate
           Son.
           
        
         
           Matt.
           Westminster
           saith
           ,
           
           That
           the
           greatest
           part
           of
           the
           Nation
           ,
           Clergy
           as
           well
           as
           Laity
           ,
           did
           swear
           Allegiance
           to
           Canutus
           ;
           without
           any
           Discharge
           from
           
             Ethelred
             ,
             while
             living
             ,
             or
             his
             Son
             after
             him
             .
          
        
         
           After
           the
           death
           of
           Canutus
           ,
           
           a
           new
           difference
           arose
           about
           the
           Succession
           ;
           some
           were
           for
           Harold
           his
           supposed
           Son
           by
           Algiva
           ,
           others
           for
           Hardecnute
           ,
           his
           Son
           by
           Emma
           .
           If
           the
           lineal
           Succession
           were
           a
           part
           of
           our
           Constitution
           ,
           How
           come
           such
           perpetual
           Disputes
           to
           be
           concerning
           it
           ?
           For
           ,
           if
           it
           had
           been
           owned
           as
           a
           Fundamental
           Law
           ,
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           must
           have
           been
           clear
           beyond
           Dispute
           .
           But
           
             Reason
             of
             State
          
           and
           the
           
             Publick
             Interest
          
           still
           over-ruled
           this
           matter
           ,
           and
           so
           
           Ethelred's
           Sons
           by
           Emma
           ,
           who
           were
           the
           true
           Heirs
           by
           
             Legal
             Succession
          
           ,
           were
           set
           aside
           ,
           and
           Harold
           ,
           being
           upon
           the
           Place
           ,
           and
           so
           best
           able
           to
           manage
           the
           Affairs
           of
           the
           Kingdom
           ,
           carried
           it
           .
        
         
           Hardecnute
           being
           dead
           ,
           how
           came
           the
           banisht
           Sons
           of
           
             Edmund
             Ironside
          
           ,
           if
           he
           were
           lawful
           Heir
           ,
           not
           to
           be
           sent
           for
           to
           succeed
           ?
           If
           Edmund
           had
           no
           good
           Title
           ,
           how
           was
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           then
           preserved
           ?
           How
           could
           Allegiance
           on
           these
           Principles
           be
           sworn
           to
           him
           ?
           If
           he
           had
           a
           good
           Title
           ,
           How
           could
           the
           Oaths
           be
           taken
           to
           Edward
           the
           Confessor
           ,
           when
           the
           Heirs
           of
           
             Edmond
             Ironside
          
           were
           living
           ?
           I
           perceive
           some
           ,
           to
           salve
           the
           Succession
           ,
           make
           the
           Mother
           of
           Edmond
           to
           have
           been
           
           Ethelred's
           first
           Wife
           ,
           and
           call
           her
           
             Elgiva
             Duke
          
           Thored's
           Daughter
           ;
           but
           
             William
             Malmsbury
          
           saith
           ,
           
             She
             was
             so
             obscure
             a
             person
             ,
          
           
           
             that
             she
             was
             not
             known
             ;
             and
             that
          
           Edmond
           Ironside
           
             made
             up
             what
             was
             wanting
             in
             the
             management
             of
             his
             Father
             ,
             and
             the
             Quality
             of
             his
             Mother
             .
          
           And
           the
           same
           is
           said
           
           by
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           .
           
           
             Florentius
             Wigorn
          
           ,
           shews
           the
           reason
           of
           the
           mistake
           ;
           for
           he
           saith
           ,
           That
           Emma
           ,
           Ethelrede's
           Queen
           ,
           was
           in
           the
           Saxon
           Language
           called
           Algiva
           ;
           and
           so
           ,
           out
           of
           two
           Names
           ,
           
           they
           have
           made
           two
           Queens
           .
           Bromton
           leaves
           the
           matter
           in
           Dispute
           ,
           and
           saith
           some
           affirm
           ,
           
             The
             Mother
             of
          
           Edmond
           
             was
             betrothed
             to
             King
          
           Ethelred
           ,
           
             and
             was
             the
             Daughter
             of
             Count
          
           Egbert
           :
           Others
           ,
           That
           she
           was
           a
           Stranger
           and
           a
           Concubine
           .
           Now
           ,
           if
           a
           Man's
           Conscience
           be
           strictly
           hid
           in
           such
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           to
           the
           
             Right
             Heir
             in
             a
             lineal
             Succession
             ,
          
           what
           satisfaction
           can
           he
           have
           as
           to
           the
           taking
           them
           ,
           since
           he
           is
           then
           bound
           to
           satisfie
           himself
           in
           the
           strict
           Justice
           of
           a
           Title
           ?
           For
           ,
           if
           
           Edmond's
           Mother
           was
           not
           married
           ,
           he
           had
           no
           Title
           ,
           and
           no
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           could
           be
           taken
           to
           him
           ;
           and
           whether
           he
           was
           married
           or
           not
           ,
           for
           all
           that
           we
           can
           perceive
           ,
           there
           was
           a
           great
           doubt
           at
           that
           time
           ,
           and
           so
           continued
           .
           And
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           easie
           to
           determine
           what
           is
           to
           be
           taken
           for
           Marriage
           in
           a
           Prince
           ,
           unless
           the
           Law
           be
           the
           Rule
           .
           And
           ,
           if
           the
           Law
           determines
           the
           nature
           of
           Contracts
           in
           Princes
           ,
           why
           not
           as
           well
           the
           Obligation
           of
           Subjects
           ?
           For
           ,
           if
           there
           be
           no
           Rule
           ,
           it
           is
           not
           possible
           to
           satisfie
           Conscience
           in
           the
           Niceties
           of
           Titles
           ;
           if
           there
           be
           a
           Rule
           ,
           the
           general
           Consent
           of
           the
           People
           ,
           joined
           with
           the
           Common
           Good
           ,
           seems
           to
           have
           been
           that
           which
           our
           Ancestors
           proceeded
           by
           .
        
         
           I
           do
           not
           hereby
           go
           about
           to
           set
           up
           the
           
             Power
             of
             the
             People
             over
             Kings
             ,
          
           which
           is
           in
           effect
           to
           overthrow
           Monarchy
           ;
           for
           then
           the
           whole
           Soveraignty
           lies
           in
           the
           People
           ,
           and
           Kings
           are
           but
           their
           Servants
           :
           And
           so
           there
           is
           but
           one
           sort
           of
           Reasonable
           Government
           ,
           viz.
           that
           of
           a
           Commonwealth
           .
           Whereas
           ,
           from
           the
           eldest
           times
           ,
           the
           Rights
           of
           Soveraignty
           have
           been
           placed
           in
           
             single
             Persons
          
           ,
           before
           any
           
             Popular
             Governments
          
           were
           known
           ;
           and
           Monarchy
           hath
           been
           ever
           esteemed
           a
           distinct
           and
           a
           reasonable
           Government
           ,
           especially
           where
           it
           is
           limited
           by
           Laws
           ,
           and
           those
           Laws
           made
           by
           the
           Consent
           of
           the
           
           People
           ,
           
             i.e.
             by
             the
             Three
             Estates
             of
             the
             Realm
          
           ;
           which
           are
           together
           the
           true
           Representatives
           of
           the
           People
           .
        
         
           I
           see
           no
           necessity
           of
           going
           about
           to
           undermine
           the
           Monarchy
           ,
           that
           I
           may
           come
           at
           a
           resolution
           of
           the
           present
           case
           ;
           for
           ,
           I
           take
           Ours
           to
           be
           a
           true
           
             Original
             Monarchy
          
           ,
           especially
           after
           the
           Rights
           of
           the
           lesser
           Monarchs
           were
           swallowed
           up
           or
           delivered
           into
           that
           of
           the
           West-Saxon
           Kings
           .
           And
           farther
           ,
           I
           do
           not
           stick
           to
           affirm
           ,
           That
           it
           was
           Hereditary
           ,
           where
           the
           
             Right
             of
             Succession
          
           and
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           did
           not
           interfere
           ;
           i.e.
           where
           there
           was
           not
           a
           Natural
           or
           
             Moral
             Incapacity
          
           :
           a
           Natural
           ,
           as
           in
           the
           Sons
           of
           the
           elder
           Edmond
           ,
           when
           Edred
           was
           made
           King
           before
           them
           ;
           a
           Moral
           ,
           as
           when
           
           Edgar's
           elder
           Brother
           was
           set
           aside
           for
           his
           
             ill
             Government
          
           ,
           by
           one
           half
           of
           the
           Nation
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           never
           disputed
           the
           matter
           with
           them
           ;
           and
           when
           Ethelred
           was
           so
           far
           deserted
           ,
           that
           he
           went
           into
           Normandy
           ,
           and
           was
           recalled
           upon
           Promise
           of
           better
           Government
           .
           
             Si
             ipse
             vel
             rectius
             gubernare
          
           ,
           
           
             vel
             mitius
             eos
             tractare
             vellet
          
           ,
           are
           the
           words
           in
           Florentius
           ;
           and
           to
           the
           same
           purpose
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           ,
           and
           Bromton
           ,
           and
           
             Malmsbury
             :
             H.
             Huntingdon
          
           adds
           ,
           That
           he
           promised
           
             omnia
             Rege
             &
             Populo
             digna
          
           ;
           
           all
           things
           worthy
           of
           the
           KING
           and
           People
           .
           These
           things
           I
           mention
           to
           shew
           ,
           That
           although
           this
           were
           
             a
             true
             &
             successive
             Monarchy
          
           in
           ordinary
           course
           ;
           yet
           where
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           was
           by
           the
           Estates
           of
           the
           Realm
           judged
           to
           require
           it
           ,
           they
           thought
           it
           no
           Perjury
           ,
           or
           
             Breach
             of
             Faith
          
           ,
           to
           transferr
           their
           Allegiance
           ,
           although
           it
           were
           without
           the
           Consent
           of
           the
           actual
           Governour
           ,
           or
           the
           next
           lineal
           Heirs
           .
        
         
           Having
           thus
           far
           cleared
           this
           Point
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           
             Saxon
             Constitution
          
           of
           our
           Government
           ,
           I
           come
           to
           that
           of
           the
           Norman
           ;
           and
           here
           I
           shall
           not
           go
           about
           to
           shew
           how
           broken
           the
           Succession
           was
           by
           Force
           and
           Faction
           ,
           but
           what
           the
           Judgment
           of
           the
           Nation
           was
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           transferring
           Allegiance
           .
        
         
         
           And
           ,
           the
           first
           Instance
           I
           shall
           bring
           ,
           is
           in
           the
           Case
           of
           the
           Oath
           taken
           to
           Maud
           the
           Daughter
           of
           Henry
           the
           First
           ,
           in
           the
           One
           and
           Thirtieth
           year
           of
           his
           Reign
           ;
           and
           there
           is
           no
           question
           ,
           
           but
           he
           designed
           her
           to
           succeed
           him
           ;
           
             Legitimâ
             &
             perenni
             successione
          
           ,
           as
           
           Malmsbury's
           words
           are
           ;
           but
           Stephen
           ,
           (
           who
           had
           before
           sworn
           Allegiance
           to
           her
           )
           watched
           his
           opportunity
           ,
           and
           by
           the
           help
           of
           a
           Party
           made
           by
           his
           Brother
           ,
           (
           the
           Bishop
           of
           Winchester
           )
           he
           was
           Crowned
           KING
           ;
           and
           although
           at
           first
           ,
           Malmsbury
           saith
           ,
           
             but
             three
             Bishops
             ,
             and
             very
             few
             Noblemen
             ,
          
           joined
           with
           him
           ,
           yet
           he
           soon
           after
           saith
           ,
           
             That
             most
             of
             them
             went
             in
             to
             him
             :
          
           And
           even
           Robert
           of
           Gloucester
           ,
           King
           Henry
           the
           First
           's
           natural
           Son
           ,
           took
           an
           Oath
           to
           him
           ,
           but
           with
           the
           condition
           of
           his
           preserving
           his
           Honour
           and
           Covenants
           .
           There
           are
           several
           things
           worthy
           our
           observation
           in
           this
           Affair
           ,
           with
           respect
           to
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           .
        
         
           (
           1
           )
           That
           those
           who
           excuse
           them
           from
           Perjury
           ,
           who
           had
           Sworn
           Allegiance
           to
           Maud
           before
           ,
           do
           it
           upon
           this
           account
           ,
           Because
           it
           is
           said
           by
           
             Rad.
             de
             Diceto
             ,
             That
          
           Hugh
           Bigod
           
             sware
             ,
             that
             King
          
           Henry
           
             the
             First
             ,
             on
             his
             Deathbed
             ,
             disinherited
             his
             Daughter
             ,
             and
             made
          
           Stephen
           
             his
             Heir
          
           .
           Supposing
           the
           Story
           true
           ,
           what
           is
           this
           to
           the
           Discharge
           of
           the
           Oath
           as
           to
           Maud
           ;
           (
           for
           the
           Oath
           was
           not
           made
           to
           Henry
           the
           First
           ,
           but
           to
           his
           Daughter
           ,
           and
           her
           Right
           was
           chiefly
           concerned
           in
           it
           .
           )
           If
           this
           hold
           ,
           an
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           may
           cease
           ,
           without
           discharge
           from
           the
           Party
           to
           whom
           it
           is
           made
           .
           And
           so
           the
           Archbishop
           of
           Canterbury
           ,
           and
           the
           Bishops
           of
           Winchester
           and
           Salisbury
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           the
           Nobility
           ,
           thought
           themselves
           at
           liberty
           to
           take
           a
           New
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           without
           a
           Release
           from
           the
           Party
           concerned
           in
           the
           former
           Oath
           .
        
         
         
           (
           2.
           )
           That
           upon
           the
           Agreement
           between
           K.
           Stephen
           and
           
             H.
             2.
             
             Maud
          
           her self
           was
           set
           aside
           ,
           and
           Stephen
           was
           to
           continue
           King
           for
           his
           Life
           ,
           and
           H.
           2.
           to
           succeed
           him
           .
           Now
           if
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           must
           not
           be
           interpreted
           by
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           ,
           here
           are
           insuperable
           Difficulties
           as
           to
           the
           Obligation
           of
           these
           Oaths
           .
           For
           the
           Allegiance
           was
           transferr'd
           from
           the
           right
           Heir
           to
           an
           Usurper
           ,
           as
           Stephen
           must
           be
           owned
           to
           have
           been
           by
           those
           who
           deny
           that
           Allegiance
           can
           be
           transferr'd
           from
           the
           right
           Heir
           .
           And
           they
           must
           continue
           Allegiance
           to
           the
           Usurper
           for
           his
           Life
           ;
           which
           is
           repugnant
           to
           the
           Nature
           of
           our
           Constitution
           ,
           if
           it
           be
           founded
           in
           a
           
             Lineal
             and
             Legal
             Succession
          
           .
           And
           again
           ,
           Maud
           ,
           to
           whom
           they
           had
           sworn
           ,
           is
           set
           aside
           ,
           and
           the
           Reversion
           of
           the
           Crown
           is
           entailed
           on
           her
           Son
           ,
           although
           she
           was
           living
           .
           Fortescue
           ,
           in
           a
           Manuscript-Discourse
           about
           the
           
             Title
             of
             the
             House
             of
             Lancaster
             ,
          
           saith
           ,
           this
           was
           done
           in
           Parliament
           ,
           
             Communi
             Consensu
             Procerum
             ,
             &
             Communitatis
             Regni
             Angliae
             .
          
           
           
             Rad.
             de
             Diceto
          
           ,
           who
           lived
           nearer
           the
           time
           ,
           saith
           no
           such
           thing
           ;
           but
           Fortescue
           appeals
           not
           only
           to
           the
           
             Chronicles
             ,
             but
             to
             the
             Proceedings
             of
             Parliament
             ,
          
           
           for
           it
           .
           And
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
          
           and
           Paris
           say
           ,
           The
           Right
           of
           H.
           2.
           was
           declared
           by
           K.
           
             Stephen
             in
             Conventu
             Episcoporum
          
           ,
           
           
             &
             aliorum
             de
             Regno
             Optimatum
          
           ;
           which
           was
           the
           Description
           of
           a
           Parliament
           of
           that
           time
           ;
           for
           ,
           as
           yet
           ,
           the
           Baronage
           represented
           the
           Nation
           .
           
           Gervase
           saith
           ,
           
             The
             Great
             Men
             were
             summoned
             to
             perfect
             the
             Agreement
             ,
             by
             giving
             their
             Assent
             to
             it
             ,
             and
             confirming
             it
             by
             their
             Oaths
             .
             Fortescue
          
           saith
           further
           ,
           that
           
             H.
             2.
             was
             crowned
             King
             in
             the
             Life
             of
             his
             Mother
             ,
             (
             who
             lived
             to
             the
             13
             of
             H.
             2.
             )
             by
             the
             general
             Consent
             of
             the
             Kingdom
             .
          
           Which
           shews
           how
           far
           the
           
             Publick
             Good
          
           was
           thought
           to
           be
           the
           Measure
           of
           the
           Obligation
           of
           these
           Oaths
           .
           For
           
             Gul.
             Neuburgensis
          
           saith
           ,
           
           That
           the
           
             Bonum
             Publicum
          
           was
           the
           Foundation
           of
           this
           Agreement
           .
           And
           
             Matt.
             Westminster
             ,
             
             That
             the
             King
             and
             the
             Lords
             did
             all
             swear
             to
             it
             ,
             
             and
             a
             solemn
             Charter
             was
             made
             of
             it
             ,
             and
             kept
             in
             a
             most
             secure
             Place
             .
          
           And
           thus
           the
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           were
           continued
           to
           one
           that
           had
           no
           Right
           for
           his
           Life
           ;
           and
           made
           to
           one
           who
           pretended
           to
           no
           Right
           ,
           but
           after
           his
           Mother
           ,
           who
           was
           set
           aside
           in
           this
           Agreement
           .
           So
           that
           here
           were
           three
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           at
           once
           ,
           that
           to
           Maud
           the
           Empress
           ,
           that
           to
           K.
           Stephen
           ,
           and
           to
           H.
           2.
           and
           yet
           the
           
             General
             Good
          
           of
           the
           Nation
           must
           give
           an
           equitable
           sense
           of
           these
           Oaths
           ,
           or
           there
           must
           be
           Perjury
           on
           all
           sides
           .
           For
           those
           who
           had
           first
           sworn
           to
           Maud
           ,
           could
           not
           transfer
           their
           Allegiance
           on
           any
           other
           account
           ,
           either
           to
           Stephen
           ,
           or
           H.
           2.
           during
           her
           Life
           .
           For
           we
           never
           read
           that
           she
           was
           present
           at
           the
           Agreement
           ,
           or
           resigned
           her
           Right
           to
           the
           Crown
           .
        
         
           The
           next
           Instance
           I
           shall
           produce
           ,
           is
           in
           the
           Oaths
           that
           were
           taken
           during
           the
           Controversies
           between
           the
           Houses
           of
           York
           and
           Lancaster
           .
           Which
           was
           not
           so
           plain
           a
           Case
           as
           Men
           commonly
           imagin
           ;
           and
           in
           Truth
           ,
           if
           the
           just
           legal
           Title
           be
           the
           only
           Rule
           of
           Conscience
           in
           this
           Case
           ,
           it
           was
           hard
           to
           take
           the
           Oaths
           on
           either
           side
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           on
           the
           one
           side
           ,
           a
           lineal
           Descent
           was
           pleaded
           from
           the
           Daughter
           of
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           ,
           who
           was
           elder
           Brother
           to
           
             Iohn
             Duke
             of
             Lancaster
          
           ,
           from
           whom
           by
           Marriage
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           claimed
           his
           Title
           ;
           so
           ,
           on
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           it
           was
           objected
           ,
           that
           there
           was
           no
           sufficient
           Evidence
           of
           the
           Legitimacy
           of
           Philippa
           Daughter
           to
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           ;
           because
           ,
           as
           Fortescue
           observes
           ,
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           was
           abroad
           from
           before
           the
           time
           of
           her
           Conception
           till
           after
           her
           Birth
           ,
           and
           that
           he
           never
           owned
           her
           Mother
           after
           ;
           that
           she
           never
           assumed
           the
           Arms
           of
           the
           Duke
           as
           her
           Father
           ,
           nor
           those
           descended
           from
           her
           ,
           till
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           pretended
           to
           the
           Crown
           ;
           that
           E.
           3.
           made
           an
           Entail
           of
           the
           Crown
           upon
           his
           Heirs
           
           Male
           ;
           (
           of
           which
           I
           have
           seen
           a
           written
           Account
           as
           old
           as
           the
           time
           of
           H.
           6.
           which
           not
           only
           affirms
           the
           Absence
           and
           Divorce
           of
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           ;
           but
           that
           E.
           3.
           seized
           all
           his
           Lands
           into
           his
           Hands
           ,
           and
           in
           Parliament
           soon
           after
           entailed
           the
           Crown
           on
           his
           Heirs
           Male
           ,
           and
           that
           his
           Daughters
           there
           present
           agreed
           to
           the
           same
           .
           )
           But
           besides
           they
           pleaded
           ,
           that
           so
           long
           a
           Prescription
           as
           the
           House
           of
           Lancaster
           had
           of
           above
           threescore
           years
           ,
           was
           allowed
           by
           the
           
             Ius
             Gentium
          
           ,
           to
           purge
           the
           Defects
           of
           the
           first
           Title
           :
           These
           are
           things
           which
           deserved
           Consideration
           against
           such
           a
           meer
           lineal
           Descent
           as
           the
           House
           of
           York
           insisted
           upon
           .
           And
           against
           the
           House
           of
           Lancaster
           ,
           the
           Intrusion
           of
           H.
           4.
           upon
           the
           Deposition
           of
           R.
           2.
           is
           an
           invincible
           Objection
           to
           such
           as
           found
           Allegiance
           on
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           .
        
         
           But
           that
           which
           I
           lay
           the
           greatest
           weight
           upon
           ,
           is
           the
           Way
           of
           ending
           this
           Difference
           in
           Parliament
           ,
           which
           hath
           several
           remarkable
           things
           in
           it
           :
        
         
           (
           1.
           )
           That
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           ,
           notwithstanding
           his
           Title
           ,
           takes
           an
           
             Oath
             of
             Allegiance
          
           in
           Parliament
           to
           H.
           6.
           during
           his
           Life
           ;
           
           reserving
           to
           himself
           the
           
             Right
             of
             Succession
          
           after
           him
           .
           For
           he
           swears
           
             to
             do
             nothing
             to
             the
             Prejudice
             of
             his
             Reign
             or
             Dignity-Royal
             ,
             nor
             against
             his
             Life
             or
             Liberty
             ;
             and
             that
             he
             would
             to
             the
             utmost
             of
             his
             Power
             ,
             withstand
             all
             Attempts
             to
             the
             contrary
             .
          
           The
           same
           Oath
           was
           taken
           by
           his
           Sons
           Edward
           Earl
           of
           March
           (
           afterward
           
             E.
             4.
          
           )
           and
           Edward
           Earl
           of
           Rutland
           .
           Was
           this
           a
           lawful
           Oath
           or
           not
           ?
           To
           say
           it
           was
           unlawful
           ,
           is
           to
           reflect
           on
           the
           Wisdom
           of
           the
           
             Three
             Estates
          
           ,
           who
           looked
           on
           this
           as
           the
           best
           Expedient
           for
           the
           Publick
           Good
           ,
           as
           being
           the
           way
           to
           prevent
           the
           Effusion
           of
           Christian
           Blood.
           And
           it
           is
           not
           easy
           to
           prove
           such
           an
           Oath
           unlawful
           ;
           as
           containing
           nothing
           unlawful
           ,
           nor
           to
           the
           Prejudice
           of
           a
           third
           Person
           ,
           when
           he
           who
           was
           chiefly
           concerned
           voluntarily
           
           took
           it
           .
           If
           it
           were
           a
           lawful
           Oath
           ,
           then
           an
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           on
           the
           account
           of
           Possession
           ,
           is
           a
           lawful
           Oath
           .
           For
           the
           matter
           of
           Right
           is
           not
           mentioned
           in
           it
           ,
           and
           Richard
           Duke
           of
           York
           did
           not
           renounce
           the
           opinion
           of
           his
           own
           Right
           hereby
           ,
           (
           whether
           true
           or
           false
           )
           but
           did
           bind
           up
           himself
           to
           do
           nothing
           to
           the
           Prejudice
           of
           the
           Royal
           Dignity
           of
           H.
           6.
           and
           yet
           he
           look'd
           on
           him
           as
           meer
           Possessor
           of
           it
           ;
           therefore
           in
           his
           Judgment
           and
           the
           Parliament's
           ,
           an
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           may
           lawfully
           be
           taken
           ,
           on
           the
           account
           of
           the
           Possession
           of
           the
           Crown
           ,
           although
           Persons
           be
           not
           satisfied
           of
           the
           Right
           of
           it
           .
        
         
           
             The
             Words
             of
             his
             Agreement
             are
             remarkable
             to
             this
             Purpose
             ,
          
           
           
             as
             they
             are
             to
             be
             found
             in
             the
          
           Parliament-Rolls
           .
           The
           said
           Title
           notwithstanding
           ,
           and
           without
           Prejudice
           of
           the
           same
           ,
           the
           said
           Richard
           Duke
           of
           York
           tenderly
           desiring
           the
           Weal
           ,
           Rest
           and
           Prosperity
           of
           this
           Land
           ,
           and
           to
           set
           apart
           all
           that
           might
           be
           trouble
           to
           the
           same
           ;
           and
           considering
           the
           Possession
           of
           the
           said
           King
           Henry
           the
           sixth
           ,
           and
           that
           he
           hath
           for
           his
           time
           be
           named
           ,
           taken
           ,
           and
           reputed
           King
           of
           England
           and
           France
           ,
           and
           Lord
           of
           Ireland
           ,
           is
           content
           ,
           agreeth
           and
           consenteth
           ,
           that
           he
           be
           had
           ,
           reputed
           and
           taken
           King
           of
           England
           and
           of
           France
           ,
           with
           the
           Royal
           Estate
           ,
           Dignity
           and
           Preeminence
           belonging
           thereto
           ,
           and
           Lord
           of
           Ireland
           ,
           during
           his
           Life
           natural
           ;
           and
           for
           that
           time
           the
           said
           Duke
           ,
           without
           hurt
           or
           prejudice
           of
           his
           said
           Right
           and
           Title
           ,
           shall
           take
           ,
           worship
           and
           honour
           him
           for
           his
           Sovereign
           Lord.
           
             Here
             was
             certainly
             an
             Oath
             taken
             to
             a
             King
             ,
             whom
             the
             Person
             taking
             it
             looked
             on
             only
             as
             a
             King
          
           de
           facto
           ,
           
             and
             not
          
           de
           jure
           ;
           
             and
             yet
             this
             Oath
             was
             taken
             and
             allowed
             ,
             nay
             contrived
             in
             Parliament
             ;
             and
             that
             for
             no
             less
             an
             end
             ,
             than
             for
             the
          
           Weal
           ,
           Rest
           ,
           and
           Prosperity
           of
           the
           Land
           ,
           
             i.e.
             for
             the
             Publick
             Good.
          
           
        
         
           
             It
             may
             be
             said
          
           ,
           That
           the
           Case
           is
           different
           ;
           for
           Richard
           
           Duke
           of
           York
           parted
           with
           his
           own
           Right
           ;
           but
           we
           cannot
           with
           anothers
           ,
           which
           we
           have
           sworn
           to
           preserve
           .
        
         
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           he
           did
           not
           look
           on
           such
           an
           Oath
           as
           parting
           with
           his
           Right
           ,
           but
           as
           a
           thing
           fitting
           to
           be
           done
           on
           the
           account
           of
           Possession
           for
           the
           Publick
           Good.
           And
           so
           many
           others
           taken
           such
           another
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           wherein
           there
           is
           no
           Declaration
           as
           to
           Right
           ,
           but
           the
           same
           things
           required
           ,
           which
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           promised
           in
           his
           Oath
           to
           Hen.
           6.
           
        
         
           But
           Allegiance
           is
           not
           due
           but
           where
           there
           is
           a
           Right
           to
           claim
           it
           ;
           and
           that
           cannot
           be
           ,
           where
           there
           is
           no
           Right
           to
           the
           Crown
           .
        
         
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
           an
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           may
           be
           twofold
           :
           1.
           
           
             Declarative
             of
             Right
          
           ;
           and
           in
           that
           case
           none
           can
           be
           owned
           to
           have
           Right
           ,
           but
           he
           that
           hath
           it
           .
        
         
           2.
           
           Submissive
           Allegiance
           ;
           
             where
             no
             more
             is
             required
             than
             is
             contained
             in
             the
             Duke
             of
          
           York
           '
           
             s
             Oath
             ,
             and
             yet
             he
             declared
          
           this
           was
           no
           Prejudice
           to
           his
           Right
           .
           But
           it
           may
           be
           said
           ,
           He
           declared
           so
           much
           before
           he
           took
           the
           Oath
           ,
           and
           so
           gave
           the
           Sense
           in
           which
           he
           took
           it
           .
        
         
           I
           answer
           ,
           That
        
         
           His
           putting
           in
           his
           Claim
           ,
           and
           his
           Title
           being
           allow'd
           after
           the
           King
           in
           being
           ,
           had
           been
           sufficient
           ;
           but
           in
           our
           case
           there
           is
           no
           need
           of
           a
           Declaration
           ,
           since
           the
           declaratory
           part
           is
           left
           out
           ;
           which
           is
           a
           fuller
           Declaration
           of
           the
           sense
           of
           the
           Oath
           ,
           than
           our
           Words
           can
           make
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           proceed
           ;
        
         
           (
           2.
           )
           The
           first
           Objection
           the
           Parliament
           made
           to
           the
           Duke
           of
           
           York's
           Claim
           was
           ,
           from
           
             the
             Oaths
             they
             had
             taken
             to
             H.
          
           6.
           
           To
           which
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           gave
           a
           large
           Answer
           ,
           that
           
             Oaths
             must
             not
             bind
             against
             Truth
             and
             Iustice.
          
           But
           this
           was
           to
           take
           it
           for
           granted
           ,
           that
           he
           had
           the
           Truth
           and
           Justice
           of
           his
           side
           ,
           whereas
           there
           was
           a
           long
           Possession
           of
           threescore
           Years
           against
           him
           ;
           surely
           Matters
           
           of
           Fact
           which
           were
           necessary
           to
           the
           disproving
           his
           Title
           ,
           were
           then
           so
           far
           out
           of
           Memory
           ,
           that
           it
           was
           impossible
           to
           make
           clear
           Evidence
           about
           them
           ;
           and
           others
           were
           not
           examin'd
           ,
           as
           whether
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           were
           absent
           so
           long
           from
           his
           Wife
           abroad
           ,
           when
           Philippa
           was
           born
           ?
           Whether
           one
           Sir
           
             Iames
             Awdely
          
           suffer'd
           about
           it
           ?
           Whether
           he
           was
           divorced
           from
           her
           upon
           it
           ?
           Whether
           E.
           3.
           after
           the
           Death
           of
           the
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           ,
           did
           entail
           the
           Crown
           on
           his
           Heirs
           male
           ?
           Whether
           upon
           the
           Deposition
           of
           R.
           2.
           the
           Claim
           of
           Right
           on
           behalf
           of
           the
           Duke
           of
           
           Clarence's
           Heir
           ,
           ought
           not
           to
           have
           been
           made
           ?
           How
           far
           Edmond
           Mortimer's
           owning
           the
           Title
           of
           H.
           5.
           and
           the
           Duke
           of
           
           Cambridge's
           Attainder
           did
           affect
           him
           ?
           Whether
           he
           had
           not
           renounced
           his
           own
           Pretentions
           ,
           by
           owning
           H.
           6.
           to
           be
           
             his
             Supream
          
           and
           
             Soveraign
             Lord
          
           ,
           as
           he
           had
           often
           done
           in
           a
           most
           solemn
           manner
           ,
           particularly
           in
           his
           Oaths
           at
           the
           Altar
           at
           St.
           Pauls
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           be
           seen
           in
           the
           
             Book
             of
             Oaths
          
           ,
           p.
           146.
           and
           elsewhere
           .
           But
           at
           that
           time
           ,
           H.
           6.
           was
           under
           the
           Power
           of
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           ;
           and
           that
           was
           a
           very
           unfit
           time
           to
           clear
           a
           sinking
           Title
           .
        
         
           
             But
             however
             the
             Lords
             in
             Parliament
             were
             concerned
             for
             their
          
           Oaths
           to
           H.
           6.
           
             and
             proposed
             the
             former
          
           Expedient
           ,
           
             not
             only
             for
             the
             publick
             Welfare
             ,
             but
             in
             regard
             to
             their
          
           Oaths
           ,
           
             notwithstanding
             that
             they
             allow'd
             the
          
           Duke's
           
             Title
             to
             be
             good
             .
             Their
             Words
             are
             ,
          
           It
           was
           concluded
           and
           agreed
           by
           all
           the
           said
           Lords
           ,
           that
           since
           it
           was
           so
           ,
           that
           the
           Title
           of
           the
           said
           Duke
           of
           York
           cannot
           be
           defeated
           ,
           and
           in
           eschewing
           the
           great
           Inconvenience
           that
           might
           ensue
           ,
           to
           take
           the
           Mein
           above
           rehearsed
           ,
           the
           Oaths
           that
           the
           said
           Lords
           had
           made
           unto
           the
           King's
           Highness
           at
           Coventry
           and
           other
           places
           saved
           .
        
         
           From
           whence
           it
           is
           plain
           that
           they
           look'd
           on
           their
           
             Oaths
             to
             Hen.
          
           6.
           as
           consistent
           with
           owning
           the
           
           Right
           to
           be
           in
           the
           Duke
           of
           York
           ;
           and
           that
           Possession
           was
           a
           sufficient
           Ground
           for
           continuing
           their
           Oaths
           .
        
         
           (
           3.
           )
           In
           1
           E.
           4.
           where
           the
           Right
           and
           Title
           of
           the
           D.
           of
           York
           is
           most
           amply
           set
           forth
           ,
           yet
           there
           this
           Agreement
           ,
           39
           H.
           6.
           is
           recited
           ,
           and
           the
           Proceedings
           against
           H.
           6.
           are
           grounded
           upon
           his
           Breach
           of
           it
           .
           Which
           shews
           farther
           that
           those
           Parliaments
           which
           did
           assert
           the
           
             Right
             of
             Succession
          
           highest
           ,
           (
           among
           which
           ,
           this
           of
           E.
           4.
           ought
           to
           be
           reckon'd
           )
           yet
           it
           was
           never
           disputed
           ,
           whether
           those
           who
           had
           taken
           the
           Oaths
           to
           H.
           6.
           were
           perjured
           ;
           for
           they
           look
           on
           the
           Possession
           of
           the
           Crown
           as
           a
           sufficient
           Ground
           for
           the
           Allegiance
           required
           .
        
         
           But
           it
           may
           be
           said
           ,
           
             That
             from
             hence
             we
             see
             that
             he
             was
             look'd
             on
             as
             having
             the
             best
             Title
             ,
             who
             had
             the
             best
             Right
             by
             lineal
             Succession
             .
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           that
           we
           are
           not
           enquiring
           into
           Titles
           ,
           but
           searching
           into
           the
           Reasons
           and
           Measures
           of
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           ;
           and
           whether
           those
           do
           require
           full
           Satisfaction
           about
           the
           best
           Title
           ?
           Or
           supposing
           one
           unsatisfied
           about
           that
           ,
           he
           may
           not
           yet
           be
           satisfied
           in
           taking
           such
           an
           Oath
           as
           the
           D.
           of
           York
           and
           his
           Sons
           did
           ?
        
         
           
             But
             such
             Precedents
             prove
             nothing
             ,
             unless
             they
             be
             agreeable
             to
             our
             Laws
             and
             Constitution
             .
          
           Yes
           ,
           a
           great
           deal
           ,
           while
           we
           are
           enquiring
           into
           our
           
             Legal
             Constitution
          
           ;
           and
           we
           find
           such
           things
           allowed
           in
           Parliaments
           ;
           and
           not
           only
           so
           ,
           but
           in
           such
           Parliaments
           which
           allow'd
           not
           the
           Title
           of
           the
           King
           to
           whom
           those
           Oaths
           were
           made
           .
        
         
           
             Our
             Law
             owns
             no
             King
             meerly
             as
             in
             Possession
             ,
             but
             the
             Right
             Heir
             is
             the
             legal
             King
             ,
             whether
             in
             Possession
             or
             not
             .
          
           Our
           Law
           does
           own
           a
           King
           in
           Possession
           ,
           if
           
             Treason
             may
             be
             committed
             against
             Him
          
           ;
           and
           for
           this
           we
           have
           not
           only
           the
           
             Authority
             of
             Sir
          
           E.
           C.
           but
           of
           the
           
             Year-Books
             ,
             9
             E.
          
           4.
           
           Where
           it
           is
           deliver'd
           for
           Law
           at
           that
           time
           ;
           and
           with
           a
           particular
           Respect
           to
           
             H.
             6.
             
             Et
             home
             sera
             
             arraigne
             de
             Treason
             fait
             a
             dit
             Roy.
             H.
          
           and
           therefore
           Sir
           
             E.
             C.
          
           had
           good
           Authority
           for
           what
           he
           said
           ;
           and
           that
           not
           in
           the
           Reign
           of
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           but
           when
           a
           King
           thrust
           out
           another
           for
           want
           of
           Right
           ,
           and
           derived
           his
           whole
           Right
           from
           a
           
             lineal
             Succession
          
           .
           Bagot's
           Case
           goes
           farther
           than
           
             Grants
             and
             judicial
             Proceedings
             of
             a
             King
             de
             facto
          
           ;
           for
           therein
           it
           is
           declared
           Treason
           to
           compass
           the
           Death
           of
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ;
           and
           it
           is
           very
           absurd
           to
           imagine
           Treason
           against
           one
           whom
           the
           Law
           doth
           not
           own
           :
           for
           Treason
           is
           a
           high
           Violation
           of
           the
           Law
           ,
           and
           how
           can
           the
           Law
           be
           violated
           against
           one
           whom
           the
           Law
           doth
           not
           own
           ?
           Besides
           ,
           in
           
           Bagot's
           Case
           there
           is
           a
           distinction
           made
           between
           
             a
             meer
             Vsurper
             ,
             and
             one
             on
             whom
             the
             Crown
             is
             setled
             by
             Parliament
          
           ;
           and
           so
           H.
           6.
           is
           denied
           to
           be
           a
           meer
           Usurper
           .
           
             Et
             six
             le
             dit
             Roy
             H.
             de
             fait
             Merement
             ,
             come
             Vsurper
             ,
             Car
             le
             Corone
             fuit
             taille
             a
             luy
             per
             Parliament
             .
          
           So
           that
           by
           our
           Constitution
           a
           great
           Deference
           is
           to
           be
           shew'd
           to
           the
           Judgment
           of
           
             the
             three
             Estates
          
           in
           matters
           that
           concern
           the
           
             Right
             of
             the
             Crown
          
           ;
           Or
           else
           ,
           an
           Entail
           made
           by
           them
           could
           make
           no
           difference
           ;
           but
           the
           whole
           Resolution
           must
           be
           into
           the
           
             lineal
             Desent
          
           .
           And
           thus
           I
           look
           on
           the
           Statute
           ,
           11
           H.
           7.
           as
           
             agreeable
             to
             our
             Constitution
          
           ;
           for
           if
           it
           be
           Treason
           to
           compass
           the
           Death
           of
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           there
           is
           great
           Reason
           there
           should
           be
           Indemnity
           for
           those
           who
           act
           for
           Him.
           
        
         
           
             But
             what
             doth
             this
             signify
             to
             the
             Consciences
             of
             Men
             ?
          
           Very
           much
           ,
           if
           they
           are
           to
           be
           satisfied
           by
           our
           Constitution
           .
           I
           grant
           meer
           Indemnity
           doth
           not
           clear
           a
           Man's
           Mind
           ;
           but
           its
           agreeableness
           to
           former
           Proceedings
           and
           Judgments
           shews
           how
           far
           our
           Constitution
           allows
           us
           to
           go
           ,
           and
           that
           there
           is
           no
           Argument
           from
           thence
           which
           can
           hinder
           the
           Satisfaction
           of
           Conscience
           so
           far
           .
        
         
         
           But
           suppose
           a
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           be
           in
           Possession
           of
           this
           Act
           ,
           and
           another
           comes
           and
           dispossesses
           Him
           ,
           and
           so
           is
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           Doth
           this
           Law
           indemnify
           those
           who
           Fight
           against
           the
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           for
           the
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ?
        
         
           Whosoever
           is
           in
           actual
           and
           quiet
           Possession
           of
           the
           Crown
           ,
           by
           
             Consent
             of
             Parliament
          
           ,
           hath
           the
           Right
           to
           challenge
           the
           Benefits
           of
           this
           Act
           for
           those
           who
           serve
           Him.
           But
           I
           do
           not
           say
           ,
           that
           this
           Act
           gives
           any
           Man
           Right
           to
           oppose
           a
           
             Rightful
             King
          
           ;
           but
           it
           only
           provides
           for
           the
           Indemnity
           of
           those
           who
           assist
           the
           present
           Possessor
           ,
           although
           another
           had
           the
           Right
           by
           Descent
           .
           For
           ,
           after
           the
           D.
           of
           
           York's
           challenging
           the
           Crown
           by
           Right
           of
           Succession
           against
           the
           Possessor
           ,
           there
           were
           two
           Parties
           in
           the
           Nation
           ,
           the
           one
           was
           for
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           for
           the
           Right
           of
           Possession
           by
           a
           
             National
             Consent
          
           .
           And
           the
           Disputes
           between
           these
           two
           continued
           as
           long
           as
           the
           Differences
           between
           the
           Houses
           of
           York
           and
           Lancaster
           lasted
           .
           When
           H.
           7.
           was
           setled
           in
           the
           Throne
           ,
           without
           regard
           to
           the
           Right
           of
           Succession
           ,
           although
           there
           was
           a
           general
           Submission
           ,
           yet
           there
           was
           still
           a
           great
           Dissatisfaction
           in
           the
           
             York
             Party
          
           ;
           which
           occasion'd
           all
           the
           Disturbances
           of
           H.
           7th's
           Reign
           ,
           from
           setting
           up
           an
           Heir
           of
           the
           House
           of
           York
           .
           (
           And
           Sir
           
             William
             Stanly
          
           was
           gained
           to
           that
           Party
           ,
           which
           cost
           him
           his
           Life
           .
           )
           And
           they
           went
           so
           far
           as
           to
           conclude
           it
           Treason
           to
           stand
           by
           the
           Possessor
           against
           the
           
             next
             lineal
             Heir
          
           .
           Which
           I
           take
           to
           have
           been
           the
           true
           Occasion
           of
           the
           Statute
           11
           H.
           7.
           which
           doth
           certainly
           Indemnify
           those
           who
           adhere
           to
           the
           Possessor
           ,
           although
           another
           may
           claim
           a
           better
           Right
           ;
           and
           thereby
           declares
           a
           
             Possessory
             Right
          
           to
           be
           a
           sufficient
           Ground
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           as
           far
           as
           that
           Act
           goes
           .
        
         
           There
           are
           three
           sorts
           of
           Persons
           may
           be
           said
           to
           have
           Possession
           of
           the
           Crown
           ,
           an
           Vsurper
           ,
           a
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           ,
           and
           
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ;
           and
           because
           the
           distinction
           between
           these
           doth
           not
           seem
           to
           be
           well
           understood
           ,
           I
           shall
           briefly
           explain
           it
           .
        
         
           An
           Usurper
           is
           one
           ,
           who
           comes
           in
           by
           Force
           ,
           and
           continues
           by
           Force
           .
        
         
           A
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           is
           one
           ,
           who
           comes
           in
           by
           
             lineal
             Descent
          
           ,
           as
           next
           Heir
           ,
           and
           whose
           Right
           is
           owned
           and
           Recognized
           by
           the
           Estates
           of
           the
           Realm
           .
        
         
           A
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           is
           one
           ,
           who
           comes
           in
           by
           Consent
           of
           the
           Nation
           ,
           but
           not
           by
           Virtue
           of
           an
           
             immediate
             Hereditary
             Right
          
           ;
           but
           to
           such
           a
           one
           being
           owned
           and
           receiv'd
           by
           the
           Estates
           of
           the
           Realm
           ,
           the
           Law
           of
           England
           ,
           as
           far
           as
           I
           can
           see
           ,
           requires
           an
           Allegiance
           .
           Or
           else
           the
           whole
           Nation
           was
           perjur'd
           in
           most
           of
           the
           Reigns
           from
           the
           Conquest
           to
           H.
           8.
           for
           the
           two
           Williams
           ,
           six
           at
           least
           of
           the
           seven
           Henries
           ,
           King
           Stephen
           ,
           and
           King
           Iohn
           were
           all
           Kings
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           for
           some
           time
           at
           least
           ,
           for
           they
           came
           not
           in
           as
           next
           Heirs
           in
           a
           
             lineal
             Descent
          
           .
           But
           still
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           were
           taken
           to
           them
           ;
           and
           no
           such
           Scruples
           appear
           to
           have
           been
           made
           all
           that
           time
           ;
           nor
           any
           charge
           of
           Perjury
           ,
           on
           those
           who
           did
           what
           our
           Law
           and
           Constitution
           required
           .
           Was
           the
           Nation
           perjured
           in
           the
           Time
           of
           H.
           7.
           who
           ,
           as
           all
           know
           ,
           had
           no
           Pretence
           of
           an
           
             Hereditary
             Right
          
           ?
           Yet
           being
           received
           and
           Crowned
           ,
           the
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           were
           taken
           to
           Him
           ,
           before
           he
           was
           Married
           to
           the
           Daughter
           of
           E.
           4.
           
           For
           ,
           he
           was
           Crowned
           30
           Octob.
           1485.
           
           Had
           the
           Crown
           entailed
           in
           Parliament
           Nov.
           7.
           and
           was
           Married
           Ian.
           18.
           
           But
           the
           first
           Parliament
           of
           R.
           3.
           endeavoured
           to
           make
           void
           the
           Title
           of
           the
           Children
           of
           E.
           4.
           upon
           pretence
           of
           a
           Precontract
           with
           the
           E.
           of
           Shrewsburies
           Daughter
           ;
           and
           of
           George
           Duke
           of
           Clarence
           by
           his
           Attainder
           ,
           thereby
           to
           make
           
             R.
             3.
             
             Right
             Heir
             to
             the
             Crown
          
           ;
           but
           lest
           these
           things
           should
           fail
           ,
           
             to
             his
             Claim
             of
             Inheritance
             ,
             they
             
             join
             their
             own
             Election
             ,
             and
             desire
             him
             to
             accept
             the
             Crown
             ▪
             as
             to
             him
             of
             Right
             belonging
             ,
             as
             well
             by
             Inheritance
             as
             by
             lawful
             Election
             .
          
           It
           seems
           ,
           they
           would
           have
           made
           him
           a
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           as
           well
           as
           
             de
             facto
          
           ;
           but
           the
           excluding
           the
           Children
           of
           E.
           4.
           never
           gave
           Satisfaction
           since
           the
           Lady
           Lucy
           her self
           disowned
           it
           to
           the
           Mother
           of
           E.
           4.
           
           And
           if
           such
           an
           Allegation
           would
           hold
           ,
           the
           whole
           Succession
           both
           of
           York
           and
           Lancaster
           might
           be
           questioned
           ;
           for
           both
           derive
           from
           H.
           3.
           whose
           Mother
           was
           believed
           at
           that
           Time
           to
           have
           been
           precontracted
           at
           least
           to
           
             Hugh
             le
             Brun
          
           ,
           
           before
           She
           was
           married
           to
           K.
           Iohn
           ,
           and
           was
           married
           to
           Him
           ,
           whilst
           his
           former
           Wife
           was
           living
           .
           And
           if
           Q.
           
           Eleanor's
           Divorce
           from
           the
           K.
           of
           France
           were
           not
           Good
           (
           as
           it
           is
           hard
           to
           prove
           it
           so
           )
           what
           becomes
           of
           all
           the
           Line
           of
           H.
           2.
           who
           married
           Her
           ,
           after
           She
           had
           two
           Children
           by
           her
           former
           Husband
           ?
           But
           if
           Mens
           Consciences
           are
           tied
           to
           a
           strict
           legal
           and
           
             lineal
             Descent
          
           ,
           they
           must
           be
           satisfied
           in
           all
           these
           Points
           .
        
         
           But
           supposing
           the
           Right
           of
           the
           Children
           of
           E.
           4.
           to
           have
           been
           never
           so
           Good
           ;
           what
           doth
           this
           make
           towards
           the
           justifying
           the
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           which
           were
           made
           to
           H.
           7.
           whom
           some
           will
           not
           allow
           to
           have
           any
           Claim
           by
           the
           House
           of
           Lancaster
           ,
           since
           they
           say
           ,
           the
           same
           Act
           which
           legitimated
           Iohn
           of
           
           Gaunt's
           Children
           by
           
             Kath.
             Swinford
          
           ,
           did
           exclude
           them
           from
           any
           Title
           to
           the
           Crown
           ?
           Yet
           the
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           were
           taken
           by
           the
           whole
           Nation
           in
           the
           time
           of
           H.
           7.
           and
           no
           Dispute
           was
           then
           made
           about
           it
           ;
           because
           it
           was
           then
           believed
           ,
           that
           quiet
           Possession
           was
           a
           sufficient
           Ground
           for
           Allegiance
           .
        
         
           
             It
             is
             objected
          
           ,
           That
           it
           cannot
           be
           agreeable
           to
           the
           Law
           of
           England
           to
           swear
           Allegiance
           to
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           when
           the
           Duke
           of
           Northumberland
           suffered
           by
           the
           Law
           for
           adhering
           to
           a
           Queen
           
             de
             facto
          
           .
        
         
         
           A
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           according
           to
           our
           Law
           (
           as
           I
           said
           )
           is
           one
           in
           quiet
           Possession
           of
           the
           Crown
           ,
           by
           Consent
           of
           Parliament
           ,
           without
           Hereditary
           Right
           ;
           such
           as
           H.
           4
           ,
           5
           ,
           6
           ,
           7.
           were
           all
           thought
           to
           be
           ,
           by
           those
           who
           made
           this
           Distinction
           .
           For
           ,
           as
           far
           as
           I
           can
           find
           ,
           the
           Distinction
           of
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           and
           
             de
             jure
          
           was
           then
           started
           ,
           when
           the
           House
           of
           York
           so
           much
           insisted
           on
           their
           Hereditary
           Right
           ;
           and
           so
           many
           of
           our
           Kings
           had
           governed
           the
           Kingdom
           by
           Consent
           without
           it
           .
           Therefore
           the
           Lawyers
           ,
           to
           find
           a
           sufficient
           Salvo
           for
           the
           Kings
           of
           the
           House
           of
           Lancaster
           ,
           framed
           this
           Distinction
           of
           Kings
           
             de
             facto
          
           and
           
             de
             jure
          
           ;
           but
           still
           they
           meant
           
             Kings
             Regnant
          
           ,
           as
           they
           called
           them
           ,
           or
           in
           full
           Possession
           of
           the
           Royal
           Dignity
           by
           a
           National
           Consent
           .
           (
           The
           Distinction
           had
           been
           better
           of
           a
           two-fold
           Right
           ,
           
             viz.
             Possessory
          
           and
           
             Hereditary
             .
          
           )
           But
           this
           was
           far
           from
           being
           the
           Case
           of
           
             Queen
             Iane
          
           ,
           who
           was
           set
           up
           by
           a
           particular
           Party
           against
           the
           General
           Sense
           of
           the
           Nation
           ,
           as
           soon
           appeared
           ;
           for
           the
           main
           Point
           her
           Title
           stood
           upon
           was
           this
           ,
           Whether
           the
           King
           by
           his
           Grant
           could
           dispose
           of
           the
           Crown
           against
           an
           Act
           of
           Parliament
           which
           setled
           the
           Succession
           ?
           and
           that
           this
           was
           the
           true
           Point
           ,
           appears
           evidently
           by
           Judge
           
           Mountague's
           Papers
           ,
           who
           was
           imployed
           against
           his
           Will
           ,
           in
           drawing
           up
           the
           Grant.
           So
           that
           the
           Duke
           of
           
           Northumberland's
           Case
           doth
           by
           no
           Means
           reach
           the
           Point
           of
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           .
        
         
           
             But
             it
             is
             further
             urged
             from
             our
          
           Homilies
           ,
           
           That
           our
           Church
           therein
           condemns
           those
           English
           who
           did
           swear
           Fidelity
           to
           the
           Dauphin
           of
           France
           ,
           breaking
           their
           Oath
           of
           Fidelity
           to
           their
           Natural
           Lord
           the
           King
           of
           
             England
             .
             To
             which
             I
             answer
             ,
          
        
         
           (
           1.
           )
           That
           King
           Iohn
           was
           only
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           himself
           ,
           if
           a
           Legal
           Succession
           makes
           a
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           .
           For
           ,
           (
           1.
           )
           His
           eldest
           Brother's
           Son
           Arthur
           was
           then
           living
           ,
           as
           
           all
           confess
           .
           (
           2.
           )
           He
           was
           convicted
           of
           Treason
           against
           his
           Brother
           R.
           1.
           and
           the
           Sentence
           pronounced
           against
           him
           by
           
             Hugo
             de
             Pudsey
          
           Bishop
           of
           Durham
           ,
           
           as
           the
           King
           of
           France
           pleaded
           to
           the
           Pope's
           Legat
           who
           came
           to
           solicit
           for
           him
           .
           
           (
           3.
           )
           Hubert
           Archbishop
           of
           Canterbury
           declar'd
           at
           his
           Coronation
           ,
           that
           he
           came
           not
           in
           by
           
             Hereditary
             Right
          
           ,
           
           but
           by
           Election
           ;
           and
           he
           accepted
           of
           it
           so
           .
           (
           4.
           )
           What
           Right
           he
           had
           after
           the
           Death
           of
           his
           Nephew
           ,
           he
           gave
           up
           by
           the
           Resignation
           of
           his
           Crown
           to
           the
           Pope
           .
           He
           could
           have
           no
           
             Hereditary
             Right
          
           while
           
           Arthur's
           Sister
           lived
           ,
           who
           survived
           him
           ,
           and
           was
           kept
           in
           the
           Castle
           at
           Bristol
           .
           But
           supposing
           it
           ,
           I
           do
           not
           understand
           how
           he
           that
           gave
           up
           his
           Right
           of
           Dominion
           to
           the
           Pope
           ,
           could
           still
           retain
           it
           ?
           And
           if
           he
           was
           Feudatary
           to
           the
           same
           ,
           he
           could
           not
           challenge
           Allegiance
           as
           due
           to
           him
           ,
           but
           to
           the
           Pope
           as
           Lord
           Paramount
           .
           And
           it
           was
           pleaded
           against
           him
           ,
           
           
             That
             although
             he
             could
             not
             dispose
             of
             his
             Crown
             without
             Consent
             of
             his
             Barons
             ,
             yet
             he
             might
             demise
             it
             .
             And
             upon
             his
             Resignation
             he
             ceased
             to
             be
             King
             ;
             and
             so
             the
             Throne
             was
             vacant
             .
             And
             by
             that
             means
             there
             was
             a
             devolution
             of
             Right
             to
             the
             BARONS
             to
             fill
             up
             the
             Vacancy
             ;
             who
             made
             choice
             of
          
           LEWIS
           
             by
             the
             Right
             of
             his
             Wife
             ,
             who
             was
             Heir
             to
             King
          
           John.
           If
           after
           all
           this
           ,
           an
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           to
           him
           was
           lawful
           ,
           then
           ,
           I
           say
           ,
           an
           Oath
           to
           a
           King
           
             de
             facto
          
           is
           so
           ,
           for
           King
           Iohn
           was
           no
           more
           .
        
         
           
             (
             2.
             )
             As
             to
             the
          
           Barons
           
             calling
             in
          
           Lewis
           ,
           
             and
             forsaking
             K.
          
           Iohn
           ,
           
             it
             is
             necessary
             to
             observe
             on
             what
             Reason
             it
             is
             that
             our
          
           Homilies
           
             condemn
             it
             .
             For
             the
             whole
             design
             of
             that
          
           Homily
           
             is
             ,
             to
             shew
          
           the
           Popes
           Vsurpations
           over
           Princes
           ,
           and
           their
           stirring
           up
           Subjects
           to
           Rebellion
           against
           them
           ,
           by
           discharging
           them
           from
           their
           Oaths
           ;
           and
           for
           those
           the
           Instance
           of
           King
           John
           is
           produced
           .
           
             As
             appears
             by
             the
             words
             just
             before
          
           ;
           Now
           had
           English-men
           at
           that
           time
           known
           their
           Duty
           to
           their
           Prince
           set
           forth
           in
           God's
           Word
           ,
           
           would
           a
           great
           many
           Nobles
           ,
           and
           other
           English-men
           natural
           Subjects
           ,
           for
           this
           foreign
           and
           unnatural
           Vsurper
           his
           vain
           Curse
           of
           the
           King
           ,
           and
           for
           his
           feigned
           discharging
           them
           of
           their
           Oath
           and
           Fidelity
           to
           their
           Natural
           Lord
           ,
           upon
           so
           slender
           ,
           or
           no
           Ground
           at
           all
           ,
           have
           rebelled
           against
           their
           Sovereign
           Lord
           the
           King
           ?
           Would
           English
           Subjects
           have
           taken
           part
           against
           the
           King
           of
           England
           ,
           and
           against
           English
           Men
           ,
           with
           the
           French
           King
           ,
           and
           French
           Men
           ,
           being
           incensed
           against
           this
           Realm
           by
           the
           Bishop
           of
           Rome
           ?
        
         
           (
           3.
           )
           This
           doth
           not
           concern
           the
           present
           Case
           .
           For
           Men
           may
           condemn
           those
           English
           Men
           who
           sent
           for
           Lewis
           ,
           and
           yet
           may
           lawfully
           take
           the
           present
           Oaths
           .
           By
           which
           Men
           are
           not
           bound
           to
           justify
           such
           Proceedings
           ,
           but
           to
           promise
           Faith
           and
           Allegiance
           to
           such
           as
           are
           in
           actual
           Possession
           of
           the
           Throne
           .
           Which
           the
           Oaths
           taken
           to
           K.
           Iohn
           will
           justify
           .
        
         
           Thus
           I
           have
           considered
           the
           greatest
           Difficulties
           I
           have
           yet
           met
           with
           about
           taking
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           and
           have
           not
           dissembled
           the
           strength
           of
           any
           of
           them
           .
        
         
           
             There
             is
             only
             one
             thing
             remains
             ,
             and
             that
             is
             the
             Answer
             given
             to
             the
             Case
             of
          
           Tiberius
           ,
           who
           was
           an
           Vsurper
           ,
           and
           yet
           our
           Saviour
           said
           ,
           Give
           unto
           Cesar
           the
           things
           that
           are
           
           Cesar's
           .
           
             The
             Answer
             is
          
           ,
           That
           although
           it
           were
           a
           forcible
           Vsurpation
           in
           
             Julius
             Cesar
          
           ,
           yet
           before
           that
           time
           the
           Matter
           was
           accorded
           between
           the
           Senate
           and
           the
           Emperors
           ,
           and
           they
           reigned
           unquestioned
           without
           any
           competition
           from
           the
           Senate
           .
        
         
           So
           that
           it
           was
           not
           lawful
           to
           swear
           Allegiance
           to
           
             Iulius
             Cesar
          
           ,
           who
           had
           the
           full
           Possession
           of
           the
           Power
           ,
           but
           it
           was
           to
           Tiberius
           :
           And
           why
           so
           ?
           Where
           was
           the
           Right
           of
           Government
           in
           the
           time
           of
           
             Iulius
             Cesar
             ?
             In
             the
             Senate
             and
             People
             .
          
           And
           so
           it
           continued
           all
           Iulius
           Cesar's
           time
           .
           But
           how
           came
           the
           
             Senate
             and
             People
          
           to
           lose
           their
           Right
           in
           the
           time
           of
           Tiberius
           ?
        
         
         
           (
           1.
           )
           Had
           they
           given
           it
           up
           by
           any
           solemn
           Act
           of
           theirs
           ,
           as
           many
           say
           they
           did
           by
           the
           
             Lex
             Regia
          
           ,
           which
           Iustinian
           confidently
           affirms
           ?
           Then
           all
           the
           Right
           which
           the
           Emperor
           had
           ,
           was
           by
           Devolution
           from
           the
           People
           ;
           and
           so
           they
           acted
           by
           virtue
           of
           that
           Power
           which
           the
           People
           gave
           them
           ;
           
             (
             Populus
          
           comprehends
           both
           Senate
           and
           
             Community
             .
          
           )
           And
           then
           the
           Emperors
           had
           their
           Rights
           of
           Soveraignty
           from
           the
           People
           ,
           and
           not
           from
           God.
           For
           here
           was
           no
           other
           Act
           but
           that
           of
           the
           People
           giving
           up
           their
           Right
           .
           And
           then
           the
           Case
           of
           Obedience
           to
           the
           Roman
           Emperors
           will
           be
           found
           very
           different
           from
           that
           of
           the
           Northern
           Kingdoms
           ,
           where
           the
           People
           never
           gave
           up
           their
           Rights
           in
           such
           a
           manner
           ;
           but
           in
           Cases
           of
           Difficulty
           concerning
           Succession
           ,
           the
           
             three
             Estates
          
           did
           look
           on
           themselves
           as
           particularly
           concerned
           ;
           as
           might
           be
           easily
           proved
           ,
           if
           it
           were
           needful
           ,
           in
           all
           the
           Northern
           Kingdoms
           .
        
         
           (
           2.
           )
           But
           suppose
           they
           did
           not
           formally
           give
           up
           their
           Right
           ,
           but
           were
           partly
           wheedled
           and
           partly
           forced
           out
           of
           it
           ;
           Doth
           this
           give
           a
           good
           Title
           ?
           Suppose
           Augustus
           had
           by
           his
           Acts
           procured
           the
           Consent
           of
           the
           People
           ,
           as
           to
           his
           own
           Government
           ;
           What
           was
           this
           to
           Tiberius
           ?
           Did
           they
           give
           him
           a
           Power
           to
           make
           whom
           he
           pleased
           his
           Successor
           ?
           Something
           may
           be
           said
           from
           Dion
           and
           Strabo
           as
           to
           the
           former
           ;
           but
           there
           is
           no
           Pretence
           as
           to
           the
           latter
           :
           For
           it
           was
           a
           meer
           Arbitrary
           Act
           in
           Augustus
           to
           nominate
           Tiberius
           ;
           and
           all
           the
           Title
           he
           had
           at
           first
           was
           from
           the
           Praetorian
           Band
           and
           Legions
           :
           Afterwards
           
             the
             Consuls
          
           ,
           
           
             and
             Senate
             ,
             and
             Souldiers
             ,
             and
             People
             did
             swear
             Allegiance
             to
             him
             ,
          
           as
           the
           Historians
           tell
           us
           .
           Now
           here
           I
           desire
           to
           know
           ,
           whether
           Tiberius
           were
           any
           more
           than
           Emperor
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           when
           they
           did
           thus
           swear
           to
           him
           ?
           For
           all
           the
           Right
           he
           had
           was
           from
           their
           voluntary
           Submission
           to
           him
           at
           Rome
           .
        
         
         
           As
           to
           the
           Roman
           Provinces
           ,
           Tacitus
           saith
           ,
           
             They
             were
             content
             with
             the
             present
             change
             of
             Government
             ,
          
           
           
             because
             they
             suffered
             by
             the
             Factions
             and
             Avarice
             of
             the
             great
             Men
             ;
             which
             made
             them
             weary
             of
             the
             Government
             by
             the
             Senate
             and
             People
             .
          
           But
           this
           only
           shews
           they
           were
           willing
           to
           change
           their
           Masters
           ,
           hoping
           they
           might
           mend
           their
           Condition
           ,
           but
           signifies
           little
           to
           the
           matter
           of
           Right
           .
           Since
           after
           they
           were
           made
           Provinces
           ,
           they
           owned
           their
           Subjection
           to
           the
           Roman
           Government
           ,
           by
           
             paying
             Tribute
             ,
             and
             receiving
             Magistrates
          
           from
           it
           ,
           however
           that
           Government
           was
           managed
           ,
           whether
           by
           Senate
           or
           People
           ,
           or
           by
           one
           who
           had
           the
           Imperial
           Power
           ,
           whatever
           Name
           he
           were
           called
           by
           .
           But
           as
           to
           the
           Province
           of
           Iudea
           in
           particular
           ,
           there
           are
           several
           Conditions
           of
           it
           to
           be
           considered
           .
        
         
           (
           1.
           )
           While
           it
           was
           tributary
           to
           the
           Kings
           of
           Persia
           and
           Syria
           .
           Jaddus
           
             the
             High
             Priest
             told
          
           Alexander
           
             that
             they
             had
             taken
             an
             Oath
             of
             Fidelity
             to
          
           Darius
           ,
           
           
             and
             therefore
             could
             not
             bear
             Arms
             against
             him
             while
             he
             lived
             .
          
           But
           was
           Darius
           King
           
             de
             jure
          
           or
           
             de
             facto
          
           over
           the
           Iews
           ?
           He
           was
           not
           King
           over
           them
           by
           a
           lineal
           Succession
           from
           their
           own
           Princes
           ;
           nor
           by
           the
           Fundamental
           Constitution
           of
           their
           Government
           ,
           
           which
           owned
           no
           
             legal
             King
          
           that
           was
           not
           of
           their
           Brethren
           :
           I
           do
           not
           say
           they
           were
           not
           to
           submit
           to
           ,
           but
           not
           to
           chuse
           any
           other
           .
           But
           what
           Right
           had
           Darius
           over
           the
           Iews
           ,
           any
           more
           than
           succeeding
           in
           the
           Persian
           Monarchy
           gave
           a
           Right
           to
           the
           Chaldean
           Conquests
           ?
           I
           grant
           ,
           the
           Iews
           did
           act
           under
           the
           Persian
           Monarchs
           ,
           
           as
           Nehemiah
           was
           Governour
           under
           Artaxerxes
           ,
           and
           that
           they
           did
           swear
           to
           them
           ,
           appears
           by
           Iaddus
           ;
           but
           the
           Question
           is
           ,
           On
           what
           Right
           that
           Oath
           was
           founded
           ?
           and
           whether
           upon
           
           Alexander's
           Conquest
           ,
           they
           could
           not
           as
           well
           take
           a
           new
           Oath
           to
           him
           ?
           For
           why
           should
           not
           present
           actual
           Dominion
           give
           
           as
           much
           Right
           ,
           as
           succeeding
           into
           anothers
           Right
           of
           Dominion
           ,
           which
           was
           at
           first
           gained
           by
           Conquest
           ?
           If
           Possession
           gives
           Right
           in
           one
           case
           ,
           why
           not
           in
           the
           other
           ;
           since
           there
           is
           more
           Reason
           for
           Allegiance
           ,
           where
           there
           is
           a
           Power
           of
           Protection
           ,
           than
           where
           there
           is
           none
           .
           And
           so
           we
           find
           Iaddus
           and
           the
           Iews
           did
           submit
           to
           Alexander
           afterwards
           ,
           and
           some
           of
           them
           went
           into
           his
           Army
           ,
           although
           Darius
           was
           still
           living
           ;
           which
           shews
           ,
           that
           as
           they
           were
           not
           forward
           to
           break
           their
           Allegiance
           sworn
           to
           Darius
           ;
           so
           they
           were
           not
           obstinate
           in
           opposing
           Alexander
           ,
           but
           yielded
           to
           the
           over-ruling
           Hand
           of
           Providence
           .
        
         
           (
           2.
           )
           When
           the
           Iews
           had
           their
           Liberty
           granted
           them
           by
           the
           Kings
           of
           Syria
           .
           For
           
             Antiochus
             Eupator
          
           made
           
             Peace
             with
             them
          
           ,
           
           
             by
             which
             they
             were
             to
             have
             the
             Liberty
             of
             their
             own
             Laws
          
           ;
           and
           although
           he
           soon
           brake
           his
           Agreement
           with
           them
           ;
           yet
           the
           Lacedaemonians
           and
           Romans
           owned
           them
           as
           a
           Free-People
           ,
           and
           treated
           with
           them
           as
           such
           .
           And
           Simon
           pleaded
           to
           Athenobius
           in
           this
           War
           ;
           
             We
             have
             neither
             taken
             other
             Mens
             Land
             ,
             nor
             holden
             that
             which
             appertaineth
             to
             others
          
           ;
           
           
             but
             the
             Inheritance
             of
             our
             Fathers
             ,
             which
             our
             Enemies
             had
             wrongfully
             in
             Possession
             a
             certain
             time
             .
             Wherefore
             we
             having
             Opportunity
             ,
             hold
             the
             Inheritance
             of
             our
             Fathers
             .
          
           Which
           plainly
           shews
           ,
           that
           they
           look'd
           on
           those
           who
           ruled
           over
           them
           as
           unjust
           Possessors
           ;
           
           at
           that
           time
           when
           they
           were
           so
           far
           under
           them
           ,
           as
           to
           swear
           Allegiance
           to
           them
           .
           After
           this
           
             Antiochus
             Pius
          
           did
           grant
           them
           their
           Liberty
           upon
           Composition
           ;
           which
           they
           enjoyed
           as
           their
           Neighbours
           did
           ,
           and
           suffered
           not
           as
           Slaves
           to
           the
           Kings
           of
           Syria
           ,
           but
           as
           sometimes
           oppressed
           by
           them
           .
        
         
           (
           3.
           )
           When
           they
           were
           reduced
           into
           the
           form
           of
           a
           
             Roman
             Province
          
           ;
           which
           was
           done
           by
           Pompey
           .
           And
           from
           that
           time
           they
           were
           in
           Subjection
           to
           the
           Roman
           State
           ;
           
           being
           only
           permitted
           to
           enjoy
           the
           Liberty
           of
           their
           Religion
           .
        
         
           
             But
             I
             shall
             take
             notice
             only
             of
             the
             case
             of
             the
          
           Iews
           
             Subjection
             to
             the
             Roman
             Emperor
             in
             our
             Saviour's
             time
             .
          
           Suetonius
           
             takes
             notice
             of
          
           the
           strange
           Impudence
           of
           Tiberius
           ,
           in
           seeming
           so
           long
           to
           decline
           the
           accepting
           the
           Soveraignty
           ,
           when
           from
           the
           very
           first
           he
           had
           assumed
           the
           Soveraign
           Power
           ,
           without
           asking
           the
           Leave
           either
           of
           Senate
           or
           People
           .
           *
           Tacitus
           saith
           ,
           That
           he
           took
           upon
           him
           the
           Government
           immediately
           upon
           the
           Death
           of
           Augustus
           ;
           and
           did
           exercise
           the
           Imperial
           Power
           every
           where
           ;
           only
           when
           he
           was
           in
           the
           Senate
           he
           seemed
           to
           demur
           ,
           for
           Fear
           of
           Germanicus
           and
           his
           Legions
           .
        
         
           †
           Dio
           ,
           That
           he
           exercised
           all
           the
           parts
           of
           the
           Government
           ,
           having
           secured
           the
           Italian
           Forces
           to
           himself
           ;
           
             but
             he
             declined
             the
             Name
             ,
             till
             he
             understood
             the
             Design
             of
          
           Germanicus
           .
        
         
           So
           that
           here
           we
           have
           a
           plain
           Original
           Usurpation
           in
           Tiberius
           ;
           there
           being
           no
           consent
           of
           Senate
           and
           People
           to
           his
           assuming
           the
           Soveraign
           Power
           .
           And
           yet
           Tacitus
           saith
           ,
           
             First
             the
             Consulls
             and
             great
             Officers
             ,
             then
             the
             Senate
             and
             People
             did
             swear
             Allegiance
             to
             him
             .
          
           Which
           was
           before
           he
           had
           their
           Consent
           .
           For
           he
           used
           his
           own
           Art
           afterwards
           ,
           that
           he
           might
           seem
           to
           be
           chosen
           by
           them
           ;
           and
           not
           to
           come
           to
           his
           Power
           by
           the
           force
           of
           Arms
           ,
           or
           the
           Intrigues
           of
           his
           Mother
           .
           But
           what
           Appearance
           of
           consent
           soever
           afterwards
           he
           gained
           from
           the
           Senate
           ,
           it
           was
           extorted
           from
           them
           by
           Force
           or
           Fraud
           ;
           as
           is
           evident
           from
           the
           same
           Historians
           .
           But
           what
           Right
           can
           
           such
           a
           Consent
           give
           ?
           And
           he
           took
           away
           the
           Remainder
           of
           the
           Peoples
           Liberties
           in
           their
           Comitia
           ,
           and
           never
           asked
           their
           Consent
           .
        
         
           What
           then
           was
           the
           Right
           of
           Tiberius
           to
           the
           Government
           founded
           upon
           ?
           Augustus
           had
           several
           repeated
           Acts
           ,
           whereby
           they
           continued
           his
           Government
           from
           time
           to
           time
           ,
           and
           thereby
           shewed
           their
           Consent
           ,
           as
           Dion
           and
           Strabo
           affirm
           ,
           
             that
             the
             whole
             Government
             was
             committed
             to
             him
             from
             the
             Senate
             and
             People
          
           ;
           But
           what
           is
           there
           like
           this
           in
           the
           Case
           of
           
             Tiberius
             ?
             He
             was
          
           Augustus
           
             his
             Wife's
             Son
             ,
             and
             he
             made
             him
             his
             Heir
             by
             his
             Testament
             :
          
           And
           what
           was
           that
           to
           the
           Roman
           State
           ?
           Was
           not
           
             Agrippa
             Posthumus
          
           ,
           then
           living
           ,
           much
           nearer
           to
           Augustus
           ,
           who
           was
           his
           own
           Grand-child
           ?
           And
           by
           ,
           the
           Story
           in
           Tacitus
           of
           
             Fabius
             Maximus
          
           ,
           seemed
           designed
           by
           him
           to
           succeed
           him
           ;
           but
           upon
           the
           Discovery
           of
           it
           ,
           first
           Augustus
           ,
           and
           then
           Agrippa
           was
           sent
           out
           of
           the
           World
           to
           make
           way
           for
           Tiberius
           ,
           who
           had
           before-hand
           engaged
           the
           Italian
           Legions
           .
           So
           that
           he
           trusted
           to
           no
           Testamentary
           Right
           ,
           as
           appears
           by
           all
           his
           Collusions
           with
           the
           Senate
           ,
           which
           there
           had
           been
           no
           place
           for
           ,
           if
           he
           had
           assumed
           the
           Government
           by
           virtue
           of
           Augustus
           his
           Testament
           or
           Adoption
           .
        
         
           Here
           we
           have
           then
           a
           plain
           Instance
           of
           one
           who
           was
           in
           the
           Possession
           of
           Power
           without
           Colour
           of
           Right
           ,
           and
           yet
           Oaths
           of
           Allegiance
           were
           taken
           to
           him
           ,
           both
           by
           the
           Senate
           and
           People
           .
           And
           when
           these
           Oaths
           were
           taken
           ,
           there
           was
           no
           adjusting
           the
           matter
           between
           him
           and
           the
           Senate
           ;
           for
           he
           had
           newly
           assumed
           the
           Government
           by
           Force
           when
           they
           took
           these
           Oaths
           .
           Here
           was
           no
           unquestion'd
           Authority
           from
           the
           Senate
           (
           whatever
           
             Vell.
             Paterculus
          
           pretends
           )
           but
           when
           he
           had
           gotten
           the
           Power
           into
           his
           Hands
           ,
           he
           required
           them
           to
           own
           it
           .
        
         
         
           Augustus
           was
           so
           wise
           ,
           as
           when
           they
           offer'd
           him
           their
           Oaths
           ,
           he
           refused
           them
           for
           this
           Reason
           ;
           
             He
             considered
             well
          
           ,
           
           saith
           
             Dio
             ,
             that
             if
             they
             gave
             their
             free
             Consent
             ,
             they
             would
             do
             what
             they
             promised
             without
             swearing
             ;
             and
             if
             they
             did
             not
             ,
             all
             the
             Oaths
             in
             the
             World
             would
             not
             make
             them
             .
          
           But
           Tiberius
           was
           of
           another
           Mind
           ,
           and
           he
           required
           their
           Oaths
           in
           the
           first
           place
           ;
           and
           it
           is
           not
           improbable
           that
           the
           same
           were
           required
           in
           several
           Provinces
           .
        
         
           When
           our
           Saviour
           appeared
           in
           
             Iudea
             ,
             Tiberius
          
           was
           in
           Possession
           of
           this
           Power
           ,
           over
           the
           Roman
           Empire
           ;
           and
           because
           the
           Jews
           were
           more
           scrupulous
           than
           other
           People
           ,
           on
           account
           of
           their
           Fundamental
           Laws
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           owning
           any
           usurped
           Jurisdiction
           over
           them
           ;
           some
           among
           them
           put
           the
           Question
           to
           him
           about
           paying
           Tribute
           to
           
             Caesar
             ,
             i.
             e.
          
           about
           owning
           any
           Act
           of
           Subjection
           to
           an
           Usurped
           Power
           .
           For
           there
           were
           plausible
           Arguments
           on
           both
           sides
           ;
           one
           was
           from
           the
           Strictness
           of
           their
           Laws
           ;
           the
           other
           was
           from
           the
           Benefit
           they
           received
           from
           the
           Roman
           Protection
           .
           The
           former
           seemed
           to
           have
           more
           of
           Conscience
           ,
           and
           the
           latter
           of
           Human
           Prudence
           .
           Our
           Saviour
           takes
           a
           wise
           Method
           to
           answer
           the
           Doubt
           ;
           he
           asks
           for
           the
           Currant
           Tribute-Mony
           ,
           and
           finding
           it
           had
           
           Cesar's
           Superscription
           ,
           saith
           ,
           
             Give
             to
          
           Cesar
           
             the
             things
             that
             are
          
           Cesar's
           .
           They
           might
           have
           replied
           ,
           they
           are
           his
           
             de
             facto
          
           ,
           but
           not
           
             de
             Iure
          
           .
           Why
           did
           not
           our
           Saviour
           answer
           this
           Difficulty
           ,
           but
           leave
           them
           to
           collect
           their
           Duty
           from
           the
           use
           of
           
           Cesar's
           Coin
           among
           them
           ?
           Might
           not
           one
           that
           had
           no
           Right
           ,
           have
           the
           Power
           of
           coining
           Mony
           ,
           and
           dispersing
           it
           ,
           so
           that
           it
           should
           be
           in
           common
           use
           ?
           And
           was
           not
           Tiberius
           such
           an
           one
           ?
           What
           then
           doth
           he
           mean
           by
           this
           Answer
           ?
           Either
           we
           must
           say
           ,
           that
           he
           declines
           the
           main
           Question
           ,
           or
           
           that
           he
           resolved
           it
           to
           be
           lawful
           ,
           upon
           general
           Reasons
           ,
           to
           shew
           Acts
           of
           Subjection
           to
           such
           a
           Power
           ,
           which
           we
           may
           not
           be
           satisfied
           ,
           is
           according
           to
           our
           Laws
           .
           For
           so
           it
           is
           plain
           the
           Roman
           Power
           was
           not
           agreeable
           to
           the
           Jewish
           Constitution
           ;
           and
           although
           that
           were
           from
           God
           ,
           yet
           our
           Saviour
           ,
           who
           gives
           the
           best
           Directions
           for
           Conscience
           ,
           would
           by
           no
           means
           have
           Men
           to
           be
           peevish
           or
           obstinate
           in
           such
           Matters
           .
        
         
           
             But
             paying
             of
             Tribute
             is
             quite
             another
             thing
             from
             Oaths
             of
             Allegiance
             .
          
           It
           is
           so
           ,
           as
           to
           the
           manner
           of
           testifying
           our
           Subjection
           ;
           but
           the
           main
           Question
           is
           ,
           Whether
           any
           Act
           of
           Subjection
           be
           lawful
           or
           not
           ?
           If
           it
           be
           lawful
           to
           testify
           it
           one
           way
           ,
           why
           not
           another
           ?
           If
           in
           paying
           Tribute
           ,
           why
           not
           in
           solemn
           promising
           to
           pay
           it
           ?
           If
           in
           promising
           ,
           why
           not
           in
           swearing
           ,
           
             i.
             e.
          
           in
           calling
           God
           to
           witness
           that
           I
           do
           it
           ?
           Thus
           far
           then
           we
           may
           go
           ;
           
             we
             may
             swear
             to
             pay
             Tribute
          
           ;
           But
           on
           what
           account
           ?
           Is
           it
           not
           as
           a
           Token
           of
           Allegiance
           ,
           
             i.
             e.
          
           of
           a
           Duty
           owing
           on
           the
           account
           of
           Protection
           ?
           Then
           we
           have
           gained
           one
           step
           farther
           ,
           viz.
           that
           we
           may
           swear
           to
           perform
           some
           parts
           of
           Allegiance
           .
           But
           why
           then
           may
           we
           not
           do
           so
           as
           to
           all
           that
           such
           an
           Oath
           implies
           ?
           If
           it
           respects
           no
           more
           than
           the
           Duty
           which
           we
           owe
           ,
           with
           respect
           to
           the
           Publick
           .
           And
           that
           is
           certainly
           the
           meaning
           of
           an
           Oath
           ,
           when
           all
           Declarations
           of
           Right
           are
           left
           out
           ,
           and
           only
           those
           of
           Duty
           expressed
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           in
           our
           present
           Case
           .
        
         
           As
           to
           the
           dreadful
           Charge
           of
           Perjury
           and
           Apostacy
           ,
           which
           some
           ,
           of
           much
           greater
           Heat
           than
           Judgment
           ,
           have
           made
           use
           of
           against
           those
           who
           hold
           it
           lawful
           to
           take
           the
           Oaths
           ;
           If
           what
           I
           have
           said
           be
           true
           ,
           it
           is
           little
           less
           than
           ridiculous
           :
           And
           it
           would
           have
           had
           more
           appearance
           of
           Reason
           ,
           if
           the
           Pharisees
           had
           urged
           
           it
           against
           our
           
           Saviour's
           Resolution
           of
           the
           Case
           about
           Tribute-Mony
           .
           For
           ,
           had
           not
           God
           by
           his
           own
           Law
           settled
           the
           Government
           among
           them
           ?
           And
           was
           it
           not
           a
           Fundamental
           Article
           of
           that
           Law
           ,
           that
           none
           should
           rule
           over
           them
           ,
           but
           one
           of
           their
           Brethren
           ?
           Was
           the
           Roman
           Emperor
           ,
           or
           
             Pontius
             Pilate
          
           such
           ?
           Have
           not
           all
           the
           ancient
           Zealots
           of
           the
           Law
           opposed
           any
           such
           Foreign
           Power
           ?
           What
           can
           it
           be
           then
           less
           than
           
             Perjury
             and
             Apostacy
          
           to
           give
           any
           Countenance
           to
           such
           an
           open
           Violation
           of
           this
           Law
           ,
           and
           to
           incourage
           Men
           to
           renounce
           it
           ;
           when
           they
           find
           such
           Liberties
           allowed
           by
           such
           a
           Teacher
           ?
           But
           I
           forbear
           .
        
         
           To
           conclude
           then
           ;
           I
           have
           ,
           at
           your
           earnest
           Desire
           ,
           taken
           this
           Matter
           into
           serious
           Consideration
           ,
           and
           have
           impartially
           weighed
           the
           most
           pressing
           Difficulties
           I
           have
           met
           with
           ;
           I
           cannot
           promise
           to
           give
           you
           Satisfaction
           ,
           but
           I
           have
           satisfied
           my self
           ,
           and
           have
           endeavoured
           to
           do
           the
           same
           for
           you
           .
           I
           am
           heartily
           sorry
           for
           any
           Breaches
           among
           us
           at
           this
           time
           ,
           and
           it
           is
           easy
           to
           foresee
           who
           will
           be
           the
           Gainers
           by
           them
           .
           But
           I
           am
           glad
           to
           understand
           that
           the
           chiefest
           of
           those
           who
           scruple
           the
           Oaths
           ,
           have
           declared
           themselves
           against
           the
           Attempts
           of
           such
           an
           
             unseasonable
             Separation
          
           ,
           and
           I
           hope
           others
           will
           be
           so
           wise
           as
           to
           follow
           their
           Example
           .
        
         
           
             I
             am
             ,
             Sir
             ,
             Yours
             .
          
           
             
               Octob.
               15.
               1689.
               
            
          
        
      
    
     
       
         
         
           Books
           lately
           Printed
           for
           Richard
           Chiswell
           .
        
         
           THE
           Case
           of
           Allegiance
           in
           our
           present
           Circumstances
           considered
           ,
           in
           a
           Letter
           from
           a
           Minister
           in
           the
           City
           to
           a
           Minister
           in
           the
           Country
           ,
           40.
           
        
         
           A
           Breviate
           of
           the
           State
           of
           Scotland
           in
           its
           Government
           ,
           Supream
           Courts
           ,
           Officers
           of
           State
           ,
           Inferiour
           Officers
           ,
           Offices
           and
           Inferiour
           Courts
           ,
           Districts
           ,
           Jurisdictions
           ,
           Burroughs
           Royal
           ,
           and
           Free
           Corporations
           .
           Fol.
           
        
         
           Some
           Considerations
           touching
           Succession
           and
           Allegiance
           .
           4to
           .
        
         
           Reflections
           upon
           the
           late
           Great
           Revolution
           :
           Written
           by
           a
           Lay-Hand
           in
           the
           Country
           ,
           for
           the
           satisfaction
           of
           some
           Neighbours
           .
        
         
           The
           History
           of
           the
           Desertion
           ;
           or
           an
           Account
           of
           all
           the
           publick
           Affairs
           in
           England
           ,
           from
           the
           beginning
           of
           September
           ,
           1688
           ,
           to
           the
           Twelfth
           of
           February
           following
           .
           With
           an
           Answer
           to
           a
           Piece
           called
           ,
           
             The
             Desertion
             Discussed
          
           ,
           in
           a
           Letter
           to
           a
           Country-Gentleman
           .
           By
           a
           Person
           of
           Quality
           .
        
         
           K.
           William
           and
           K.
           Lewis
           .
           Wherein
           is
           set
           forth
           the
           inevitable
           necessity
           these
           Nations
           lie
           under
           of
           submitting
           wholly
           to
           one
           or
           other
           of
           these
           Kings
           ;
           And
           that
           the
           matter
           in
           Controversy
           is
           not
           now
           between
           K.
           William
           and
           K.
           Iames
           ,
           but
           between
           K.
           William
           and
           K.
           Lewis
           of
           France
           ,
           for
           the
           Government
           of
           these
           Nations
           .
        
         
           A
           Sermon
           preached
           at
           Fulham
           ,
           in
           the
           Chappel
           of
           the
           Palace
           ,
           upon
           
           Easter-Day
           1689.
           at
           the
           Consecration
           of
           the
           Right
           Reverend
           Father
           in
           God
           Gilbert
           Lord
           Bishop
           of
           Sarum
           :
           By
           
             Anthony
             Horneck
          
           ,
           D.
           D.
           
        
         
           The
           Judgments
           of
           God
           upon
           the
           
             Roman
             Catholick
             Church
          
           ,
           from
           its
           first
           rigid
           Laws
           for
           universal
           Conformity
           to
           it
           ,
           unto
           its
           last
           End.
           With
           a
           prospect
           of
           these
           near
           approaching
           Revolutions
           ,
           viz.
           The
           Revival
           of
           the
           Protestant
           Profession
           in
           an
           eminent
           Kingdom
           ,
           where
           it
           was
           totally
           suppressed
           .
           The
           last
           End
           of
           all
           Turkish
           Hostilities
           .
           The
           general
           Mortification
           of
           the
           Power
           of
           the
           
             Roman
             Church
          
           in
           all
           parts
           of
           its
           Dominions
           .
           In
           Explication
           of
           the
           Trumpets
           and
           Vials
           of
           the
           Apocalypse
           ,
           upon
           Principles
           generally
           acknowledged
           by
           Protestant
           Interpreters
           .
           By
           
             Drue
             Cressener
          
           ,
           D.
           D.
           
        
         
           A
           Discourse
           concerning
           the
           Worship
           of
           Images
           ;
           preached
           before
           the
           University
           of
           Oxford
           .
           By
           
             George
             Tully
          
           ,
           Sub-Dean
           of
           York
           ,
           for
           which
           he
           was
           suspended
           .
        
         
           Two
           Sermons
           ,
           one
           against
           Murmuring
           ,
           the
           other
           against
           Censuring
           :
           By
           
             Symon
             Patrick
          
           ,
           D.
           D.
           now
           Lord
           Bishop
           of
           Chichester
           .
        
         
           An
           Account
           of
           the
           Reasons
           which
           induced
           Charles
           the
           Second
           ,
           King
           of
           England
           ,
           to
           declare
           War
           against
           the
           
             States
             General
          
           of
           the
           United
           Provinces
           in
           1672.
           
           And
           of
           the
           
             Private
             League
          
           which
           he
           entred
           into
           at
           the
           same
           Time
           with
           the
           
             French
             King
          
           to
           carry
           it
           on
           ,
           and
           to
           establish
           Popery
           in
           
             England
             ,
             Scotland
          
           ,
           and
           Ireland
           ,
           as
           they
           are
           set
           down
           in
           the
           
             History
             of
             the
             Dutch
             War
          
           ,
           printed
           in
           French
           at
           Paris
           ,
           with
           the
           Priviledg
           of
           the
           French
           King
           ,
           1682.
           
           Which
           Book
           he
           caused
           to
           be
           immediately
           suppress'd
           at
           the
           Instance
           of
           the
           English
           Ambassador
           .
           Fol.
           
        
         
           An
           Account
           of
           the
           Private
           League
           betwixt
           the
           late
           King
           Iames
           the
           Second
           and
           the
           French
           King.
           Fol.
           
        
         
           Dr.
           
           Wake
           's
           Sermon
           before
           the
           King
           and
           Queen
           at
           Hampton-Court
           .
        
         
         
           Dr.
           
           Tennison's
           Sermon
           against
           Self-love
           ,
           before
           the
           House
           of
           Commons
           ,
           
             Iune
             5.
             1689.
          
           
        
         
           Mr.
           
           Tully's
           Sermon
           of
           Moderation
           ,
           before
           the
           Lord-Mayor
           ,
           May.
           12.
           1689.
           
        
         
           An
           Examination
           of
           the
           Scruples
           of
           those
           who
           refuse
           to
           take
           the
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           .
           By
           a
           Divine
           of
           the
           Church
           of
           England
           .
        
         
           A
           Dialogue
           betwixt
           two
           Friends
           ,
           a
           Iacobite
           and
           a
           Williamite
           ;
           occasioned
           by
           the
           late
           Revolution
           of
           Affairs
           ,
           and
           the
           Oath
           of
           Allegiance
           .
        
         
           The
           Case
           of
           Oaths
           stated
           .
           4to
           .
        
         
           A
           Letter
           from
           a
           French
           Lawyer
           to
           an
           English
           Gentleman
           ,
           upon
           the
           Present
           Revolution
           .
           4to
           .
        
         
           The
           Advantages
           of
           the
           present
           Settlement
           ,
           and
           the
           great
           danger
           of
           a
           Relapse
           .
        
         
           The
           Interest
           of
           England
           in
           the
           Preservation
           of
           Ireland
           .
        
         
           The
           Answer
           of
           a
           Protestant
           Gentleman
           in
           Ireland
           to
           a
           late
           Popish
           Letter
           of
           
             N.
             N.
          
           upon
           a
           Discourse
           between
           them
           ,
           concerning
           the
           present
           Posture
           of
           that
           Country
           ,
           and
           the
           Part
           fit
           for
           those
           concern'd
           there
           to
           act
           in
           it
           .
           4to
           .
        
         
           An
           Apology
           for
           the
           Protestants
           of
           Ireland
           ,
           in
           a
           brief
           Narrative
           of
           the
           late
           Revolutions
           in
           that
           Kingdom
           ;
           and
           an
           Account
           of
           the
           present
           State
           thereof
           :
           By
           a
           Gentleman
           of
           Quality
           .
           4to
           .
        
         
           A
           true
           Representation
           to
           the
           King
           and
           People
           of
           England
           how
           Matters
           were
           carried
           on
           all
           a
           long
           in
           Ireland
           by
           the
           late
           K.
           Iames
           ,
           in
           favour
           of
           the
           Irish
           Papists
           there
           ,
           from
           his
           Accession
           to
           the
           Crown
           to
           the
           10th
           of
           April
           ,
           1689.
           
        
         
           The
           Mantle
           thrown
           off
           :
           or
           the
           Irish-Man
           dissected
           ,
           4to
           .
        
         
           Reflections
           upon
           the
           Opinions
           of
           some
           Modern
           Divines
           ,
           concerning
           the
           Nature
           of
           Government
           in
           general
           ,
           and
           that
           of
           England
           in
           particular
           .
           With
           an
           Appendix
           relating
           to
           this
           Matter
           ,
           containing
           ,
           1.
           
           The
           Seventy
           fifth
           Canon
           of
           the
           Council
           of
           Toledo
           .
           2.
           
           The
           Original
           Articles
           in
           Latin
           ,
           out
           of
           which
           the
           
             Magna
             Charta
          
           of
           King
           Iohn
           was
           framed
           .
           〈◊〉
           The
           true
           
             Magna
             Charta
          
           of
           King
           Iohn
           in
           French
           :
           By
           which
           the
           
             Magna
             Charta
          
           in
           
             Matth
             ,
             Paris
          
           is
           cleared
           and
           justified
           ,
           and
           the
           Alterations
           in
           the
           Common
           
             Magna
             Charta
          
           discovered
           .
           (
           Of
           which
           see
           a
           more
           particular
           Account
           in
           the
           Advertisement
           before
           the
           Appendix
           .
           )
           All
           three
           Englished
           .
        
         
           The
           Doctrine
           of
           Non-Resistance
           ,
           or
           Passive
           Obedience
           no
           way
           concerned
           in
           the
           Controversies
           now
           depending
           between
           the
           
             Williamites
             ▪
          
           and
           the
           Iacobites
           .
        
         
           
             Jacobi
             Usserii
          
           Armachani
           Archiep.
           Historia
           dogmatica
           Controversiae
           inter
           Orthodaros
           &
           Pontificios
           de
           Scripturis
           &
           Sacris
           Vernaculis
           ,
           nunc
           primum
           edita
           .
           Accesserunt
           Ejusdem
           dissertationes
           de
           Pseudo-Dionysii
           scriptis
           ,
           &
           de
           Epistola
           ad
           Laodicenos
           ante
           hac
           inedite
           .
           Descripsit
           ,
           digessit
           &
           notis
           atque
           Auctuario
           completavit
           
             Henricus
             Wharton
             ,
             A.
             M.
          
           R.
           Archiep.
           Cantuar.
           à
           Sacris
           Domest
           .
           4
           
           o.
        
         
           A
           Discourse
           concerning
           the
           Unreasonableness
           of
           a
           new
           Separation
           on
           Account
           of
           the
           Oaths
           .
           With
           an
           Answer
           to
           
             The
             History
             of
             Passive
             Obedience
          
           .
        
         
           A
           Discourse
           concerning
           the
           Ecclesiastical
           Commission
           opened
           in
           the
           Ierusalem
           .
           Chamber
           ,
           Octob.
           10.
           1689.
           
        
         
      
       
         Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
         
           Notes for div A61547-e930
           
             Less
             .
             de
             Iust.
             &
             Iure
             ,
             l.
             2.
             c.
             17
             n.
             52.
             
          
           
             Molina
             de
             Iust.
             &
             Iure
             ,
             tr
             .
             3.
             disp
             .
             150.
             
          
           
             De
             Cive
             c.
             8.
             n.
             7.
             
          
           
             Arist.
             Nic.
             l.
             8.
             c.
             13.
             
             Sen.
             de
             Clem.
             l.
             1.
             c.
             18.
             
          
           
             Mutua
             quidem
             debet
             esse
             Dominii
             &
             Homagii
             fidelitatis
             connexio
             ,
             ita
             quod
             quantum
             debet
             homo
             Domino
             ex
             homagio
             ,
             tantum
             illi
             debet
             Dominus
             ex
             Dominio
             praeter
             solam
             Reverentiam
             .
             
               Glanvil
               .
               l.
               9.
               c.
               4.
               
               Bracton
               .
               l.
               2.
               
               §.
               2.
               
               Cust.
               Norm
               .
               c.
            
             43.
             
          
           
             Zoës
             .
             in
             Dig.
             l.
             12.
             
             Tit.
             2.
             n.
             66
             
          
           
             Jus
             publicum
             privatorum
             pactis
             mutari
             non
             potest
             .
          
           
             A.
             G.
             454.
             
             Magnates
             Brit.
             Regem
             Vortigernum
             penitus
             deserentes
             ,
             unanimiter
             filium
             suum
             in
             Regem
             sublimaverunt
             .
             Mat.
             West
             .
             p.
             83
             ,
          
           
             Cum
             autem
             modis
             omnibus
             male
             tractaret
             eos
             ,
             legesque
             antecessorum
             suorum
             propter
             commodum
             suum
             ,
             vel
             depravaret
             ,
             vel
             mutaret
             .
             Matt.
             West
             .
             A.
             D.
             756.
             
             H.
             Huntingd.
             l.
             4.
             p.
             196.
             
          
           
             A
             G
             758.
             
             Gen.
             de
             Regno
             Merciorum
             ,
             contra
             Regem
             suum
             Beornredum
             insurgens
             ,
             pro
             eo
             quod
             Populum
             non
             aequis
             legibus
             ,
             sed
             per
             tyrannidem
             gubernaret
             ,
             convenerant
             in
             unum
             omnes
             ,
             tam
             nobiles
             quam
             ignobiles
             ,
             &
             Offa
             Duce
             ipsum
             à
             Regno
             expulerunt
             ,
             Mat.
             West
             .
          
           
             Nam
             &
             ipse
             Brithricus
             &
             caeteri
             infra
             Inam
             Reges
             licet
             Natalium
             splendore
             gloriantes
             ,
             (
             quippe
             qui
             de
             Cerdicio
             originem
             traherent
             )
             non
             parum
             tamen
             à
             lineâ
             regiae
             stirpis
             exorbitaverant
             ,
             Will.
             Malmsb.
             de
             Gestis
             Reg.
             Angl
             l.
             1.
             c.
             2.
             
          
           
             Regnum
             per
             Inam
             novatum
             qui
             Cinegisli
             ex
             Fratre
             Cuthbaldo
             pronepos
             magis
             pro
             insitlvae
             virtutis
             industria
             ,
             quam
             successivae
             sobolis
             prosapia
             in
             Principatum
             ascitur
             .
             id
             .
             ib.
             
          
           
             Matth.
             West
             .
             A.
             D.
             854
             ,
             867.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
             p.
             101.
             
          
           
             Bromton
             p.
             862.
             
          
           
             W.
             Malmsbur
             .
             l.
             1.
             c.
             3.
             p.
             14.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
          
           
             A.
             D.
             934.
             
          
           
             A.
             D.
             939.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
             A.
             946.
             
             Bromton
             .
             p.
             862.
             
             Flor.
             Wigorn
             .
             A.
             949.
             
          
           
             A.
             957.
             
          
           
             A.
             975.
             
          
           
             Florent
             .
             Wigorn.
             A.
             D.
             1016.
             
          
           
             W.
             Malm.
             l.
             2.
             p.
             35.
             2.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
             A.
             D.
             1013
             ,
             1015
             ,
             1016
             
          
           
             A.
             1055.
             
          
           
             Wil.
             Malm.
             l.
             2.
             p.
             40.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
             A.
             1015.
             
             Florent
             .
             A.
             102.
             
          
           
             Append.
             7.
             ad
             vit
             .
             Alt.
             Bromton
             inter
             10.
             
             Script
             .
             p.
             877.
             
          
           
             Florentin
             .
             Wigor
             .
             A.
             D.
             1014.
             
          
           
             H.
             Huntin
             .
             l.
             6.
             p
             207.
             2.
             
          
           
             Malmsb.
             hist.
             Novel
             .
             l.
             1.
             p.
             100
             ,
             105.
             2.
             
          
           
             Rad.
             de
             Diceto
             ,
             A.
             D.
             1153.
             
          
           
             Matt.
             Westm.
             A.
             1153.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             Paris
             .
             ib.
             
          
           
             Gervas
             .
             A.
             D.
             1153.
             
          
           
             Gul.
             Neoburg
             .
             l.
             1.
             c.
             30.
             
          
           
             Matt.
             Westm.
             S.
             1153.
             
          
           
             Rot.
             Pa
             l.
             39.
             
             H.
             6.
             n.
             21.
             
          
           
             N.
             20.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             West
             .
             A.
             1200.
             
          
           
             Sixth
             Part
             of
             the
             Homily
             against
             wilful
             Rebellion
             .
          
           
             Mat.
             Paris
             .
             f.
             280.
             
          
           
             Matt.
             Westm.
             A.
             1216.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             Paris
             .
             A.
             1199.
             
          
           
             Mat.
             Paris
             .
             A.
             1216.
             l.
             281.
             
          
           
             Tacit.
             l.
             1.
             
          
           
             Tacit.
             ib.
             
          
           
             Joseph
             .
             l.
             11.
             c.
             8.
             
          
           
             Deut.
             17.
             15.
             
          
           
             Neh.
             8.
             9.
             
          
           
             Joseph
             .
             12.
             c.
             13.
             
          
           
             1
             Maccab.
             14.
             16.
             40.
             
          
           
             15.
             33.
             34.
             
          
           
             *
             Principatum
             ,
             quamvis
             neque
             occupare
             confetim
             ,
             neque
             agere
             dubitâsset
             ,
             et
             statione
             milirum
             ,
             hoc
             est
             ,
             vi
             et
             specie
             dominationis
             assumpta
             ,
             diu
             tamen
             recusavit
             impudentissimo
             animo
             .
             
               Sutton
               .
               c.
            
             24.
             
          
           
             †
             Sed
             defuncto
             Augusto
             ,
             signum
             praetoriis
             cohortibus
             ,
             ut
             Imperator
             dederat
             ,
             Excubiae
             ,
             Arma
             ,
             catera
             Aulae
             ;
             Miles
             in
             forum
             ,
             miles
             in
             curiam
             comitabat
             ;
             literas
             ad
             Exercitus
             ,
             ranquam
             adepto
             Principatu
             misit
             ;
             nusquam
             cunctabundus
             nisi
             cum
             in
             Senatu
             loqueretur
             .
             Tacit.
             l.
             1.
             
             Dio.
             l.
             57.
             
          
           
             Dio
             l.
             54.