A DIALOGUE BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS.   

LICENCED,  
James Fraser, April 22, 1689.   

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN Two Friends, Occasioned by the late REVOLUTION OF AFFAIRS, And the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.  
By W. K. A. M.  
Rom. 14. 22. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in what he alloweth.  
LONDON: Printed for Ric. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in in St. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXXIX.   

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN TWO FRIENDS, A JACOBITE and a WILLIAMITE.  Jac. 
MEthinks we live in an Age of Wonders, Africa like, every day producing aliquid novi. But few Months since Suspension, Degradation, Imprisonment, was too little punishment for refusal to read the King's (as 'twas styled) Gracious Declaration for Liberty of Conscience. And now I am as much Disaffected to the Protestant Cause, for making some Objections against the Oath of Allegiance.  Will. 
'Tis true, the wonderful Revolution of a few days is so unfathomably Stupendious, that an ordinary Capacity may easily be induced to believe, that Miracles are not yet ceased. Such signal Methods compassing such an unthought of Rescue, loudly declare they are more than common. And your obstinate refusal of a Deliverance written in such legible Characters, your voluntary depriving yourself of a share in so great and unparallelled a Blessing, is a second wonder to me incomprehensible.  Jac. 
'Tis not (I protest) from an affected singularity, or a too high conceitedness of my own Opinion, that, like Athanasius, I oppose the whole World by myself. The only reason is, that I may keep a Conscience void of offence both toward God and Man. I acknowledge the Prince of Orange has been the great Instrument of our Deliverance from Popery and Arbitrary Power, and more highly deserves of the Nation than can be expressed; yet I cannot forget those Ties and Obligations that fix and river our Allegiance to our Dread Sovereign James the Second.  Will. 
What are these strong and binding Obligations?  Jac. 
In number ten thousand, in nature superlatively Obligatory.  Will. 
Descend to Particulars and nominate one.  Jac. 
The Dictates of Nature bind me to Natural Allegiance, being by Birth a Natural Subject to the King of Great Britain, my Duty is to pay Homage and Obedience either Active or Passive to all his Commands.  Will. 
I readily grant, that as you are a Subject to the King of Great Britain, his Majesty hath an undoubted Right to challenge your Obedience, but the Ground and Reason of this Right does not proceed as an Emanation from Nature, as I shall immediately evince, when I have gotten a right sense of your Notion of Passive Obedience.  Jac. 
By Passive Obedience I understand a submissive and patient suffering the Punishment due to the obstinate refusal of Actively obeying those Commands and Injunctions of my Superiors, that are either inconsistent with, or opposite to the Laws and Precepts of the Divine Creator.  Will. 
Patience under Punishment, when Legally inflicted upon us, and there is no lawful way to escape it, is a Christian Duty, as is clear and obvious, both from the Doctrine and Example of our Saviour, who despised the shame and endured the Cross.  
But if Passive Obedience (as you interpret it) be Sense, Logicians are much mistaken in affirming ten Predicaments; since (in your account) Actio and Passio are one. Obedience (in all Histories, whether Sacred or Profane) has no relation to suffering, but always signifies the doing things commanded. Thus Exod. 15. 26. If thou wilt harken to the voice of the Lord, and do that is right in his sight. Exod. 24. 7. After Moses had read the Book of the Law, the People promised their Obedience to do all that was there enjoined them. And 1 Sam. 28. 19 King Saul for not doing the Command of the Lord, was stigmatised with the infamus Character of Disobedience, notwithstanding his suffering the punishment of his Transgression. Acts 5. 29. the Apostles affirm they ought to obey (that is Do) the Will of God rather than Man. And all those Express and Positive Commands for Wives, Children and Servants, to obey their Husbands, Parents and Masters, only import, 'tis their Duty to please them well, by doing those things enjoined by them.  
In opposition to this; Passive naturally implies, suffering the Penalty for not doing; so that should we allow such a contradiction in Speech, as Passive Obedience, 'twould naturally follow, that those who have suffered the punishment of the Law, are justified by the Law; for if Suffering tender Men obedient, the Penalty being endured, they are cleansed from their Gild and become Immaculate: And by virtue of this Argument, Rebels, Thiefs, Murderers, or the worst of villains are (after they have received the Reward of their Transgressions) as honest Men, as good Neighbours, and as Loyal Subjects as yourself.  
I know 'tis objected that Rebels, Thiefs, etc. are actual Transgressor's of the Laws both Humane and Divine, and so fall as Criminals; but the others suffer because they refuse to violate or transgress those Laws. But to this 'tis replied, that according to your own Position they are Criminals alike; for the Doctrine of Passive Obedience (especially as by you defined) doth sufficiently evidence (notwithstanding what you talk of Laws) that the Will of the Supreme Magistrate is the chiefest Rule we are to walk by; for whatever Command brings with it Authority to require Obedience, that very Authority doth plainly impress upon it the Character of a Law. Now Criminals, upon the account of Omission, are equally guilty with those that have rendered themselves so by Sins of Commission; it being equally the same as to matter of Crime, not to do those things Commanded, and to act or do those things Prohibited. So that by parity of Reason, if the one be justified so will the other; for facinus quos inquinat, aequat.  Jac. 
I had no design to enter into a Controversy about Passive Obedience; I asserted that Nature enjoined me to pay Allegiance to the Supreme Magistrate, and my Reason was, because I was by Birth a Natural Subject.  Will. 
That Nature obliges you to Obedience, is a great Mistake; for the constitutes no Subordination among Men; as we are produced by her, we are all Equals; she ordains neither King or Peasant, Lord or Slave: Her Actions are only internal, such as respect not those outward Adjuncts, or external Qualifications. The Laws she designs for our Guide, are her own Precepts; (viz.) those Innate Notions of Good and Evil, those Common Sentiments of Virtue and Vice that are proper to all men, as they are Rational Creatures. The Governor she appoints over us, is every man's own Reason; the Judge, our particular Consciences. 'Tis indeed by the Force or Energy of Nature we are made Men, but we are born free. This is evident from that absolute Authority every particular Man hath over himself, (viz.) an independent Power in disposing of his own person: Thus by Compact or Bargain, any Man (I speak of Subjects) may become a Covenant-Servant, an Apprentice, or a Slave, without Nature's being concerned in the Contract. For though a King's Eldest Son be a Prince by Birth, and the first legitimate Male Offspring of an Earl, a Lord the Day of his Nativity; yet those are Birthright Privileges accrueing to them, not from Nature, but the Laws of the Nation.  
Thus Royal Blood and Descent from Ancient Progenitors, are only imputative Qualities, and have so little Relation to Nature, that they are only Praemia Virtutis, Rewards for Heroick and Generous Actions, that the persons concerned, or their Forefathers were eminent for.  Jac. 
These Commands that are Moral, and perpetually to oblige, are esteemed as Natural; but the Duty of Obedience is Moral, and perpetually to oblige (if the Fifth Commandment be so,) which makes me account it Natural.  Will. 
As we are Subjects, the Duty of Obedience is a perpetual Obligation, and, after a manner, essential to us; But our Allegiance has not its Foundation in Nature, or her Operations, but in the Relation we bear to a Sovereign: And more than this the Fifth Commandment doth not evince.  
This Precept is Moral, and perpetually to oblige; but the Rational part of it is grounded not in Nature, but in Gratitude: For as Aristotle observes, Man is a Sociable Animal, and there is nothing more destructive to Society, than Ingratitude and Unthankfulness. And since Children have not only their very Being, but their Wellbeing also, from their Parents, no Obligation can be greater or more obligatory to the foresaid Duties.  
So that were our Filial Obedience founded in Nature (as you fond imagine), the Obligation to that Duty would not be half so strong and valid. Besides, Natural Duties have respect to the whole Species; and by this Argument, the Bonds and Obligations to Obedience are General, and every man that is a Parent, may challenge as strict a Duty of Obedience from us, as our immediate Parents that begat us; and the Reason of this, is, because Nature is equally concerned for the whole Species, as for an Individium.  
But the Doctrine contrary to this, is so plain and evident from the general practice of the World, that it needs no proof. For though we are by Nature equally allied to all, being first in the Loins of Adam, afterwards in Noah; yet this Relation is never termed more than Common Humanity. And how firm or lasting soever we esteem those Ties and Obligations you mention (which is really nothing but Friendship), the Second or Third Age commonly expunges them, if disobliging Carriage, distance of Place, or want of Converse, effect it not in much less time.  
That Paternal Love, and Filial Affection, is not founded in Nature, seems plain and evident from those different Degrees of Love Men generally bear to the Legitimate, and Spurious Issue; and that 'tis cherished by Converse, and made firm and solid by process of Time, is more than probable, from the affectionate Nurse, whose Excess of Love to the tender Babe, does often transcend the affectionate Mothers. Yet 'tis clearly manifest, Man has a Natural Appetite or Desire to survive in his Posterity, as irrational Creatures have of preserving their Species: But this proves nothing against the Argument, because the Issue of the latter (in riper years) are not by Nature obliged to the Duties of Gratitude and Obedience.  
That the Fifth Commandment enjoins us Obedience to our Superiors, is beyond all controversy true; and the Reason is, because in the beginning of Government, Soveraighty was part of the Paternal Power; but (to speak in our common Language) if the Duty of Obedience in a Natural Son to a Natural Father, be not a Natural Duty, much less can this Argument prove Natural Allegiance due to our Civil Parents.  Jac. 
The Parliament Convened in the Twenty Fourth Year of King Henry the Eighth's Reign, styles England an Empire, governed by a Sovereign Head, to which there is a Body Politic joined, composed of all sorts and degrees of People, who are bound, next under God, to render unto their King Natural Allegiance.  Will. 
Natural Allegiance in that Act of Parliament, is only▪ a Rhetorical Flourish, spoken after the largest acceptation of that Word; not that Allegiance flows from Nature, but because 'tis a Duty so proper, intrinsical and Essential to a Subject, quâ talis. For men's very incorporating themselves into a Civil Society (without the Obligation of Formal Oaths,) doth sufficiently evidence a tacit acknowledgement of Allegiance to the Caput Communitatis, because without it 'tis impossible to defend and preserve the Body Politic.  Jac. 
This Discourse (I confess) is somewhat Rational; but I can't suddenly digest a thing so Novel.  Will. 
What you term Novelty proceeds from the vulgar Expressions of Men, and want of a more serious and weighty▪ Inspection into the Doctrine. And this will appear more Rational, if we consult the Specimen of Government in general.  
The great and fundamental Law of Nature is Self-Preservation; 'tis the Magna Charta of all Constitutions, and the very End and Design of Government itself; 'tis a Principle so deeply radicated in Nature, that 'tis engraven upon every man's heart.  
Had indeed our First Parents maintained the Original Beauty and Brightness of their Creation, and preserved Nature in her state of Rectitude, Justice had been our Director, Innocence our Guide: But by that Fall of theirs, the Nature of Man was so depraved and vitiated, his Passions so transporting, his Desire so covetous, his Revenge so implacable, that Meum and Tuum were measured only by Strength and Power; the Longest Sword was the best Law, a securer Title than Prescription itself.  
Thus the more powerful preyed upon, and devoured the weaker; so that Nature destroyed her own works: And the best course to countermand those Hostile Proceedings, and preserve this grand Principle of Nature, was men's moulding themselves into Tribes, associating into Colonies.  
Thus, when a Company of Men, (whether many or few it matters not; for, Majus & Minus non variant Speciem) are unanimously incorporated into one Society, for the securer Maintenance of Peace, Correction of Vice, Reformation of Manners, and the more equal Administration of Justice; Laws were enacted, Constitutions made, and Statutes provided to redress all private Grievances among themselves; and to protect the Society from the open Hostility of Public Invaders.  
And since neither Plaintiff or Defendant was fit to be Judge of his own Plea, nor the Mobile Vulgus easily induced to a joint Method, a Unanimous Consent in opposing the Common Enemy; a single person (if Monarchical Government) or several (in other Constitutions) of such Virtue. Prudence and Fortitude, as the whole Society thought fit to confide in, was elected, as an Impartial Arbitrator in all Cases, whether private or public.  
And to him, or them, was committed the sole Executive Power of these Laws; in all Differences the Definitive Sentence was (according to Law) to be expected from his, or their mouth. And this Supreme Authority being both Judge and Protector of the whole Corporation, to advance the Grandeur of such Authority, and completely to capacitate him, or them, for the Execution of those Established Laws: This Power was held in high Estimation by the whole Society, and by the settled Constitutions of the Government; a proportionable Tribute from the Subject was by Law allowed as a Revenue to support that Royal Office.  
And for the firmer uniting this Supreme Head and his Subjects, the former obliges himself by the Sacred Ties and Obligations of an Oath, at his Inauguration, to govern his People according to the Rule of the Established Laws; and the latter as solemnly pays Homage, and swears Obedience. So that Allegiance in all Subjects, whatsoever Government they live under, (and especially in our own Constitution) is a Duty so perpetual and indispensible, that a violation of it is an high Offence against God, as well as against his Vicegerent.  Jac. 
This is my very Sense of the Duty of Allegiance; this the Reason I refused to take that New Oath of Allegiance, because 'tis a plain Violation of the Old, which you yourself acknowledge perpetually to oblige.  Will. 
The Duty of Obedience is an inseparable Accident to every Subject; and you may as well divest him of his Being, as his Subjection; for this Duty, like the Royal Authority, never dies, but immediately descends from one to another. But what you talk of is a perfect Frenzy of Loyalty, makes Allegiance an infinite Duty, and exalts a King to the Honour of a God; if all his Commands must be obeyed, we tacitly acknowledge he can command nothing that is evil; for an illegal Mandate must not be obeyed, nor an evil Action committed, though imperiously enjoined by the greatest of Men.  
In all Governments, whether Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Democracy, the Subjects Duty of Obedience is to be measured by the express and positive Laws of that Government they are Members of, and not to be regulated by a fancied Chimaera, of obeying no man knows what, it being now visibly apparent, that Men may be as superstitiously Loyal as Religious; and the first prove as fatal and destructive to the Peace and Happiness of the Nation, as the last to the Zeal and Fervour of True Religion; when in good earnest, the utmost limits of Allegiance, is but entirely to observe all the lawful Commands and Injunctions of our Superiors.  Jac. 
Has the Supreme Magistrate no Authority to command our Obedience? And is the Extent and Latitude of the Duty of Allegiance limited by declaritory and express Laws?  Will. 
'Tis a most certain Truth, especially in our own Constitution, where the Government is a Monarchy Royal, in which the Subjects have as undoubted a Right to their Religion, Liberty and Property, as the Supreme Magistrate has to the Royal Prerogative.  
For as the Inferior Laws limit the People's Rights, restrain them from invading the Royal Privileges, and from offering violence one to another; so the chief design of Magna Charta, is to reduce the Regal to a Legal power. The Prescriptions and Statutes of this Nation are the impartial Arbitrators of Government and Obedience.  Jac. 
At present a plausible Plea may arise from hence; but in the beginning 'twas not so; For Magna Charta was never heard of till King Henry the Third, the Eighth King from the Conquest. And where were those Liberties than you so much boast of now?  Will. 
Right! Magna Charta (in that particular form of words 'tis now expressed) was not in being till the time you mention; but our Liberties and Properties were as much than the undoubted Birthright and Inheritances of the Subjects, as they are now; for Magna Charta (as the Learned and Renowned Lord Cook observes) is for the most part Declaritory, informs us what our Rights and Privileges are, instates us into what was lawfully and antecedently our own Right, but confers no new Immunities upon us.  Jac. 
This is strange indeed, when the very first Chapter begins, We have granted to God, and we have given and granted to the Freemen of this Realm. How could King Henry give and grant those things were none of his?  Will. 
The Subject's Liberties asserted in this Great Charter, are not to be looked upon as pure Emanations from the Royal Favour, or new Bounties, to which the People had neither Right or Claim, but rather a restoring those Privileges which by the Usurpation and Encroachments of former Kings, were forcibly withheld from the Subjects. And the truth of this is evident from the Charter itself; which in the words of Conveyance frequently mentions sua jura, and suas Libortates, Their Rights and their Liberties; which shows the People had a former Title to those Immunities, that by this Charter they were again put in possession of.  Jac. 
This is a pleasant Story indeed: Are the Subjects Liberties more Ancient than the Conquest? Has not a Conqueror power to impose what Laws he pleases upon those Vassals and Slaves he has conquered?  Will. 
However pleasant it be, 'tis clear and obvious, the Liberties and Properties of Englishmen are of greater Antiquity than King William, called the Conqueror, as appears from the Laws that assert them, some as Ancient as the Heptarchian Government, granted by Ethelberd, Ina, and Offa; others Cotemporary with the Monarchical Regency, given and conferred upon the Subjects by pious King Alfred. Neither were these Laws abolished by the Norman Duke, but were of such Force and Vigour, as to survive (what you call the Conquest,) and set Bounds and Limits to that pretended Conqueror.  
'Tis not denied, but an absolute Conqueror may propose and enact what Laws he pleases, to regulate and govern the Conquered by: but this was far from King William's Case, For though that great Victory over Harold, with such a mighty slaughter of the English, gave him great encouragement, yet the Crown was obtained by Bargain and Compact, as is plainly evident from those Grants made to Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Eglesine, Abbot of St. Augustine's, in behalf of the Kentish men, and also from the Coronation Oath itself; where the King swears to maintain and observe the Laws and Customs of the Nation.  
'Tis true he made little esteem of violating this Sacred Obligation; and his Successors vehemently encroached upon the Liberty and Property of the People; but what power forceably snatched from them did not invalidate the Subjects Right. Neither had King William (notwithstanding all his Pretensions to a Conquest) power to dispose of the Lands or Inheritances of those Natives he received to Protection: This is manifest from that known Case of Sherborn the Saxon, who had a Castle and Lands in Norfolk, which the pretended Conqueror gave to one Warren a Norman, and Sherborn dying, the Heir claiming the same by Descent, according to the Law, it was before the Conqueror adjudged for the H●ir, and the Gift made void.  Jac. 
The Coronation Oath is nothing to purpose, to evince a Paction or an Agreement upon this Account; for that was made to God, not to Man; and if that Oath prove a Compact, 'tis between God and the King, not between the King and the People.  Will. 
'Tis neither my design, nor pertinent to the business in hand, to begin a Discourse of the difference between Vows and Oaths. Suppose the Oath were made to God, (which in propriety of Speech is a Vow) how does that weaken or invalidate the force of the Argument? It matters not, whether it be a Vow to God, or an Oath to Man, so long as the matter of it is so express and declarative of the King's Duty, and the People's Rights and Privileges.  Jac. 
The taking the Coronation Oath was the Conqueror's Condescension; a compliance with the Customs usual at the Inauguration of former Kings, and has no tendency to a Compact or Bargain with the People.  Will. 
You may style it what you please: but 'twas such a Condescension or Compliance, without which (unless he had first won it by an absolute Conquest) he had never possessed the Crown of England. And the Ancient Rites of the Coronation itself had some footsteps of this Contract, viz. The Presenting the King, on the day of his Coronation, to the People upon every corner of the Scaffold, and ask them if they would have him for their King? I do not suppose the People had power, to refuse or reject the Person thus exhibited, that would have rendered the Kingdom Elective; but the Custom being an ancient Ceremony, and commonly used till Edward the Sixth's Coronation, is in my Judgement a more than plausible Argument of a Contract between the Supreme Power and the Subjects.  Jac. 
How can that be? the King of England is Invested with all the Rights and Prerogatives of Royalty before he is Crowned.  Will. 
Right, The King is before his Coronation as absolute a Monarch as after: This the Case of Watson and Clark (who Conspired against King James before his Coronation, and were condemned of High Treason) puts beyond all Controversy, and the Reason of this is clear; the Paction and Agreement between King and People, is an inseparable Concomitant to the Crown, devolves with it to the next Successor, and is the tacit Condition and Terms upon which he accepts the Government.  
So that 'tis no more necessary or expedient for every Heir, as to the Esse of his being King, to Declare the Conditions immediately upon his coming to the Crown, than 'twas requisite for every successive Generation, when the Court of Wards was in force, to declare he held his Lands by Knight's Service; the ancient Tenure of the Estate sufficiently evinced the former, and the very Descent of the Crown to the next of Blood, brings with it a tacit implication of all the Immunities and Liberties of the Subjects, in as full and ample a manner, as if they had been repeated a thousand times over.  Jac. 
The Court of Wards is as signal a Badge of a Conquest, as undoubted a Character of Vassalage and Slavery, as any we can possibly instance in.  Will. 
The Court of Wards has so little relation to Slavery, that the 
h Regale Servitium quia specialiter pertinet ad Dominum Regem. Britton. sol. 187.  Law terms it only a Service, and all Servants are not Slaves, though all Slaves may be called Servants in the most strict sense; 'tis only a Token of Subjection, and comparatively an Ensign of Freedom; a lasting Monument of Stipulation and Agreement between the Royal Authority and the People. When at such an easy rate, as attending the Wars in extraordinary and emergent Occasions, a Man has an entire Propriety in so large an Estate, so ample an Inheritance. And the very Antiquity of these Courts doth sufficiently evidence the nulity of a Conquest: These being in force in the Reign of King Alfred, and survived your Conquest many Generations.  Jac. 
A Paction between the King and the People is a strange Assertion; and to say that the People can make a King is very little less than a contradiction.  Will. 
Pray explain yourself, and show for what Reasons.  Jac. 
Because the Royal Authority has a power lodged in it, which the Subjects have neither Right or Pretence to confer. For Example, The power of Life and Death are in the hand of the Supreme Magistrate; which 'tis impossible he could receive from the People, because no Man has power of his own Life; much less has he Right or Authority to put it into another Man's disposal.  Will. 
Here we must distinguish between Absolute and Conditional: No Man has an absolute Power over his own Life, so as to lay violent hands upon himself, or oblige another to shed his Blood, yet every Man hath hath a conditional Power upon this account; that is, he is capable (as he is a Member of the Body Politic) to Covenant and agree with the Head, and the other Members; that conditionally he violate those Laws, the Transgression of which, the whole Society have by Statute Law Ordained to be punished with Death, he will submit to the Punishment. So that the King has not an Absolute Power of Life and Death; the latter is only a Penalty conditionally we break such Established Laws: And this Power is rather in the Laws than the Supreme Magistrate; for the King himself (without manifest Violence and Injustice) has no power to put any Man to death contrary to Law, or upon a particular Humour.  Jac. 
Suppose we grant somewhat of Agreement or Paction, between the Conqueror and the English Nobility; what Advantage is that to us? Did the People indeed, and in reality, Elect the King as their Governor; when once the Act was done, and Allegiance sworn, the People have no more Reason or Pretence to revoke or annul that Election, than a Wife (who has chosen a Husband, promised him her Obedience, joined herself to him in Marriage) has to put away her Husband, and to say that the People may Depose their King if there be a Bargain or Contract between them, is to affirm the Wife may Divorce the Husband because she chose him.  Will. 
If all this be granted, you here contend for; I cannot imagine, how it would weaken or prejudice our present Cause.  
The Wife after Marriage may not put away her Husband, that lives with her as an Husband: Nay, though a very ill Husband, turn Nonthirft, spend his Estate, abuse her Person, prove unnatural to her Children; notwithstanding all this, she is obliged to an entire Obedience.  
But if her Husband prove Tyrannically cruel; so far prosecute the wicked Counsels and Designs of her Enemies, as to give signal and evident Demonstrations that he intends her Ruin, Destruction and Death: If he be in himself insufficient, (as in the Case of the Countess of Essex by her Husband Devereux) the Laws allow relief to such a Distressed Wife. And can we suppose there is greater care taken for a particular Member, than for the whole Body? In short, though the Wife cannot put away the Husband because she chose him; yet the Cruelties, Injustice, Violence and Irregularities of the Husband may be such, as may give just cause of Divorcement.  Jac. 
But were it not Grand Impiety, by violence to seize upon the Estate or Goods of a private Man, and dispose of it to others? What Sacrilege then must it be to Invade the Dignities Royal, and dispose of the Crown and Sceptre?  Will. 
Causelessly to make forcible entry upon any Man's Goods or Estate, and by violence to keep Possession, is plain and open Robbery; yet a Man may be Guilty of such Illegal Actions, such indiscreet and undue Behaviour, as may cause a seizure of both his Movables and Possessions without any manifest Wrong or Injury to the once Right owner. And the Laws allow a particular Man for Just and Reasonable Causes to Disinherit his eldest Son, and Entail the Estate upon others of his Posterity, only for the preservation of a private Family; and I would fain hear a solid Argument, why such an Advantageous Privilege (in extreme Necessity) should be denied the Public?  Jac. 
The Reason is clear and obvious, the Rights and Properties of Subjects, or private Men are confirmed by the Laws of the Land, made theirs by Agreement: But the Prerogatives of the Crown, are a Divine Right, the Imperial Diadem settled upon the Royal Head by the Almighty's own appointment.  Will. 
If this were but proved the business were done: But alas! this Doctrine is both groundless and absurd; for whatever Monarch holds his Sceptre jure Divino, must either be invested by an immediate Divine Designation (viz.) a special and extraordinary Commission from Divine Providence; as that of Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu; or else Successively by a Legitimate Descent from Persons thus Designed; as that of Rehoboam, Asa, Jehosophat; to the former of these, the Monarches of England have no Pretence; and if the latter invest them with it, 'tis derived either from the Ancient Saxons, or from the Norman Line: That the first had no such Divine designation is clear from the Story of Hengist and Horsa.  
And that no such pretence can be made from King William, styled the Conqueror, will be more than evident from his Ambitious Designs; his illegal Attempts; his hostile and unnatural Proceedings; and his Barbarous in Actions wading through Torrents of Blood; riding in Triumph over heaps of slaughtered Innocents' to ascend a Throne and grasp at a Sceptre, to which he had no more right than the Great Mogul. And if 
* Quod initio vitiosum est; non potest tractu temporis convalescere.  the Norman Duke first entered by force of Arms, and after a Battle compounded for the Crown, 'tis vain and ridiculous to urge Prescription to make a Divine Right; be cause what in the beginning was not Divine Process of time can never impress with a Divine Character.  Jac. 
But Solomon affirms, Eccles. 8. 14. Where the word of a King is, there is power, and who may say unto him, what dost thou?  Will. 
Right, the words of Kings are Powerful, and no Man ought to dispute their Commands: But the Reason of it is grounded upon that Confidence we put in the Supreme Authority; that his Mandates will be always Lawful.  
But this Place of Scripture has a peculiar relation to the Kings of Israel; a People whom God chose to enter into Covenant with, and over whom he Exercised such a special. Providence, that 'twas usual with him to set up one, and pull down another, and cause to Govern whom he pleased.  
Thus when he had granted an extraordinary Commission to his Prophets, and they had Anointed the designed Person King over that People, his Word was powerful, and to be obeyed, because so immediately constituted God's Vicegerent. But this Command is not adapted to our Circumstances: neither does it add to our Duty of Allegiance; and we may as rationally evince the Levitical Laws obligatory in England, as evidence the British Monarchy, jure Divino, from this place of Scripture.  
Besides, if this Doctrine were applicable to the Monarches we live under, 'twould be destructive to our Established Government, and repugnant to the Apostolic Doctrine. If a King decease whilst his Heir is an Infant, by this Argument the whole Realm must be subject to his fond and childish Commands; and when he is arrived to those years in which Passions are more vigorous, and youthful Lusts strongly importune to ascend the Stage, and act their Scene even in the violent prosecutions of those lewd Debauches; a Grave and Reverend Bishop dares not advise him to a Reformation of Manners, to live soberly and become religious, for fear he transgress his Precept of saying unto him, what dost thou? But what's infinitely worse may happen: the Heir to the Crown may be born a Fool, or Idiot, or by accident be a Lunatic, or labour under a grievous Disease of Madness; and yet no man must gain say or contradict him, if this Argument be valid?  Jac. 
A Child incapacitated to govern by tender years, aught to be put under Protectors and Tutors during his Childhood; but in his Adult State, his mature Age may challenge this Authority. A Fool or Idiot can never be brought sensible what Government is; and a Lunatic or Madman is more incapable of Government than either. So that not only Reason, but Nature's Instinct of Self preservation, commands us to fence these from the Crown and Sceptre.  Will. 
An Infant is as much a Monarch in his Minority, as in his mature and riper Years; and if he ought to be under Tutors and Governors, they must have power to say unto him, what dost thou? Or we may reasonably infer he will be very ill Tutored. A Fool or an Idiot (though in all his Actions innocent) must be obliterated from the Line of Succession; and a Lunatic or Madman (who never acted against, or endeavoured the destruction of Church or State) must lose his Right, because incapacitated by his Disease.  
Why then by parity of Reason may not a Papist be excluded, who hath already so vehemently shook the Foundations of Government, both Ecclesiastical and Civil, and for the future stands bound by all the Sacred Obligations of Oaths and Vows, obliged under the penalty of forfeiting his Diadem and Sceptre in this World, and his precious and immortal Soul in that to come; to extirpate our Religion, subvert our Laws, and reduce us to the Subjection and Vassalage of the Roman Yoke.  Jac. 
This Argument (I confess) does a little stagger my Judgement; but when I remember those other express and positive places of Scripture, so pertinent to this present Controversy, I am radicated as firm as before, Prov. 8. 15. By me King's reign, and Princes decree judgement. 1 Sam. 26. 9 Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless? What can be more clear or obvious? what more positively evinced, than Monarchy, jure Divino, from these Texts?  Will. 
'Tis true, the places of Scripture do sufficiently evidence the Divine Right of the Kings of Israel, but they prove nothing for the Kings of England. And indeed, not only these, but all other places of Sacred Writ, in the Old Testament, that evidence Regal Authority to be founded by Divine Providence▪ have such a proper Aspect, such a peculiar Relation to the Jewish Government, that they can be expounded of no other Constitution, unless there be the public Footsteps of an extraordinary Divine Designation, as in all Changes was apparently visible in that Government, where commonly the Almighty chose, the Prophets consecrated, and the People obeyed.  
But in opposition to this, the Government of England is a Paction and Contract between the Supreme Authority and the People; the former to govern according to those Rules the Laws prescribe, and the latter quietly (without Resistance) to submit to be governed by the Laws Established, and to support with their Lives and Fortunes the Regal Power.  
And this Agreement with the Subjects, does not lessen or depress the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate, but rather advanceth it; for 'tis the Honour of a King, not to be capable of doing wrong; and 'tis the Safety and Happiness of the People, to be under such a Magistrate ●s only commands lawful things, which capacitates the Subject to obey with safety, sub clipeo legis nemo decipitun.  
Whilst the Execution of illegal Commands, is dangerous to the People; that being an high Offence to the Public, and by Consequence no small Transgression against the Supreme Magistrate. For the King being a principal part of the Body Politic, must necessarily have a principal share in that grand Affront. And this is the Reason of that Maxim, The King can do no wrong; all his lawful Injunctions being Just and Righteous, and his illegal Mandates must not be obeyed. So that would Court Earwigs leave off to flatter, and be exact and impartially honest in their Duty both to King and People, the first would be renowned, great and glorious, and the second, being free from oppression and violence, would be loving, loyal, and dutiful Subjects.  Jac. 
But the Doctrine of the Gospel is so positive and express' in commanding Obedience to Superiors, that if all other Arguments were away, this is sufficient to turn the scale against all that can be said to the contrary.  Will. 
You mistake the very End and Design of my Intentions: I purpose not to annihilate, or destroy our Obedience, but to reduce it to its due proportion assigned it, both by God and Man; cause it calmly to run down within the Banks of its own Channel. By which we shall be fitly capacitated to follow our Saviour's Advice; (viz.) to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.  
The Evangelical Precepts confine us to no particular Platform of Civil Government; in general, it provides for the preservation of Honesty, Justice, and Peace; frequently inculcates our Duty of Obedience, pressing it by many cogent and rational Arguments; and exhorts us patiently to bear all Calamities or Oppressures, we have no lawful way to avoid: but it does not oblige us to be Vassals and Slaves to an Arbitrary Power.  
This is evident from pregnant Examples in the New Testament, especially from the Epistles of the Two Famous and Renowned Apostles, Peter and Paul; and particularly the last part of the 12th Chapter to the Romans, and the beginning of the 13th, were penned wholly upon this account.  Jac. 
The Scriptures you mention, are so Diametrically opposite to the Doctrine you teach, that 'tis impossible to find a more cogent Argument, or positive Command for Absolute Obedience than those are. The Texts are largely insisted upon by our Divines; and from thence they rationally evince an unlimited Duty of Obedience.  Will. 
For the more clear Explication, and better understanding of the particular Scripture above mentioned, we must inquire, what was the End and Design of that Epistle, and especially this place formerly quoted. And the Reasons of that, together with the knowledge of the Persons for whom 'twas written, their Estate, Condition and Circumstance, will give us a very great light towards a Right Apprehension of it.  
The grand End and Design of this Epistle, was not to plant the Gospel at Rome, or prescribe all the Doctrines requisite to the Foundation of Christianity; but rather to refute those false Doctrines that Heretics had super-induced, and to condemn and reform those wicked and revengeful Practices, that though Christians (upon some mistakes) were highly guilty of.  
The Persons for whose sake and instruction this Epistle was written, were chiefly Jews proselyted to the Christian Religion; but yet still strongly tinctured with their former Leaven, John 8. 33. that they were Abraham's Seed; and by that Foederal Pact between God and him, were so immediately under the Government of Divine Providence, that no Heathen Potentate could have Authority or Lordship over them, further than urgent Necessity or mere Compulsion forced them.  
And being at that time subjugated by force of Arms to the Yoke of the Roman Empire, and by reason of Traffic, Commerce, and other occasions, necessitated to inhabit at Rome, where the very Exercise of their Religion was an high Transgression of the Imperial Laws, which, together with their refusal to pay the accustomed Tribute, and to render some respect of Honour the Laws conferred upon the Heathens; the Imperial Officers frequently dealt very severely with those Christian proselytes; and the Christians (upon the aforesaid Principle) used all opportunities as severely to revenge themselves; which rendered the Christian Religion very odious at Rome, and was a great block to the propagation of the Gospel.  
So that the Christians resisting those imperial positive Laws, and their opposition to the Execution of them, was the only Reason, the alone Cause that moved the Apostle to write this Portion of Scripture to them; as appears from Chap. 12. v. 17. Recompense no man evil for evil: v. 19 Dear beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; That is, rather suffer the punishment of the Law, and the Injuries that those who inflict it, offer to you, than resist. Because (as he assures them, Chap. 13.) Obedience to the Established Laws is a Christian Duty, though it be to the Laws of a Heathen Prince.  
And when these Laws are opposite or repugnant to the Divine Precepts, quietly to submit, and patiently to suffer the punishment of Transgressor's, verily believing, that God will cause all such afflictions and calamities to work for the benefit and advantage of his People.  Jac. 
What's this but Passive Obedience you so much condemned in the beginning of this Discourse?  Will. 
'Tis so far from Obedience, that 'tis suffering for righteousness sake. And indeed 'tis the only suffering that has a Promise annexed to it in Sacred Scripture; for those lively Oracles authorise us not to cut our own Throats in Obedience to the Supreme Magistrate, if he enjoin it, nor to sit still, whilst others illegally act such violence.  
The Gospel does not destroy the grand Principle of Nature, (viz.) Self-preservation, but cherishes and encourages it.  
But in respect of the Public, if Wrongs be personal, or Injuries peculiar to particular Men, such as portend not destruction, or grand detriment to the whole Body Politic; such must be patiently submitted to, rather than by resisting, disturb the public Peace or Tranquillity of the Nation. As 'tis more safe and prudent to bear with a little uneasiness in a particular Member, conditionally it endanger not the other parts, than hazard the Health of the whole Body by churlish Physic, to redress that Tolerable Inconvenience.  
The Duties of Obedience the Gospel enjoins, is to lawful Authority, not to illegal or imposed Jurisdiction; not an Arbitrary Power. It condemns not our descending ourselves from apparent Ruin and Destruction; and permits us to dispute our Rights with our Princes, without that infamous Character of Rebels.  
Besides, Rom. 13. was written on purpose to confute that fond Opinion of the Jews before mentioned, that they were so immediately in Covenant with God, that no Foreiner had Authority to oblige them to obedience.  
This the Apostle condemns by a positive Command to the contrary, saying, Let every skull be subject to the higher powers; and withal, shows them the Reasonableness of this Precept; because the powers that be (whether Pagan or Jewish) are ordained of God; inferring, that they living under the Ordinance of God, are obliged to be subject unto it: Verse the Second, he illustrates the heinousness of the sin of opposing Lawful Authority, in the Execution of Legal Commands; both from the Ordinance itself and the punishment due to the Transgression of it. And persuades persons in these Christian Circumstances, who were daily violating the Established Laws of the Empire, patiently to suffer and quietly submit to the Legal Execution of the Laws.  
Because opposition made by such persons, was resisting the Ordinance of God; the punishment of which is Damnation. He farther Illustrates, that this was the end why Rulers were Ordained; their Business and chief Occupation being to punish such Violators of the Laws as lived in an open Contempt and Transgression of them.  
And therefore plainly tells them, they must be subject (there's a necessity laid upon them) not only for fear, wrath, compulsion, or punishment; the alone Obligations that had power to keep the Jews in Subjection, but also for Conscience sake.  
And for the same Reason enjoins them to pay Tribute: Render therefore to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour.  
From hence 'tis clear and manifest, the Apostle did not command those Christians to subject themselves to an unlimited or Arbitrary Power; but to render Obedience to the express and public Laws of the Empire, because these Laws only could determine how much Tribute, Fear or Honour Superiors challenged, and Inferiors ought to pay.  
The same Doctrine also St. Peter teaches, 1 Epist. 2. where observing the Heathens distinguished not between the Jews converted to the Christian Religion, and those which retained the Mosaic Principles, who, for the abovementioned Cause, became the most obstinate, turbulent, factious and seditious People imaginable, upon all occasions exerting their utmost endeavours to raise Tumults, and embroil the State in Civil wars.  
The Apostle, to dehort the Christians from the Belief and Practice of that wicked Principle, earnestly persuades them not to follow the Example of that obstinate and headstrong People, but by their regular and meek Behaviour, quiet and candid Carriage, to approve themselves to the Heathen Governors, by submitting to the Ordinance of Man, for the Lord's sake; That is, Render all due Allegiance, not only to Jewish, but Heathen Governors, even to Claudius Drusus (in whose Reign the Ancients affirm this Epistle to be written,) though the Emperor Claudius were elected to the Imperial Throne, by the Praetorian Band, in opposition to the Design both of City and Senate.  
This very Doctrine also St. Paul commands Titus to teach his Flock, Chap. 3. ver. 1. And those parallel places, those most express and positive Commands, Colos. 3. 18, 22. Wives submit yourselves to your own Husbands: Servants in all things obey your masters; are only Transcripts of this Doctrine: For neither Wives nor Servants are obliged to obey, or stigmatised as disobedient, for refusing to execute the illegal or wicked Commands of their Husbands and Masters: Neither have the latter Power or Legal Authority to correct or punish such Disobedience.  Jac. 
If this be the Genuine Sense, the Natural Signification of these places of Scripture, how came the Primitive Fathers to interpret them in another Sense? And why doth St. Paul affirm, 2 Cor. 10. 4. that the weapons of Christians are not carnal?  Will. 
This is the very Doctrine those Fathers delivered, as is evident from the Epistles of St. Polycarp, and the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Tertullian, to free the Christian Religion from those Aspersions of Sedition and Rebellion the Heathens accused it of, and to justify the Loyalty and Obedience of Christians to the Powers and Magistrates under which they lived. Thus,  
Till the Conversion of Constantine the Great to the Christian Faith, the Evangelical Doctrine was always in opposition to the Established Laws of the Empire. And in all Cases, when the Divine Precepts were inconsistent with the Laws Established in the Empire, the Christian Religion taught its Votaries quietly to submit, and patiently to suffer the punishment due to the Transgression of these Laws, without resistance, or calumniating Language; to take up their Cross and follow their Saviour. This the Primitive Fathers did not only frequently inculcate to their Auditors, but manifested their Doctrine (as is evident from their Works) very often by their own Sufferings.  
But when the aforesaid Emperor had settled the Christian Religion, and added the Civil Sanction, (viz.) Established its Precepts as the Laws Imperial, the Doctrine of the Gospel (as to the suffering part) was much altered. In all former Mutations or Changes in the Government of the Empire, the Christian Pastors constantly exhorted their Flocks to obey the Supreme Powers; not to calumniate, or speak evil of Dignities, but patiently to submit to the most barbarous Cruelties.  
But when the Evangelical Doctrine and Discipline was Established by Law, and Constantius the Emperor persecuted the Orthodox Clergy, 
* Contra Constantum Augustum.  St. Hillary, that Pious and Learned Father, roundly tells the Emperor of his impious and unchristian Actions. And when Julian Apostatised from the Faith, banished the Gospel, demolished the Churches, and scoffingly told the Christians, their Doctrine was to suffer; an Eminent Man of that Age writ a Tract 
† De Regibus Apostaticis.  approved as Orthodox Doctrine by that Catholic and Renowned Bishop Athanasius, which tartly informed the Emperor, That the Christian Religion (when Established by Law) allowed its Votaries to justify their Rights, and was not to be trampled upon, ruined, and destroyed, to gratify the Humour of an Ambitious and Idolatrous Prince.  
That of St. Paul has no Relation to our present Discourse; the Weapons there mentioned, are no Shields or Bucklers against the Hostile Attempts of our Adversaries, but such as the Church is invested with for the punishment of Criminal Members; such as Excommunication, Censures, etc.  
So that 'tis clear and evident those places of Holy Writ that enjoins Obedience to Superiors, however express or emphatical in themselves, have neither Relation or Aspect to our present Circumstances; they only enjoin Obedience to all lawful Commands, and prohibit Resistance under the greatest punishment, when legally imposed; which is so far from our late Transactions, at which you scruple, that they were only acted to preserve our pure and Apostolic Religion, and secure our Fundamental Laws and Ancient Government.  
And 'tis most palpably ridiculous and very injurious to the Gospel, to wrest places of Scripture, peculiarly adapted to the Suffering State of Christianity; I mean whilst 'twas under Pagan Princes, and without National Laws to support it, to blacken and condemn the Actions of Christians; whose Religion and Liberties are Entailed to posterity by Established Laws; and whose only Action (for which they are blamed) is for Rescuing their Religion from Superstition and Idolatry, and their Ancient Liberties from the Vassalage and Slavery of Arbitrary Power.  Jac. 
But 'tis observable, when God chastised the wickedness of the Kings of Israel, he never did it by their own People, but by a strange Nation; showing by the Conduct of his Justice and Providence, that Subjects must not correct the Faults of their Kings, but leave that to God, to whom they are only Answerable for what they do.  Will. 
'Tis true, that was the general Method God commonly used in that Nation, especially with those he had advanced to the Throne, by Virtue of an Extraordinary Commission from himself. Yet the Histories of that Kingdom yield us particular Examples of the contrary practice. Thus the Cruelty, Irreligion, and wicked Reign of Jeboram, caused Libnah to revolt from under his Government, 2 Chron. 21. 10. And the Reason of this Revolt was because Jehoram had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers.  
And the Maccabees, (when Antiochus Epiphanes, their Lawful King, had silenced the Jewish Burnt-Offerings and Sacrifices, profaned their Sabbaths, and polluted their Sanctuary) by opposition and violence, in a most hostile manner, rescued their Worship from Heathen Idolatry, and cleansed their Sanctuary from such Pagan Pollutions. And the renowned and thinking 
* Lib. 1. de jure Belli. cap. 4.  Grotius allows the Necessity of things to consecrate the Action. And the Learned and Ingenious Thorndike [in his Right of the Church in a 
† Pag. 306.  Christian State] affirms, God approved of this War; And Heb. 11. commends their Faith for that Heroic and Virtuous Action.  Jac. 
Were I convinced of all we have hitherto discoursed of, there is another Knot so intricate and perplexing, that I despair ever of satisfaction. The Oath of Allegiance is so express and positive, so firm and binding an Obligation, that nothing can possibly be a firmer Tie to secure my Obedience to James the Second; (viz.) Not to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever: And to give this Oath of Fidelity to another, is not only a Contradiction in itself, but a downright Violation of that former sacred Obligation.  Will. 
The Objection, I confess, (before seriously considered) is a very plausible plea, and of great importance; but when compared with the Rules of Right Reason, and the Commands of Scripture, the Difficulty doth immediately vanish. Yet I deny not but such Oaths are of great advantage in a Public Society: by these Princes are secured of their Subjects Allegiance, Generals of their Soldiers Fidelity; Subjects ascertained their Princes will not degenerate into Tyrants; Leagues confirmed between Nations, Peace conserved among Men, Mutual Commerce and Trading secured, Liberties and Properties maintained, Controversies and Suits decided.  
And among those the Oath of Allegiance challenges a prime place, being really and indeed a very sacred Obligation; (viz.) a calling of 
† jurare nihil est aliud quam Deum testem invocare.  God to witness the Reality of our Inten●ion, to keep inviolable that Faith and Obedience we have promised and sworn to our Superiors, 
Assumere Deum in testem dicitur jurare.  the breach of which is a most horrid Crime, a superlative Perjury, very often severely punished in this World, and (without a sincere and unfeigned Repentance) will inevitably ruin us in the next.  
So that whatever we thus promise, we are as firmly obliged to perform, as the Wit of Man can contrive to bind us.  
But notwithstanding all this, the Oath of Allegiance, however solemnly administered, or however significant or express in itself, adds nothing to the Duty of Obedience incumbent upon us as Subjects, without, and antecedent to the formal Administration of it; it may indeed corroborate and confirm the Obligation, by adding Perjury to our Disobedience, but it cannot increase or augment the Duty.  
And the very End and Design of the Oath, attests the same; for though the Oath do particularly name the Supreme Magistrate (because he is Head of the whole Society), as if 'twere designed only for his Protection and Safety; yet we may rationally infer, That the Parliament (being convened for the good of the Public) who invented this Oath, took it themselves, and imposed it upon others, had in this Oath a more General and Notable Intention, of a more Excellent and Transcendent Nature; (viz.) to promote the Safety, Honour and Happiness of the whole Society. This is evident from the Ridiculousness and Injustice of that acceptation; for if the Oath of Allegiance be obligatory only in the former sense; (viz.) have respect only to the Protection and Safety of the King's Person, without having any Relation to the Peace and Welfare of the Public? By this Obligation our Representatives in Parliament, put both themselves and us into the hands of the Supreme Power, to destroy us at his pleasure; binding us by the most solemn Obligations imaginable, even the Sacred Ties of the Oath of Allegiance, quietly to submit to the Invasions of our Liberties and Properties, Confiscation of our Goods, Sequestration of our Estates, Profanation of our Holy and Apostolic Religion, by Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices; and to all other barbarous Outrages that the Pride and Ambition of Man, or the Malice and Cruelty of Implacable Enemies, could invent; which is a Soloecism of so grand a Consequence, as we may well think impossible for so Learned, Judicious, and August a Senate to impose upon themselves.  
Especially if we consider, that the Oath of Allegiance, taken only in the former Intention, confounds and destroys all other Constitutions of Parliament; is opposite and destructive to the Fundamental Laws of Nature; (viz.) Self-Preservation, and plainly repugnant to the Divine Rules and Precepts, which (to any Rational Man) methinks should be a sufficient Argument to engage him to understand it, in the Second, and more Excellent Sense, since 'tis granted by all Men of Reason and Learning, That Oaths are only obligatory in the Sense of those Persons who invent and impose them, if their Intention may clearly and rationally appear from the words, as expressed in the Oath.  
Now the Oath of Allegiance, in different Circumstances, being capable of a double Construction, and both apparently agreeable to the Intention and Design of the Composers, I will a little illustrate the Reasonableness of this twofold signification.  
The Royal Authority being the Head of the Body Politic, the Life of the Law, and the Soul of Government, 'tis not only highly reasonable, but absolutely necessary for the Public Advantage and Behoof, to fence and defend this Supreme Magistrate against Foreign Enemies, and secure him from private Insurrections at home.  
And to the end that Rebellion might prove abortive in the very Conception, and that Cockatrice Egg be crushed ere it became a Serpent; the sacred Tie of the Oath of Allegiance was judged the most effectual means to prevent all Civil Wars, repel all open Hostility, and secure the whole Society of the entire Affections of every particular Member.  
And the King being the Person to whom was committed the weighty and important Affairs of the Nation, and in whose Management and Conduct, the Happiness or Misery of the Public does very much consist. This Oath of Fidelity was personally made to the Supreme Magistrate, as Head, though really designed for the Advancement and Promotion of the Peace, Happiness and Safety of the whole Society.  
And for the Truth of this Assertion, I appeal to the Capacity of the meanest Reader, whether he can suppose, the Great Council of the Nation, Assembled in Parliament, who composed this Oath of Fidelity, and enjoined it to be given to the Prince; whether, I say, they designed it only for the Preservation and Safety of the King? Especially when (by his own Option and Choice) he should place his personal Interest and Safety in opposition to that of the Public Weal?  
From hence 'tis evident, That in all ordinary and common Circumstances; that is, when the Interest of the Royal Authority, and the People, (which always ought to be) are in Conjunction, the Oath of Allegiance binds all Subjects, both with Life and Fortune, to assist and defend the Supreme Magistrate against all Stratagems and Hostilities, whether public or private. And the Reason of this is, because the Prince is so nearly allied to the Public, and so much a part of it, that the Safety and Happiness of the latter is, in a very high measure, involved in the Prosperity and Welfare of the former.  
But in great Exigencies, and Extraordinary Junctures of Affairs, in which the Ruin and Destruction of the Public is inevitably involved (especially if that National Calamities be favoured, advanced and promoted by that Person whose particular Safety is designed in the Oath,) the promise of Fidelity in such Circumstances, bind only in the latter, and more general Intention; for Kings were made for the People, not the People for Kings. And it is plain Madness to imagine any Obligation can bind us to hasten the Accomplishment, not only of our own, but the Public Destruction; because such Actions are Diametrically opposite of all Laws, both Natural, and Civil, and Divine.  
And that Extraordinary Contingencies are not to be regulated but by Extraordinary Methods, is plain and obvious from several Topics. In Common and Ordinary Circumstances, the Laws secure every man in his Liberty and Property: Thus the breaking a private man's House, forcibly seizing a man's Goods, or violently restraining his Person, are Actions very unjust, and highly punishable.  
But in Extraordinary Cases, these are no Rules; but Necessity has her Laws: As in time of a Raging Famine, Propriety of Goods may be forced; Corn may by Violence be taken from private men, and sold for the public Relief; In a Noisome Plague, and Infectious Pestilence, for the Common Preservation, Men may be restrained from Commerce, and confined to their Houses: and in an apparent apprehension of an Invasion from abroad, encouraged by a Party at home, Men may be seized, or imprisoned, or restrained to their Habitations.  
Thus Divine Providence Constituted the General Law of Nature to regulate the Ordinary Course of things: but beside these, Miracles have been often effected, which the aforesaid Law could never regulate: and yet these supernatural and stupendious Works were always designed for wholesome and excellent Ends. Thus Nature herself, for her own preservation in vacuums, etc. causes Natural things to act contrary to their Natural Motions, forcibly attracting heavy Bodies upward, and as impetuously compelling the light to descend.  
And the express and positive Laws of the Decalogue, notwithstanding the Solemnity of their Promulgation, together with the Evangelical Commands of the New Testament (though backed with stupendious Miracles to attest their Divinity,) are null and void, when by extraordinary Circumstances they are placed in opposition to the Works of Mercy, Charity or Necessity. Our Saviour, confirming this Doctrine, Matth. 12. 11. saith, Which of you shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and pluck it out? Notwithstanding the strict Precept for the Sanctification of that Day. And our strictest Casuists (in case of Necessity) allow Apothecaries to Compound Medicines, Mariners to follow their daily Labours, and Midwives to do their Office upon the Lord's Day; and all this for the preservation of particular Persons.  
So that the Natural Consequence from hence, is, That if the preservation of a few Individuals be more acceptable to God, than the strictest Litteral Observance of his Laws; and the Deliverance of the Public from Ruin and Destruction, a Matter of such grand Importance, such absolute Necessity, as can consecrate the Violation of positive Laws, both Humane and Divine. Then our present Obligation, (viz.) the Oath of Allegiance, Not to take up Arms against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever, can be obligatory only in the Literal Sense, when the Interest of the Supreme Magistrate is in Conjunction with Public Safety and Happiness, and has no Relation to his particular Intrigues, or Personal Humours.  
And if the Royal Authority (as in our late Circumstances) be so deeply infatuated by the wicked Counsels of Impious and Self-ended Men, as to sever his Peace, Prosperity and Quiet from that of the whole Nation, and illegally to prosecute that Advice so far, as to place his own Safety, Happiness and Tranquillity, in Opposition to the Safety, Welfare and Security of all his People; the Oath of Allegiance is then loose, as to him, and obligatory only in the latter and more Excellent Sense.  Jac. 
But all Oaths, when once taken, (if imposed by a Lawful Authority, and Legal Oaths) do so far invest the Persons sworn to, with a Right to the thing sworn, that the Person swearing has no Power of himself (without the other's Consent) to retrieve that promise, unless by Violence and manifest Injustice. Now the Oath of Allegiance being a Lawful Oath, imposed by a Competent Authority, my taking this Oath invested the King with a Right to my Fidelity and Obedience; That without the Approbation of his Royal Person, 'tis not only unjust, but even impossible to divest him of it, and confer it upon another.  Will. 
Right! The former part of your Assertion is true, the Oath of Allegiance is a Lawful Oath, and imposed by a sufficient Authority; yet His Majesty, before you took this Oath, was invested with as undoubted Right to your Obedience, and in as full and ample a manner, as if you had taken the Oath a Thousand times. Neither indeed has the Supreme Magistrate Power to absolve you from this Obligation; And the Reason of this is manifest; for the Daty of Allegiance does so mightily conduce to promote the Advantage and Happiness of the whole Society, that the Public in General, (of which the Supreme Magistrate is but a part) challenges so large a Concernment in it, that 'tis a manifest Wrong, an apparent Injustice, for a particular person (though never so great) to dispense with the undoubted Birthright of every Subject.  
So that should the Oath be taken only in the first acceptation, as you seem plainly to understand it, (viz.) to have Relation only to the Safety and Preservation of the King's Person, without an Eye to the Public Welfare and Security, the Oath, in that Sense, is not Obligatory, but, ipso facto, void from the very imposing.  
And the Reason of this is plain and obvious, because all Oaths, or Promissory Obligations, that are contrary to our Duty to our God, our Neighbour, or ourselves; repugnant to Piety, Justice or Charity, are invalid, and bind not. Rei illicitae nulla obligatio, is a Maxim so consonant to the Doctrine of the Gospel, that no Christian (I suppose) has a face to deny it. And that the Oath of Allegiance, in your sense, is Res illicita, is easily manifested from several Topics.  
First, From its Opposition to Piety, and Destructiveness to Religion. His Majesty to whom you have given this Oath of Fidelity, is by Profession a Roman Catholic; and, qua talis, he is obliged, not only by the Principles of his Religion, but sub poenâ, of Excommunication, Deposition, yea, Damnation, to extirpate the Protestant Religion, to the utmost of his Power, and to propagate Superstition and Idolatry in its room.  
Now your Notion of the Oath of Allegiance, is both a Licence and Encouragement to such a Supreme Magistrate, actually to free himself from the Ties of such Powerful and Terrifying Obligations, by prosecuting the Business: For when his Person and Government is secured (under the penalty of Perjury, and punishment of Rebellion) against all Resistance and Opposition from the Public, what Block can hinder him from working out his Liberty, setting up his Superstition, Idolatry, and approving himself to his Holy Father, by subverting our Laws, destroying our Religion, and by severely punishing those who obstinately oppose his Arbitrary Proceedings?  
Beside, if the Oath of Allegiance, (viz.) Not to take up Arms against the King, upon any pretence whatsoever; but to assist his Majesty with Life, Limb, and Terrence Honour, be to be understood particularly of the King's Person; by this Argument, if a King degenerate to a Julian, his Subjects are (by all sacred Obligations) bound to assist him with their utmost Abilities, in demolishing the Temples and Houses of God, exterminating their Religion, burning their Bibles, and banishing the Gospel from his Territories, and by their endeavours to introduce Paganism, and establish the Worship of Infidels.  
Secondly, The Oath of Allegiance in this Sense is not Obligatory, because of its contrariety to Justice and Righteousness: Politic Justice commands us to support as well as obey all the wholesome Laws of that Society we are Members of; and the Divine Precepts enjoin us to protect the Innocent, relieve the Needy, and defend the Oppressed; which are Mandates very inconsistent with your Notion of the Oath of Allegiance: for according to your Interpretation of that Obligation, all Subjects are obliged to support and defend the Supreme Magistrate in all his Proceedings, as well when he oppresses the Loyal and Innocent, as when he punishes the Guilty and Criminal; as vigorously in his Encroachments upon the Liberties and Properties of the Subject (if he please to invade them) as in maintaining his own Just Rights and Prerogatives.  
But Thirdly, Whatsoever Plea or Objection may be made against the two former, there is in the Oath of Allegiance, taken in the aforesaid sense, such an evident Repugnancy to that Eminent and Evangelical Duty, Charity, so frequently inculcated in sacred Scripture, that that alone doth sufficiently evidence the Invalidity of the Obligation.  
The Duties of Mercy and Charity, are not only the Advice and Counsel of our Saviour, but his express and positive Commands, (viz) That we show Mercy as our Heavenly Father is merciful; that we deal by others as we would be dealt with in the like Circumstances: Merciful not only to men's Bodies, the perishing part, but chiefly to their Souls, that are Immortal, and must live for ever; that we may (as much as in us lies) promote and set forward the salvation of all men; not to detract from, or add to the Word of God, nor to comply with those that do it, but uncorruptedly to teach it to our sons, and our sons sons.  
Now the Oath of Allegiance, in the aforesaid acceptation, can never be reconciled to this Doctrine; for that Obligation, (whenever the Supreme Magistrate pleases) destroys Christianity, confirms the Hobbian Principle, opens a door to Popery, Turcism, Apostasy, Atheism, or what else that Magistrate shall please to introduce.  
And whatever Objection may be produced against it from our sins; (viz.) that they are as numerous and great as the Transgressions of Sodom, unparallel and provoking as the Wickedness of Samaria, that our obstinate contempt, and voluntary abuse of his Evangelical Mercies, cry aloud to Divine Justice, at least, to obscure and darken his Gospel, if not totally to deprive us of it, yet these can never justify our Proceedings to future Ages, or yield any pretence to a Plea, to free us from our Duty of Christian Charity, to the Infants of our Time, and the Children yet unborn, which doubtless are not criminals upon this account, which notwithstanding will (by this unparallel stupidity of ours, under the Mask or Vizard of Loyalty) be (as by a fatal and peremptory Decree) for ever deprived of the knowledge of the right worship of God, and inevitably involve them into such a lamentable condition, as will certainly render them either in defiance of God their Creator, or in ignorance of a saving knowledge of their blessed Redeemer.  
The Natural Consequence from the whole is, That the Oath of Allegiance can only bind in the first sense, when 'tis in order to effect the second; that is, it only obliges us to protect and defend the Interest of the Supreme Magistrate, when his Interest is subservient to the welfare of the whole Society. But if bigoted Zeal, haughty Ambition, or wicked Counsellors, be so prevalent with the Prince, as to obliterate his Duty to the Public, and upon private Picks and Humours, destroy the Laws, subvert Religion, neglect all the Methods of Government, and separate his own Happiness from the Safety and Welfare of the Public; the Oath in the former sense is void and inobligatory.  
And the Reason of this Consequence is very plain, because men are under former Obligations to the contrary: For in the Baptismal Vow, (which is commonly the first men make,) they oblige themselves by that Covenant made with God, to perform all Christian Duties, which respect either God, their Neighbours or themselves, and especially to the Works of Piety, Justice and Charity. Now After-Obligations can never bind such to opposite Duties; Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori; as in case of Marriage, A Precontract with one Party, voideth After contracts with any other: And if a man convey Lands to several Persons, by Deeds of several Dates, the first Conveyance stands in force, and all the rest are void. Thus the Oath of Allegiance (though designed and taken in your sense) becomes void and inobligatory, because it finds men formerly engaged to contrary Duties.  
FINIS.   


Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell.  
Dr. PATRICK's Sermon before the Prince of Orange, 20, Jan 1688.  
— Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall, March. 1. 1688.  
— Sermon at St. Paul's Covent Garden, on the first Sunday in Lent, being a Second part of a Sermon preached before the Prince of Orange.  
A Letter written by the Emperor to the late King James, setting forth the True Occasion of his Fall, and the Treachery and Cruelty of the French.  
King William or King Lewis, wherein is set forth the inevitable necessity these Nations lie under, of submitting wholly to One or Other of these Kings, and the matter in Controversy is not now between K. William and K. James, but between K. William and K. Lewis of France for the Government of these Nations.   

Books lately Published.  
A Letter written by a Clergy man to his Neighbour, concerning the present Circumstances of the Kingdom, and the Allegiance that is due to the King and Queen. 4o.  
The Case of Allegiance in our present Circumstances considered, in a Letter from a Minister in the City, to a Minister in the Country. 4o.  
A Sermon preached at Fulham, in the Chapel 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. 4o.  
The Judgements of God upon the Roman Catholic 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. By Drue Cress●ner D. D.  
A Breviate of the State of Scotland, in its Government, Supreme Courts, Officers of State, Inferior Officers, Offices and Inferior Courts, Districts, Jurisdictions, Burroughs Royal, and Free Corporations. Fol.  
An Account of the Proceedings of the Convention of the Estates of Scotland, from their first sitting down to this time; which will be continued Weekly.  
An Account of the Reasons which induced Charles II. King of England, to declare War against the State's General of the United Provinces in 1672. and of the Private League which he entered 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 privilege of the French King in 1682. Which Book He caused to be immediately suppressed at the Instance of the English Ambassador. Fol.  
A Discourse concerning the Worship of Images, Preached before the University of Oxford the 24th of May, 1686. By George Tallie Subdean of York. [For which he was suspended.] 4o.  
Some Considerations touching Succession and Allegiance. 4o.  
Reflections upon the late Great Revolution: Written by a Lay hand in the Country, for the satisfaction of some Neighbours. 4o.  
The History of the Desertion; or an Account of all the Public 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. 4o.  
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria a Christo nato usque ad Saculum XIV. Facili Methodo digesta. Qua de Vita illorum ac Rebus gestis, de Secta, Dogmatibus, Elegio, Stylo: de Scriptis genuinis, dubiis, supposititiis, ineditis, deperditis, Fragmentis; deque variis Operum Editionibus perspicue agitur. Accedunt Scriptores Gentiles, Christianae Religionis Oppugnatores; & cujusvis Saeculi Breviarium. Inseruntur suis locis Veterum aliquot Opuscula & Fragmenta, tum Graced, tum Latina hactenus inedita. Pramissa denique Prolegomena, quibus plurima ad Antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae studium spectantia traduntur. Opus Indicibus necessariis instructum. Autore GVILIELMO CAVE, SS. Theol. Profess. Canonico Windesoriensi. Accedit ab Alia Manu Appendix ab ineunte Saculo XIV. ad Annum usque MDXVII. Fol. 1689.  
Dr BURNET [now Bishop of Salisbury] his Life of Dr. William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland; to which are annexed the Letters betwixt him and Wadsworth, abou● Religion.  
— Two Letters written upon the Discovery of the Popish Plot; together with a Collection of several other Tracts and Discourses: Written by him betwixt the years 1678. and 1685. To which is added a Letter written to Dr. B●rnet, giving an account of Cardinal Pool's Secret Powers. The History of the Powder-Treason, with a Vindication of the Proceedings thereupon. An Impartial Consideration of the five Jesuits dying Speeches, who were Executed for the Popish Plot, 1679.  
— A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England: In which is demonstrated, That all the Essentials of Ordination, according to the Practice of the Primitive and Greek Churches are still retained in the Church.  
— Reflections on the Relation of the English Reformation lately printed at Oxford In two Parts 4to.  
— Animadversions on the Reflections upon Dr BVRNET's Travels. 8vo.  
— Reflections on a Paper, entitled, His Majesty's Reasons for withdrawing himself from Rochester.  
— Enquiry into the present State of Affairs, and in particular, Whether we owe Allegiance to the King in these Circumstances? And, whether we are bound to Treat with him, and call him back, or no?  
— Sermon preached before the Prince of Orange, 23d Decemb. 1688.  
— Thanksgiving Sermon before the House of Commons, 31. Jan. 1688.  
— Eighteen Papers relating to the Affairs of Church and State, during the Reign of King James II. Seventeen whereof were written in Holland, and first printed there; the other at Exeter, soon after the Prince of Orange's Landing in England.  
— Letter to Mr. Thevenot; containing a Censure of Mr. Le Grand's History of King Henry the Eighths' Divorce, To which is added, A Censure of Mr. De Meauxes History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches. Together with some Reflections on Mr. Le Grand. 1689.