I (TV *» Imprimatur, OA*.i*. ZJjbam,K.V.T>.Henrm *' 9 °' Epifc. Lonl & Sacriv THE A S E O F T H E ALLEGIANCE Stated and Resolved, According to SCRIPTURE and REASON, AND THE Principles of the Church of England, WITH A more particular Refpecl to the O A TR lately en joyned, of Allegiance to Their Pre lent MAJESTIES, K.fnLLUM&nd QJMARY. By wiLTrAMlTtnn^ Matter of the Temple. ;> L O N D O N: Printed for OJ. ROffW, at the £*, over againil St Vunftans Church in Fleet- fireet. i6 9 i --— ■*» ■■ ' ■ ' ■ ■ ' ■ ' — \ - I .. jm •*■% £ wm < THE PREFACE c^ -3 I Need not acquaint the World'with the Occafion of pMihinr thts Book ; which indeed is extorted from me by the rude Cla- mours and unchriftian Cenfures of fome,and theearneft Importu- nities of others. My taking the Oath of Allegiance to King WiHiam and Queen Mary, after fo long a Refufal, has occaftoned a great deal of talk, and a great many uncharitable gueffes about it ; Fa- clim and blind Zeal always wanting either the Wit. or the eood Wilt to guefi right. ' One would have thought it the moft probable Conjecture , That a Man, who bad forfeited aU his Preferments by refufing the Oath, and had for ever loft them, had not the Government been more mild and gentle in delaying the Execution of the Law, acled very honeftly and fincerely m it ; and if fi ■ That there is alfo good Reafon to believe . X that if the fame Perfon afterwards takes the Oath , he ails ho- i nefily tn that too : for what Reafon is there to fufietl , that he ^ who would not fwear againft the prefent perfwafion of his Confcienct to keep his Preferments , Jhould fwear againft his Confcience to get them ogam ? I da not know , that I have given any juft Occafi- on to the World to mark me out for a Difhonefi Man , or a fool; I may be mifia^n 3 and fo may any Body elfe , though never Jo Wife and honeji: But this I am fun of, that I never acled 297586 A "** The PREFACE. with more fmctrity in any affair of my whole Life, than I have done in this Matter, from the beginning to the end J and whether J have jufficient Reajon for what I do t I refer to the trial of this Difcourfe* The truth is , though 1 refufed to take the Oaths , J never enga- ged in any Faction againft it : I never made it my Bufinefi to dijjwade Mm from it i When my Opinion was asked, I declared my own Thoughts, hut I never fought out Men to make Profelytes. iVhile I thought it an ill thing , I was fecretly concerned , that fome of my old intimate Friends had taken the Oath*; hut yet as Opportunity fervid, I converfed with thofe of them t whofe Zeal had not made their Conversation uneafie , with the fame Friendjbip • and Freedom , that I ujed to do : 1 believed them to be hones! i Men, and that they ailed hcneftly , according to the perfwafion of their own Minds, and wijhed that J could have done as they did. L I complied with the Government, as far as I thought 1 could with a fafe Confcience : 1 always lived quietly and peaceably , and was rea- dy to have given Security to do fo. I prayed for King William and t Queen Mary by Name, according to the Apofiles dire 61 ion , to pray / for all that are in Authority, which they vifibly were ; though I knew at the fame time, this highly offended fome , who refufed the * Oaths, and made me ft and, in a manner, fingly by myfelf. I always oppofed a Separation , and advifed not a few t who thought fit to confult with me , to keep to the Communion of the . Church ; and not to entertain Prejudices againjt their Minifiers for taking the Oath : for I was fenfible of the Evil and Mifchief of Schifm, which fome hot Men were then forward to promote, and are fo fiill ; witnefi a Ute Pamphlet in Anjwer to The Reafbning part of the Unreaionablenels of the New Separation, which jufiifas a Schifm now, upon fuch Principles, as would have made all the Jews Scifmaticks) when the High Priefthood became Annual (though our Saviour himfelf then communicated with the Jewifli Church) and makes the whole Greek Church Schijmaticksj as often as the Grand Senior changes their Patriarch. For I did not refufe the Oaths out. of any fondnefi for the Govern- ment of King James, nor zsal for his Return ; which , the prefent . pr-ofteci of affairs gives no Man,who loves the Church of England, and ■ the Liberties of his Country ,any reafon to wijh : Nor yet out of any Aver/ion \ to the Government of King William and Queen Mary: but agatnfi my own Inclinations and Interefi 3 out of pure Principles of Confcmce., t9 The PREFACE. to comply with the Obligations of my former Oaths^nd that Bitty vliet I Subjects owe to their Prince , which I then apprehended trrctvKctU with the new Oath. ' This was a dijpojhion of Mind prepared to receive fotssfaelion , when ever it was offered j and to comply chearfully with the ptefent Government , when ever I could do it with a fife Cctsfciencc. frayed heartily to God, that if I were in a miHakc , -he would let me fee it ; that I might not forfeit the Exercife of my Mmifiry ■, for a meer miftake: and I thank God, I have rtcuved that fat&fa- £lim which I defired $ and if any Man can fliew me, that the Trm- ctples I acl on are falje , uncertain, or precarious, and fuch as cannot- reafonably fattsfie an honefi and unbiaffed Mind , I will cenffi. that my defire of fatisfaclion has Jccretly and infenfibly diftorted my Judg- ment, though I took all pojfibk care that it jhould not. I find, the general Cry and Expeclation ts, that I flwuld give my Reajons J though why I Jhould be more obliged to give my Reafonsfor Swearing, than I was for not Swearing, I cannot tell. Some feem very fond of this , upon a prefumption that I can fay nothing, but what they can eafily Anfwer ; and that will ferve to expofe Me, and the Caufe together: I have for once gratified ihefe Men, that they may have the opportunity to flicw their skill. Others , who are very well fattsfied thewfelves , have yet a Ctt- riofity to know what fattsfied me , who have been fo long dtf fattsfied. But this was no jufi Occafion to write Reafons ; for if Reafons were never fo plentiful with me , I can hardly think it worth the while to write a Book to gratifie a meer Curio* fiv- There are others , who are si ill dijjatisfied about the Oaths , / and are defirous to try , Whether they can find that fat is fa tl ion M ( which 1 have done. This , I confeft, is^ a good Reafon , which 7 ?nay in Charity oblige me ; and how hazardous an Attempt [o- ever it he ; my Duty to God , and to his Church , and to the / Government , as well as Charity to my Brethren , feem to re* quire it , when it is defired , and exacted from me : and I hope Juch Men will confider too , what is their Duty , as they will anfwer it to God , and to their own Conferences • to read what I have written for their fahs , c artfully , and with an honefi Mmd\ and to judge impartially ; and whatever the Effect be, ft j tstke it kindly. A 2 But The PREFACE. But there is another Motive has prevailed with me, more than all the reft : We live in an Age of great Prophanenejs and Infidelity, •which ts ready to take all occafions to reproach Religion, and expofe it, as a Cheat and Impofture 3 and to neglecl no Opportunity to blacken the Clergy, as men of no Faith nor Religion themfelves, though they make a great noife about it to ferve their own Jnterefts : And the general compliance of the Clergy in taking this New Oath, hath been improved by men of this Spirit to very ill purpojes : And not only fo, but fome very Devout Chriftians have been greatly fcanda- lized and- cf ended at it : And others, who fiould have underftood better, and checked this ill Temper, which is of fuch dangerous Con- feauence to Religion in general, have given too much countenance to it, and have Jeemed too much pleafed, to fee and hear all the Clergy that have taken this Oath, expofed to Contempt 5 as if, when the great Body of the Clergy is ridiculed and expofed, the Credit of Re- ligion could be fupported only by fome few men, who refufe the Oath. Many of them indeed, to fay knowledge, are very great and excellent Perjons, whom I do from my heart Honour and Reverence, and whom. I hope, and heartily pray, God will reft ore again to the Mmiftry of his Church : Yet I fiould be very forry ( and fo I am fure, would they ) that the Church and Religion fliould be reduced fo low t as to be confined to their numbers ; and have no firmer hot' torn to reft on than their Reputation, which though it be defervedly great, cannot bear the whole weight of the Church and Religion. It is time to give check to fuch unchriflian Cenfures, if we have any regard to our common Chriftianity : And fince fome little Wri- ters among them ( who are too headftrong to be governed by wifer men ) engroft the Church and Religion to themfelves ; and reprejent all who have taken the Oaths, cfljecially the Clergy, as Apoftates, at leaft from the Church of England , if not from the Chriflian Faith y it is necejj'ary to convince all fober Chriftians, that, men may [wear Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary without Per- jury, and without renouncing any Principles of the Church of Eng- land - y nay, that the Doctrine of the Church of England requires us to do jo : And I hope, if this appear , their Zeal for the Church of England^ if no other Confederation can prevail with them, will oblige them alfo to do it. \ But it feems, it will not ferve my turn to offer fuch Reafons, as will juftifie my compliance now , unleft I can give a good Reafon, why I did not take the Oaths before ; that is, I muft give fuch Reafom The PREFACE. Reajons, as "will equally prove, that no man ought to have taken the Oaths before, and that they ought to take them now. Thefe are very hard TaskMafiers, and no doubt, have very kind Defigns in it, to draw me in to provoke the Government by a need- left j unification of my felf, as to what is pa(t ; which can ferve n9 other end, but a little Vainglory, that I would net be thought ca' pable of a miftake ; and left the Nonfwearers fiould not be Match enough for me, I muft Proclaim War, and bid open Defiance to all that have taken this Oath ; and prove, that they ought not to have fworn before 1 did, but were obliged to do it the very next minute. But what now, if nothing of all this be necejjary ? What if I was not jo well fatisfied about this matter before, as I am now ? Is any man forbidden to grow wifer, and upen a careful and thorough-exa- mination of things, to alter bis mind, when he fees good reajen for it ? I am not ajhamed to own, that I am fiill a Learner ; and. hope, I jhall be jo, as long as I live, and improve my Knowledge every dvy by Study and Converfation. So that without producing the Reafons of my diJJ'atisfaclion before, or being obliged to anfwer them, having never made them Tublick, I think it-very fair to give a (atisfatlory Reafon now, for my taking of this Oath $ hoping, that what hath fatisfied me, may have the jame effect upon fime others, that will have the patience impartially to confider it. I had indeed fome of thefe Thoughts long fince, which 1 drew up in Writing, and flnwed to fome of my Friend's, and dijeourjed with others about them, and told them where I fiuck : but ftick I did, and could find no help for it ; and there 1 bad fiuck to this day, had I not been relieved by Bijbop Overall Convocation- Book , which not only confirmed my former Notions, and fuggefted jome new thoughts to me, which removed thofe Difficulties, which I could not before Con- quer ; but alfo by the Venerable Authority of a Covocation, gave me greater freedom and liberty of thinking, which the apprehenfions of No- velty and Singularity had cramped before* Thus, Reader, I have made Thee my Confeffor, and dt dared my whole Heart to Thee, as to this Matter ; and now judge of me % as Thou wouldfi be judged by God another day. I muft add one thing more : That I have renounced no Trinciple that ever I taught, excepting orie m The Cafe ot Refinance, which ^«I28,S is the only material Pajjage I. know any reafon to retract in (hat Book i viz. That when St. P&alfays, All power is of God, he means o* 1 Legal The PREFACE. Legal I'overs; !"* tti~ 1 I V ,' M t0 In: managsng th,s Argument upon the Vrsnc.ples I hive laid down ture, know very u-ell that the fiortefi way to brinftl JLI , Iks pvesjemucbrbe greater force and advantage ,1 the aJu^II when it ts fatted to thole, who are m,vt Itr^h . ■ J> j * r & um ""> Legality i the late dvolution 7 £'<££' ££** "W* H be ,n the right ,n IS, matter, 1 dLlltof'to ZZfZ* '*£ tt « for aU that their Duty to [near Allegiance to the trtlntr ntent, when reared Jo tl Ho: And J, k ,lgcel%d7Z comes altogether needkfto debate the Legal,,, / lhe liTvZtL THE i— T-H E CONTENTS SEd. I. The Cafe plainly and briefly ftated. That the Que- ft ion , Whether Allegiance he due to a Prince , who is fettled in the Throne, does not neceffarily involve the Diffiute about a Legal Right. page 1 Sed. 2. The Do&rine of the Church of England in this Point, as it is taught in Bifhop Overall Convocation Book. j Two things proved from that Book: I. That thofe Princes } who have no Legal Right to their Thrones , may yet have Gods Authority. 2. That when they are throughly fettled in their Thrones, they are in- vefted with Goa°s Authority t andmuH be reverenced and obeyed by all that live within their Territories and Dominions. 5, &C. Sed. 5. The Teftimony of Scripture and Reafon in this Matter} reduced into feveral Proportions. I Oj&C. Sed:. 4. Some Rea/ons and Arguments urged, and ObjecJions An- filtered, for the further confirmation of this Doctrine. 18 1 . That the Scripture has given us no direction in this Cafe , but to fubmit and pay all the Obedience of Subjects to the prefent Powers* ibid. Whether 13 Rom. 1,2. concern only Legal Powers. 19 2. This gives the eafxft and mo ft intelligible Account of the Origi- nal of Human Government ; That all Power is from God. 2 j The feveral Hypothefes about the Original of Government confidered , and frown ineffectual to found a Right, without refolving all into the Authority of God. ibid. Objed. The CONTENTS. Obje&. This makes a King lofe his Right 3 by being notorioufy inju- red, 25-. Answer 2 6 Concerning the Oaths of Allegiance. 2 7 &G Obje£h This Doctrine makes it imfGJjible for an injured Prince to recover his Right. Anfivered. 2i Obje(5t. This encourages Ambitious Sprits to grajp at Crowns. An- fivered, - 2 Ob'jed - . That Pyrates and Robbers have at good a Title to our Purfe as Ufurpers to the Crown. Anjwsred. 24 Object. The Cafe of JehoiadaV anointing Joaflb, and killing Atha- liah. Anfivered. ibid. Object. That' aft Kings art not fit up by God 3 proved from Ho(ea 8. 4« Answered. 2 c 3. This Doclrine is founded on the fame Principle with the Doctrine of Non-B-efftance and PaJ/ive Obedience^ 2<£ 4. To deny this is to deny Godts Authority t& remove Kings, and to fet up Kings. 27 5". It limits God's Providence in governing King$ ? and protecting in- nocent and injured Sub jetys. \ ibid. 6, The neceflity of Government to preferve Humaty Societies, proves this. 28 Bifhop Sanderfbn'* Opinion about Submijfion to Xjfurped Powers 3 ex- amined, ibid. 7. Thefe Principles anjwer all the ends of Government 3 both for the Security of the Prince and Subjects, a AnAnfivertoagreat Prejudice 3 that thefe Principles will equally ferve allUfurpaticns, with a particular reject to the Rebellion in 164. The Objection from the Laws of the Land confidered 3 and fome brief Remarks on a late Book 3 entituled. The Cafe of Allegiance to a King in Poffeffion. . p. yi. $$. THE THE A S O F T H E ALLEGIANCE D U E T O g§>otoetei gn $oioers, | SECT. I. The Cafe plainly and briefly flat ed. THAT which has perplexed this Controverfie, is the intermixing the Difpute of Right with the Duty of Obedience, or making the Legal Right of Princes to their Thrones the only Reafbn and Foundation of t be Alle- giance of Subje&s : That Allegiance is due only to Right, not to Government, though it can be paid only to Government. Many of thofe who have writ in defence of the New Oath, have fup- pofed this, that a Legal Right is neceffary to make Allegiance due, and therefore have endeavoured to juftifie the Legal Right of Their prelent Majefties : This as I have ftiewn it to be unne- ceffary ; {6 it feems to me to be unfit to difpute the Right of Princes ; a thing which no Government can permit to be a Quc- ihon among their Subjects : And how well ioevcr fuch Difpute* B may The Cafe of the Allegiance may be intended, they are certainly needlefs in this Caufe, and ferve only to confound it, by carrying men into fuch dark La- byrinths of Law and Hiftory, &c. as very few know how to find their way out of again : And therefore I mall not meddle with this Difpute, as being both above me, and nothing to my prefent purpofe. And on the other hand, thofe alfb, who refute the New Oath, go wholly upon this Principle, That Allegiance is due- only to a Legal Right. And take away that, and you remove all the dif- ficulties they labour under. They think, that a rightful Prince only has Right to our Allegiance. That though he be difpofleP fed of his Throne, if ever he had Right to it, he has Right frill y and therefore our Duty is ftill owing to him, and to no other ; and our Oaths of Allegiance to him ftill bind us : and that no ©ther Prince, who afcends the Throne without a Legal Right, has Right to our Allegiance ; and that to fwear Allegiance to him, while we are under the Obligation of a former Oath to our rightful Prince, is Perjury. As far as I know, this is the fum ef all that can be laid in this Caufe : Allowing thefe Principles, there is no way to latif- fie fuch men, but by juftifying the Legality of the late Revolu- tion. But though many things are faid, which may make men much more modeft in the point than fbme are; yet to judge truly of this requires fuch perfed Skill in Law and Hi- ftory, and the Conftitution of the Englijh Government, that few men are capable of making fo plain and certain a judg- ment of it, as to be a clear, and fafe Rule of Confcience. But if the Principle be falfe, there is an end of the Difpute: And Subje«5ts have a plain Rule of Duty without underftanding Laws and Politicks, the Intrigues of Government, the Revolu- tions of States, theDifputes of Princes ;, which I am fare is both for the fecurity of Governments and Subjects. If then Allegiance be due, not for the fake of Legal Right* but Government. If Allegiance be due, not to bare Legal Right, but to the Authority of God. If God, when he fees fit, and can better ferve the ends of his Providence by it , fets up Kings without any regard to Legal Right, or Humane Laws. If due to Soveraign Tower s^ &c. If Kings, thus fet up by God, are inverted with Gods Autho- rity, which muft be obeyed, not only for wrath, but alfo for conscience fake. If thefe Principles be true , it is plain , that Subje&s are bound to obey, and to pay and fwear Allegiance (if it be requi- red) to thofe Princes whdrn God hath placed and fettled in the Throne, whatever Difputes there may be about their legal Right, when they are inverted with God's Authority. And then it is plain, that our old Allegiance and old Oaths are at an end, when God has fet over us a new King : for when God transfers Kingdoms, and requires our Obedience and Alle- giance to a new King, he necertarily transfers our Allegiance too. This Scheme of Government may rtartle fome men at firft, before they have well confidered it. But every One at firft fight muft acknowledge , that it is fo much for the eafe and fafety of Subje&s in all Revolutions (which very frequently happen) what the generality of Mankind , from an inward principle of Self-prefervation , have always done, and will al- ways do, that they have reafbn to wifti it to be true , and to be glad to fee it well proved. And this I mall endeavour to do from the Authority of Scripture and Reafon ; and that I may not appear to be An- gular in it , and to advance Paradoxes , I mall prove it like- wife from the Do&rine and Principles of the Church of Eng- land. SECT. II. The Doctrine of the Church of England in this Point \ as it is taught in Bijhop Overall Convocation Book. I Shall begin with the Do&rine of the Church of England, not that I equal, much lefs prefer it, before the Scripture ; but becaufe fome, who refufe the Oath, lay great ftre(s on it , and upon this fcore charge their Brethren with no lefs then Apoftafie from the Church ; and poffibly when fiich a venerable Authority ftands in the Front, it will prepare a kinder Reception for the Reafbns, which follow* B 2 The 4 The Cafe of the Allegiance The Church of England has been very careful to inftruct Hei Children in their Duty to Princes; to obey their Laws, and fub- mit to their Power, and not to refift, though very injuriously op- preiTed ; and thofe, who renounce thefe Principles, renounce the Doftrine of the Church of England : But me has withal taught, That all Soveraign Princes receive their Power and Authority 'from Qod ; and therefore every Prince , who is fetled in the Throne,is to be obeyed and reverenced as God's Minifter,and not to be refitted ; which directs us what to do in all Revolutions of Government, when once they come to a Settlement ; and thofe who refufe to pay and fwear Allegiance to fuch Princes, whom God has placed in the Throne , whatever their legal right be, do as much reject the Doctrine of the Church of England^ thofe- who teach the Refiftance of Princes. For the proof of which, I appeal to Bifhop OveraVs Convoca- tion Book, which contains the Acts and Canons of the Convoca- tion begun in the firft Year of King James I. id©;, and continu- ed by Adjournments and Prorogations to 161 o. under Archbifhop Bancroft, a wife and learned man. Page 57. In CbapuzS. the Convocation having given an Account of the various and irregular Revolutions of Government, brought a- bout by the Providence of God, " who for the fins of any Nati- ft oh or Country, altereth their Governments and Governours , ft transferreth, fettethup, and beftoweth Kingdoms, as it feemeth (as well of the Clergy, as of the Laity) are to be fubjeel unto it, not only for wrath^ but alfo for conscience Jake. ?age $9. In Can. 28. where this Doctrine is decreed, they take care to condemn all thole wicked means whereby uich Changes of Go- vernments are made, and yet to affert , That whenever fuch Changes are made, the Authority is Gods, and muft be obeyed. " If. any man therefore Ml affirm 4 either that the Subjects, when ."they 9w due to Soveraign Powers^ &c. '.' they make off the Yoke of their Obedience to their Soveraigns, " and fet up a Form of Government among themfelves , after n their own Humours, do not therein very wickedly : or that it u is lawful for any bordering Kings, through Ambition and Ma« " lice, to invade their Neighbours ; or that the Providence and u Goodnefs of God,in ufmg of Rebellions and Opprefltonsagainft " any King or Country, doth mitigate or qualifie the Offences of V any fuch Rebels or opprefling Kings : or that when any fuch " new Forms of Government, begun by Rebellion, and after ** throughly fettled,the Authority in them is not of God : or that " any, who live within the Territories of fuch new Governments, • " are not bound to be (ubjed to God's Authority, which is there rt executed, but may rebel againft the fame: or that the Jews in " Egypt or Babylon might lawfully, for any Caule, have taken " Arms againft any of thofe Kings, or have offered any violence to * their Perfons, he doth greatly err. Men may difpute any thing, but I know not how it was pof- fible for the Convocation to exprefs their fenfe plainer , that all ufurped Powers , when throughly fettled , have God's Au- thority , and muft be obeyed: So that here are the Two great Points determined, whereon this whole Controverfie turns. i. That thole Princes,who have no legal right to their Thrones, may yet have God's Authority. 2. That when they are throughly fettled in their Thrones,, they are inverted with God's Authority , and muft be reveren- ced and obeyed by all, who live within their Territories and Dominions, as well Priefts , as People : If thefe Proportions be true, it is a plain Refolution of the Cafe ; that if it fhoukl at any time happen, that the rightful Prince mould be driven out of his Kingdom , and another Prince placed in his Tflrone , and fettled in the full Adminiftratioaof Government, Subjects not on- ly may, but muft for confeience lake, and out of reverence to the Authority of God, with which fuch a Prince is invefted, pay all* the Duty and Allegiance of Subjeds to him. As for the firft, the Cafe is plain, that the Convocation (peaks of illegal and ufurped Powers, and yet affirms ths the Au- thority exerciied by them, is God's Authority, and therefore thofe Princes, who have no legal right,may have God's Authority : the words of the Canon are very plain and exprefs, and yet if any man defiles further fatisfaction , that this was the Judgment of the f 6 the Cafe of the Allegiance the Convocation, that Princes, who have no Legal Right, may have God's Authority, it is very eafie to give it. ftgi 4$. They teach, That the Lord (in advancing Kings to their Thrones) is not bound to thoje Laws, which he prejertbetb others tr> obferve, and therefore commanded Jehu a Subject to be anointed King over lirael, of purpofe to punijli the fins of Ahab «»«? Jezebel : and what he did by Prophets in Ifrael, by an exprefs Nomination" of the Perfon, he does by his Providence in ether Kingdoms, fet up Kings when he fees fit, without any regard to the Right o Pagt $3. Succeffion, or Legal Titles. For as they tell us elfe where, Th Lord both may, and is able to overthrow any Kings or Emperors, not with/landing any Claim , Right, Title, or 'Inter eft, which they can chal lenge to their Countries, Kingdoms, or Empires, The Moabites and Aramites never could have a Legal Right to the Government of -Ifrael, and yet the Convocation anercs, That ■f.Agt $i. when Ifrael was in fubje&ion to them, they knew, that it was not lawful for them of themfelves, and by their own Authority to take Arms again ft the Kings, whofr Subjects they were, though indeed they were Tyrants. And that it bad not heen lawful for Ehud to have kiUed King Eglon, had he not been fir ft made by God the Judge prince , and Ruler of the People. The like, we fee, they teach of the Kings of Egypt and Babylon, who never had a Legal and Natural Right to Govern Ifrael ; and the like they affirm of the Four Monarchies, which were all violent Ufiirpations ; and the Principle they ground this on, plainly ex- tends to all Kings and Soveraign Princes : That God, and his 'Ch. 35. Son Jefus Chrift, who is the Univerfal Lord and Ruler over all the fa£* 23. jy or Q 3 does remove and let up Kings, as will beft ferve the Ends. Jtr. 27. 5. of his wife Providence. I have made (faith he) the Earth, the Man, and the Betifts that are upon the ground, and have given it to whom it pleafeth mem And again, the Prophet Daniel telleth us , That God changeth the Times and the Seajons, that he hath Power, and beareth 4 D4». 17. Rule ever the Kingdoms of Men : that he taketb away Kings, and fit- 3 2 * teth up Kings ; and that it was the God of Heaven, who gave unto a Dan. 37. Nebuchadnezzar fo great a Kingdom, Power, Strength, and Glory, as then he had, to Rule with Majefty and Honour a very : gr eat Empire : in ref^ecl whereof, although Kings and Princes might have been fatisfi* ed with the Titles of Lieutenants, or Vicegerents on Earth, to the Son of God ; yet be did communicate and impart fo much of his Power, Au- thority, and Dignity unto them , as be was content to ft He them with his own Name ; I have /aid ye are Gods, and the Children of the moil due to Soveraign Powers , &c. j moft High. And therefore we may obferve, there is no Duty Subjects, as fuch, owe to the moft Legal and Rightful Kings, but the Convocation afferts due to all Kings, whom God hath placed in the Throne, by what vifible means fbever they obtained it : as to obey and fubmit to them, nottorefiftthem, nor rebel againit them, to pay all Cuftoms and Taxes, to pray for them, nay, to (wear Allegiance to them, if it be required. Thus they teach with refpeft to Alexander ('and I think any Prince who gets the Throne, may pretend as much Right to it, as ho). If any Man therefore (hall affirm, either that the Jews, gene- Can. «. rally, both Priefis and People, were not the Subjects of Alexander, of- IW ti- ter his Authority was fetled amengft them, as they had been before the Subjects of the Kings of Babylon and Perfia ; or that they might law- fully have bom Arms againft him ; or that they were not all bound to fray for the long Life andProjperity , both of Alexander, and his Em* fire, as they had been before to fray for the Life and Profferity of the other faid Kings , and their Kingdoms ', while they lived under their Subjection : or cenfequently, that they might lawfully, upon any occafi-* on whatfoever, have offered Violence and Deduction, either to their Ptrfons, or to their Kingdoms, &c he doth greatly err. Thus Can, 33. they teach, That whoever affirms, That the Page 78, Jews were not bound, both, to have faid their Tribute, and to have frayed for Caefar without dijjimtdatton, fincerely and truly, notwith- • _ ftanding any pretence of Tyranny, which they had wilfully drawn upon their own heads, or of any caufe whatfoever ; or that fuch as curfed- Casfor, (their chief Governour) , did not thereby deferve any corporal funifliment, which is due to be inflicted ufon fuch Traitors ; or that the Rebellion against Any King, Abfolute Prince, or Civil Magijirats, for any caufe whatfoever, is not afm det eft able in the fight of God, &C he doth greatly err. Chapter 34. they condemn the Pharifees, who when Herod upon Pa . (nq occafioncaujed hts Subjects to bind themfelves by Oath, Quodncndecef fun effentafide & officio, refufed to take that Oath. And in their 34th Canon they teach : That ;/* any Man affirm, That the Phari- PagtZz. fees in refufmg to bind their Allegiance and Faith to Cxfar, by an Oath, did not thereby jbew tbemfelvestraiter»ufly affected towards him ( which evidently is not true of all, who may refufe fuch Oath, but the intention is only to condemn fuch a refufal); 'or that it was not a feditioits Doctrine To refufe all Taxations impofed by the Ro- nians,f^zr lawful Magifir ate s and j at her to rebel than to pay any Tri- bute to them, Sec. he doth greatly err. In 8 The Cafe of the Allegiance In the Cafe of Jaddus fwearing Allegiance to Darius, they can. 30. condemn thole; who fay, 7/tar Jaddus the High-Priefi didamif in page 6$. binding his Allegiance to King Darius by Oath; or that he had not fin- ned, if he had refufed (being thereunto required) to have [worn. And yet in the very next Canon, which I have already quoted, they teach. That both Priefts and People (and therefore Jaddus him- felf) became as much the Subjects of Alexander, as they had been of Darius ; and then according to this Do&rinejif Alexander had required an Oath of Allegiance from Jaddus, (as it is probable he did) Jaddus had finned, if he had refuted that Oath, though according to all the Circumftances of the Story, Darius was then living, to whom Jaddus had before fworn Allegiance. PageS^.. But it will be objeded againft this, that the Convocation takes notice Of that Anfwer Jaddus gave to Alexander^ when he fentto him from Tyre, after the Overthrow of Darius, That heflwuld of fifi him in his Wars, and become Tributary to the Macedonians, as he had been to the Perfians : He returned for his Anfwer, That he might not yield to this, becaufe he had taken an Oath for his true Allegiance to DariuS;. which he might not lawful!}' violate, while Darius lived, be- ing by flight efcaped) when his Army was difcomjited. But we may ttg -6$. obferve, that the Convocation in their Canon upon it, takes no notice, that Jaddus having fworn to Darius, could not fiibmir, ,or fwear Xj& any other Prince, while Darius lived \ and it is plain, Jaddus himfelf did not mean this by it, for he immediately fub- mitted to Alexander, as foon as he came to Jtrufalem, before he had given the laft fatal Overthrow to D*n»/,when Darius in his flight was murdered by his own Servants. The meaning then of Jadduh Anfwer to Alexander, was no more but this : That he having fworn Allegiance to Darius, could not make a voluntary dedition of himfelf to Alexander, which was the thing defired ; but when he was in Alexander's Power, (which made it a matter of force, not of his own choice) he made no fcruple tofubmit to Alexander, and become his Subjed and Tributary, as he former- ly was the fworn Subject of Darius. This, I think, fufficiently proves the firft thing, that this Con- vocation taught, that Princes, who have no Legal Right to their Thrones, when they are placed there by God , are invefted with God's Authority, and mull be reverenced and obeyed by all Subje&s, in as full a manner, as any other the moft legal and rightful Prince can challenge. idly, due to Sovereign Towers^ ice. zdly, The only Enquiry then is, what the Convocation means by the Government's being throughly fetkd. A Prince., who is throughly fetled in his Throne, has God's Authority, and muft be obeyed ; but when is his Government throughly fetled ? Now here it is, that men may impole upon themfelves, if they will, and if they think it their Intereft to do fo; and may make as little or as much go to a through fettlement, as they pleafe ; for the Convocation has not determined the bounds of it : they thought this a vifible thing , that every Subject: could fee, when the Government is (b fetled, as to make our Obedience due and neceffary, and therefore there was no need of defining, what it is to be throughly fetled : When the whole adminiftration of Government, and the whale power of the Nation is in the hands of the Prince ; when every thing is done in his Name, and by his Authority ; when the Eftates of the Realm, and the great Body of the Nation has fiibmitted to him, and thofe who will not fubmit, can be crufhed by him, when ever he pleafes ; if this be not a fetled Government, I defpair of ever knowing what it is ; for there is no Government in the World Co fetled, but that by fbme unfeen Accident , or by greater Force and Power, it may be unfetled ; and in this fenle it is impoflible ever to know, when a Government is fetled ; for no Goverment is, or can be thus fetled againft all events : but then the Government is vifibly fetled, when the Prince has the full and perfect Admi- niftration of all Affairs relating to his Kingdom. But if the general fubmiflion of the People fettle a Govern* ment, I am fure, that is eafily enough known, when a Nation has fubmitted to a Prince ; but this will not be allowed us, that the fubmiflion of the People fettles the Government, unlefs the Prince, who has the Right to Govern, fubmit alfb ; but I would gladly hear a good Reafbn for this: The fubmiflion of the Prince indeed may be thought neceffary to transfer a Legal Right; but the fubmiflion of the People, of it felf, isfuffici- ent to fettle a, Government, and when it is fetled, then it is the Authority of God, whatever the Humane Right be. This I take to be the true fenfe of this Convocation concern- ing Obedience to Sovereign Powers; all Sovereign Powers, whofe Power and Goverment is throughly fetled, muft be obeyed, whatever their Legal Right be; for they have the Authority of God, to which our Obedience and Subjection is due, and that fuperfedes all further enquiries. This is a good Argument C from i o The Cafe of the Allegiance from Authority, and as good Authority as can be urged to the Members of the Church of England} for if a Convocation can- not declare the Judgment of the Church of England, I know not whence we mail learn it. But I will not rely only upon Authority, but I think fo great an Authority, if it do not determine our judgment, ought at leaft to make us more carefully and impartially to examine the Reafbns of things, and to deliver us from the Tyranny of PraepofTeffion and Prejudice ; and to that I proceed. SECT. III. The Tejiimony of Scripture and Reafbn in this matter. THat which we are to prove, is, That all Sovereign Princes a who are fetled in their Thrones, are placed there by God, and inverted with his Authority, and therefore muft be obeyed by all Subje&s, as the Minifters of God, without enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne : The Proofs of this •from Scripture and Reafbn muft necefTarily be intermixt and interw6ven with each other ; and to let this matter in as clear a Light as I can, I mail reduce the whole into ibme plain Pro- pofitions. Trap. i. That all Civil Power and Authority is from God; for he is the Supreme Lord of the World, and has the fble Right to Govern his Creatures, and therefore no man can have any Authority but from God : this will be readily acknowledged by all, who believe, that there is a God, and that he made and governs the World. Trap. 2. That Civil Power and Authority is no otherwife from God, then as he gives this Power and Authority to (bme par- ticular Perfon or Perfbns, to Govern others : For Authority be- longs to a Perfon, and that Power and Authority, which any Perfon exercifes, is not from God, which God never gave him: If he Governs without receiving his Perfonal Authority from €©d, he Governs without God's Authority. I take due to Sovereign Towers, Sec. i 1 I take noticejof this to prevent a common Evafion, that all Power is faid to be of God, because God has inftituted Civil Au- thority ; not that every one, who exercifes this Authority, re- ceives it from God. But what they mean by the Inftitution of Civil Authority, I cannot tell, unlets it be, that God intended, that Mankind (liould live under Government : but this does not prove, that all Power and Authority is from God, unlefs thole, who exer- cife this Authority, receive ic from God : And it is plain, that St. Paul, 15 Rom. 1. by the Higher Powers, and all power, means thole, who excrcife this Supreme Power, that all mch Soveraign Princes are fet up by God, and receive their Authority from him ; they are the Rulers, v. }. the Minifters of God, who hear the Sword, v. 4. and in St. Peter , the King as Supreme, 1 Pet. 2. Prop. 3. There are but three ways whereby God gives this ' Power and Authority to any Perfbns : Either by Nature, or by an expreis Nomination, or by the difpofals of Providence. By Nature: Parents have a Natural Superiority over their Children, and are their Lords and Governours too: This was the firft Government in the World, and is the only Natural Au- thority ; for in propriety of fpeaking, there is no Natural Prince but a Father. But by what bounds this paternal and Patriarchal Authority was limited, we cannot tell ; how the extent of their power was (tinted, and where new Families, and new Govern- ments began ; and it is in vain for us to enquire after it now. By a particular Nomination : God made Kings only in Jewry, and entailed the Kingdom of Judab upon David's Pofterity : and after the Divifion of the Ten Tribes from the Kingdom of Judab, by exprefs Nomination fet Jeroboam and Jehu over the Kingdom of Ifrael. But God ruled in all the other Kingdoms of the World, as well ; as in Jewry, and all other Kings ruled by God's Authority, as well as the Kings of Judab and Ifrael, who Were advanced by his Command : For the mofi high ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomfoever he will, and fetteth up over it the bajeft of men, 4 Dan. 1 7. It was the God of Heaven, that gave Ne- buchadnezzar a Kingdom, Power, and Strength, and Glory. It u be, that changeth times and feafons, that removetb Kings, and fetteth up Kings, 2 Dan. 21. 57. and the Prophecy of the four Monar- chies is a demonftration of it. C 2 Bux 1 2 The Cafe of the Allegiance But now God governs the reft of the world , removeth Kings, and fetteth up Kings, only by his Providence; that is, then God fets up a King, when by his Providence he advances rum to "the Throne, and puts the Soveraign Authority into his hands ; then he removeth a King, when by his Providence he thruftsfrim from his Throne, and takes the Government out of his hands: for Provi- dence is God's Government of the world by arvinvifible influence and power, whereby he dire&s, determines, over-rules all Events totheaccomplimmentofhisown Will and Counfels, in diftincrion from his more vifible Government by his Oracles and Prophets fir the exprefs fignifications of his Will,as he in former Ages governed If rati. Nor does it make any difference in this Cafe to diftinguim be- tween what God permits, and what he does ; for this diitinclion does not relate to the Events, of things, but to the wickednefs of men ; which is the only reafon for thisdiftin&ion ; for the Scrip- ture never (peaks of God's bare permiflion of any Events,but makes him the Author of all the good or evil which happens either to private perfbns, or publick Societies. The Events of all things are in his hands, and are ordered and difpofed by his Will and Coun- sel, as they muft be if God governs the world: but God cannot be the Author of any wickedne(s_,cannot infpire men with any wick- ed counfels or defigns, nor incline their wills to the commiflion of it, and therefore this we fay God only permits ; but when it comes to a<5lion, he over-rules their wicked defigns to accomplim his own Counfels and Decrees ; and either difappoints what they in- tended, or gives fuccefs to them, when he can ferve the ends of his Providence by their wickednefs : and herein confifts the un- fearchable wifdorn of Providence, that God brings about his own Counfels by the free Miniftries of men: He permits men to do wickedly ,but all Events, which are for the good or evil of private men, or publick Societies, are ordered by him, as the Prophet de- clares,/^** 3.6. Shall there be evil in a City^ and the Lord hath not done it. And yet if there were any fuch diftin&ion as this, that fome E- vents God only permits, and fbme he orders and appoints , we ought in reafon to afcribe the advancement of Kings to God's de- cree and counfel, becaufe it is the principal acl: of Providence , which has fo great an influence upon the government of the world ; and if he decree and order any Events, certainly he pe- culiarly orders fuch Events as will do moft goqd or moft hurt to the due to Sovtraign Powers^ &c. 13 the world. He muft with his own hand immediately dire& the motions of the great wheels of Providence ; and not permit them to move as they pleafe themfelves. Especially when we remem- ber, that Kings are God's Miniifers and Lieutenants., and are in- verted with his Authority : Now to give Authority to any perfon, does not fignifie to permit him to take it; and we cannot but think that God will exercife a particular care and providence in ap- pointing his great Minifters. No man can have God's Authori- ty, but he to whom it is given ; and if the advancement to the Throne inveftsfuch a Prince with God's Authority , then God gives liim the Throne, and does not meerly permit him to take it ; for no man can take God's Authority, but it muft be given. Nay, fince God makes Kings now, not by an exprefs nomi- nation of any perfbns, but only by the Events of Providence,we muft not allow, that God at any time permits men to make them- felves Kings, whom he does not make Kings : for then we can never diftinguilh between Kings by the permitlion and by the ap- pointment of God, between God's Kings,and Kings of their own making ; unlefs all Kings are Set up by God, and invefted with 1 his Authority, we can never know what King's have Gods Au- thority , who thole are, whom we muft obey out of Confer- ence, and whom we muft not obey : there is no direction how to diftinguifh them, and the Events of Providence in placing them, in the Throne, are the fame in both. Now the neceffary Confequence of this is,thatby what means - Soever any Prince aicendsthe Throne, he is placed thereby God, and receives his Authority from him.There are very different ways indeed, whereby this is done; Sometimes by the Election of the peo- ple ; Sometimes by Conqueft (which has been the vifible Original of moft Governments) and when any Family is thus advanced to theT^hrone, it is continued by Succeilion and legal Entails; but all . thefe ways, or any other.that can be thought of, are governed and determined by the Divine Providence, and the Prince thus ad- vanced isastruly placed in the Throne by God, as if he had been . exprefly nominated,and anointed by a Prophet at God's command, as Saul and David were. Sometimes God leaves a free People to choofe their own King, and then he directs their choice to Such a perSon as he will make King. Sometimes he Suffers an a- fpiring Prince to invade and conquer a Country ,but he never Suf- fers hirn to afcend the Throne, but when he Sees fie to make him Kingv. The Cafe of the Atlegiance King.Sometimes he not only places a ilngle Perfon in the Throne, but entails it on his Family by Human Laws, and makes the Throne a legal Inheritance; but when he fees caufe for it, he in- terrupts the SuccefIion,or finally transfers the Kingdom to another Family. Prop. 4. All Kings are equally rightful with refpect to God; for thole are all rightful Kings,who are placed in the Throne by God, and it is impoflible there mould be a wrong King, unlefs a man could make himfelf King, whether God will or no. The whole Authority of Government is Gods,and whoever has God's Autho* rity is a true and rightful King;for he has the true and rightful Au- thority of a King; and if all Kings, who are fettled and eftablifit- ed in the'r Thrones, are let up by God, and have his Authority, with refpect to the Authority which they fa 'e from God, they are rightful Kings. Prop.%. The diftinction then between a King dejure^nd a King defa&o, relates only to Human Laws, which bind Subjects,but are not the neceflary Rules and Mealures of the Divine Providence. In Hereditary Kingdoms,He is a rightful King, who has by Suc- ceflion a legal Right to the Crown; and He who has pofleflionof the Crown; without a legal Right, is a King*& fatlo\ that is, is a King, but not by Law : Now Subjects are To tied up by the Conft itutions of the Kingdom,that they muft not pull down or fet up Kings contrary to the Laws of theLand ; but God is not bound by Human Laws, but can make whom he pleafes King, without regarjd to legal Rights, and when he does fo,they are true,though not legal Kings,if riofe are true Kings who have Gods Authority. Prop.6. We can have but one King at a time : two rival and op- pofite Princes cannot at the fame time poffefs the fame Throne , nor can Subjects be bound to two oppofiteand contrary Allegian- ces; for no man canferve two Mafiers ; and yet Allegiance is due to a King by the Laws of God, and to every King whofe Subjects we are, that if we could have two Kings, we muft have two Al- legiances. Prop. 7. He is cur King who is fettled in the Throne in the actual Adminiftration of Soveraign Power : for King is the Name of Power and Authority, not of meer Right. He, who has a le- gal Right to the Grown, but has it not, ought by the Lawsof the Land to be King, but is not : but he,who is actually fettled in the Adminiftration of the Regal Fower, is King , and has God's Au- thority, though he have not a legal Right. But dm to Soveraign Powers, &c. 1 5 But the Obje&ion againft this is, That it is Hobbifm, that Do- minion is naturally annexed to Power ; but thofe who fay this, do not underftand Mr. Hobbs, or me : for He makes Power, and nothing elfe, to give Right to Dominion j and therefore aflTercs, That God himfelf is the Natural Lord and Gavernour of the World , not becaufe he made it ; but becaufe he is Omnipotent ; but I fay, That Government is founded in Right, and that God is the Natural Lord of the World, becaufe he made it ; and that no Creature has any Right to Govern the World, or any part of it, but as he receives Authority from God : and therefore fince Power willGovern,God fo orders it by his Providence,as never to intruft Soveraign Power in any Mans hands, to whom he does not give the Soveraign Authority : that Power do^s not give Right and Authority to Govern , but is a certain fign to us , that where God has placed and fettled the Power, he has given the Authority. Prop. 8. Allegiance is due only to the King: for Allegiance ft- gnifies all that Duty, which Subje&s owe to their King,and there- fore can be due to none but the King. If then he who has the Legal Right may not be our King, and he who has not, may ; when any luch Cafe happens, we muft pay our Allegiance to him who is King, though without a Legal Right ; not to him who is notour King, though it is his Right to be 16: And the reafbnisvery plain, becaufe Allegiance is due on- ly to Gods Authority, not to a bare Legal Title without GocTs Authority ; and therefore muft be paid to him who is inverted with God's Authority, who is his Minifter and Lieutenant ; that is, to the A&ual King, who is fetled in the Throne^ and has the Ad- miniftrationof Government in his hands. Objeft. But if this be fb, what does a Legal Right fignifie, if it do not command the Allegiance of Subjects ? Anfw. Ianfwer: It barrs 'all other Humane Claims: No other Prince can challenge the Throne of Right : and Subje&s are bound to maintain the Rights of fuch a Prince, as far as they can ; that is, againft all Mankind ; but not againft God's difpofal of Crowns : and therefore when God transfers the Kingdom, he transfers our Allegiance, which is due, and annexed to his Au- thority, whether this Authority be conveyed by a Legal Succei- fion, or by any other meaus. i6 The Cafe of the Allegiance ~ Ohjett. But if we have fworn Allegiance to fuch a Prince, and his Heirs, and lawful SucceiTors, how can we pay Allegiance to any other Prince, while He, or any of his Heirs, and Legal SucceiTors are living, and claim our Allegiance, vuthout violating our Oaths ? Anfw. I anfwer : An Oath of Allegiance made to any King, can oblige no longer than he continues to be King j for if it did, it would oblige us againft our Duty, and fb become" an unlawful Oath : for our Allegiance is due to him who is King, in the a- ctual and fetled pofleflton of the Throne, and therefore rauft by the Law of God be paid there j and then it cannot be paid to the difpofleffed Prince, unlefs we can have two Allegiances: Our Oath then to the difpoflefted Prince ceafes, CeJJante materia ,• for though the Man is in being ftill, the King is gone. But we (wear to maintain and defend his Right, and the Right of his Heirs : but yet we do not (wear to keep them in the Throne,which may beimpoffible for us to do againft a profperous Rebellion ; nor do we fwear in Cafe they are thrown out of the Throne, never to fubmit or pay Allegiance to any other Prince 5 which would be an unlawful Oath, as contrary to that Duty we owe to the Divine Providence in making Kings, and removing Kings. The Oath of Allegiance contains the Duty of Subjects to their King, and can extend no farther, and therefore can ob- lige no longer than he is our King, and we his Subjects. Thefe feem to me, to be very plain Proportions^ and to carry their own Evidence with them ; and if this be true, it is a very plain Direction to Subjects in all the Revolutions of Govern- ment. The moft that can be expected from them, according to the ftricteft Principles of Loyalty and Obedience, is to have no hand in fuch Revolutions, or to oppofe them as far as they can, and not to be hafty and forward in their Compliances ; but when fuch a Revolution is made, and they cannot help it ; they muft reverence and obey their New Prince, as inverted with God's Authority. Nor is it very hard to know, when our Obedience becomes due to a New Prince ; for it does not confift in a Mathematical point, nor require Mathematical certainty : Our Obedience is due fb God's Authority, and when we can reafonably conclude, that God has made him King ; that is, when the Providence of God has fetled him in the Throne,we muft pay our Obedience to him. There dne to Sovereign Powers, &c. I7 There are different degrees of Settlement, and muft neceffari as? ?nn L b s sga ss& Cvidence of G^'ht 7llH?- ay b \ we «""<* Y« think the poiTeued Prince has alfnt,^ *T m'u Thr0ne > while the dif - Event iwXSt.tf^ri?'!?* P ° W ?' ' * makes the dom under f h.„' V e , mk fit t0 continue in the King- A - r^cr^r^r his g r~- - » - if it hedem^!^ t 8 vear jy other fecunty that we will dofb jj «- do in an £% ^Egf* SffiSSB (ion of our Eftfis to Sli " d "£ We QWe our fecur e P°fcF ve^entbeXpt^otht^^^orr' * while he adminTfters the R "-? nt W£ h ?> h L e is indeed King, him fo well ft&hh^^'^r miynot,h& * poles to own him for our Kh,g ' * W 3 " ' mentS and P ur - Nay, we muft pray fo, him under the Nam» mH r,i. r«y for we are bound to orav for ,11 ^ • » . Title of King, Prince is, who has the whole l^nmenr " ^wT*] Md that * power to do a great SeTTf u , ernn,ent ,n hl5 hands, and has this is fo fa, f om Wng 1? ult" C i ^ ** °{ e °°' » and care to do it in (iich Sit; ' IS a dut y' w hile we take Prince. Wrn,S ' asn0t t0 P rj y a g 3i »ft the difpoifcfcd D Thus 1 8 The Cafe of the Allegiance Thus iarl think the doubtful poffeflion oftheThrone obliges us, m\<\ ic were very happy if no more were required in the beginnings I i ich a new government ; but when befides the poffeflion of the Tli rone, the power of the difpoffeiTed Prince is broken , and no vifihle prelpect of his recovering his Throne again j nay, if it be vtfible that he can never recover his Throne again , but by ma- king a new Conqueft of the Nation by Foreigners, who will be our' Matters, if they conquer, and no very gentle ones neither ; • may then look upon the new Prince as advanced and fettled by God in his Throne, and therefore fuch a King , as we owe an entire Obedience and Allegiance to. For wemuft not take the confide ration of Right into the fet- tlcment of Government ; for a Prince may be fettled in his Throne without legal Right, and when he is fo, God has made him our King, and requires our Obedience. i hefe principles are fo very ufeful , efpecially in all Revoluti- ons of government, that Subjects have great reafon to wifli them true, and to examine over again thofe ftrict principles of Loyal- ty, which if purfued to their juft confluences, muft unavoidably in (bine Junctures, facrifice whole Kingdoms, at leaft all Subjects who pretend to this degree and kind of Loyalty and Confciencey to the- ill Fortune of their Prince. SECT. IV. Some Reafons and Arguments urged, and Otjeftions anfwered t for the further Confirmation of this Doftrine. THat we may examine this more impartially and more fecure- ly rely upon the Didates of Reafon in this matter, I obferve, i. That the Scripture has given us no Directions in this Caley but tofubmit,and pay all the Qbedience of Subjects to theprefent powers. It makes no diftinai^n, that ever I could find, between rightful Kings and Ufurpers, between Kings whom we muft,and whom we naifl not obey ; but the general Rule is, Let every Soul befubjeB to the higher Towers, for all power ts of God, the Powers that be are ordained of God : whofoever therefore refifieth the Power, refill eth the Ordinance of God , and they that reffi jhall receive to JJ them- dne to Soveraign towers , Sec. I p tbemfehes damnation, i; Rom. 1,2. To fay the Afo-ihhtrz (peaks of lawful powers, is gratis dictum , for there is no Evi- dence of it: The Criticifm between Ujgwi'i and ftiybfiat will not do ; for they both fignifie the lame thing in Scripture , either force and power, or authority : uc tyi 'J$xcjst.£-ri^ua.i vW wj,-- I "will not be brought under the fewer of any thing , mull fignifie force, 1 Cor. 6. 12. and Mv&txi< muft fignifie authority and dig- nity, I Epb. 21. XtZrityVU tiwW ctp%if *} c.^»57^ X? ^ The Cafe of the Allegiance which is the reafon that Jehoiada the High-Pried gives for depofing Athdtahj tvho had Ufurped the Throne for fix years, and anointing Joafli the King's Son; behold the King's Son frail Reign 3 as the Lord hath [aid of the Sons of David: But where God has made no entail of the Grown, but the entail is only by Humane Laws, there is no need of Prophecy to direct peonle to fubmit to any new Prince, whom God lets over them. For we muft obferve, that this was at the beginning of thcfour Monarchies, which God intended fucceffively to ere&, to whom he gave the Kingdoms of the World, not excepting his own peo- ple 'lfrad\ and in that Command he gave to chem to fubmit to thofe Powers, (which was renewed by Chrift and his Apoftles) has taught all Chriftians to do (6 too, and not to oppofe any Hu- mane Right or Intereft againft the Divine will and pleafure, when it is fufficiently declared by the events of Providence. And the Prophecy of the four Monarchies is not yet at an end ; for under the fourth Monarchy the Kingdom otChrifi was to be fet up, and Antkhrifi was to appear, and the increafe and deftruclion of the Kingdom of Antkhrifi is to be accomplished by great Changes and Revolutions in Humane Governments ; and when God has decla- red, that he will change Times and Seafbns, remove Kings, and fet up Kings, to accomplish his own wife Counfels, it juftifiesour neceffary, and therefore innocent compliances with fuch Revolu- tions, as much as if we were exprefly commanded to do fb,as the Jews were by the Prophet Jeremiah. This a man may fay with- out Enthufrafm, or pretending to underftand all the Prophecies of the Revelations, and to apply them to their particular events, for without that we certainly know, that all the great Revolutions of- the World are intended by God to ferve thofe great ends; and when God will overturn Kingdoms and Empires, remove and let up Kings, as he fees will beft ferve the accomplishment of, his own Counfels and Decrees, it is very hard, if Subjeds muff not quietly fubmit to fuch Revolutions : wa muff not con- trary to our fworn Duty and Allegiance promote fuch Revolu- tions, upon a pretence of fulfilling Prophefies, but when they are made and fetled, we ought to fubmit to them. Now when we have no dire&ion in Scripture at all about making or unmaking Kings, or refioring a dirpoffelTed Prince to his Throne again, and all the Commands we have in Scrip- rare about Obedience and Subjection to Government, manifeftly refpedt due to Soveraign Powers, Sec. 2 3 refpecl: the prefent Ruling Powers, without any diftin&ion between Rightful or Ufurped powers, it feems plainly to deter- mine this Queftion on the fide of the prefent powers ,* at leaft it leaves us to the guidance and cona*u& of Reafon in this mat- ter , and therefore let us impartially confider what Reafon fays. 2. I obferve then in the next place, that this gives the eafieft and moft intelligible account of the Original of Humane Go- vernment j that all Power is from God, who is the Soveraign Lord of the World. This has been a very perplext and intricate Difpute both in Religion and Politicks, and men have zealoufly efpoufed dif- ferent Hypotbefes, as they have had different ends to ferve. The matter of Fact, how Monarchies firft began, and what was the Original of particular Monarchies, is very obfeure for want of Hiltory, which is the only way to know it : Some think, all power was originally dewed from the Choice and Confent of the People : others afcribe it to the Right of Con- queft, which they think without more ado confers a Right of Government; others think Conqueft gives no Right, but the Submiflion of the conquered people, or the long continuance of fueh an Ufurpation does ; efpecially when fuch a Govern- ment defcends from Father to Son, and is become an Inheritance, either by Prafcription, or Laws ; which fbme men think then fb Sacred, that they muft in no cafe fiibmit to any other Go- vernment, while any Legal Heir to the Crown is living, and makes his Claim. Now I think there is no doubt, but feveral Governments have been begun all thefe ways, but frill it is God, who by his Provi- dence advances men to the Throne, and invefts them with his Authority by all thefe ways ; for the Authority is Gods, and it is his advancing them to the Throne which' gives them this Au- thority, It is evident, there is no Natural Authority, but the Paternal and Patriarchal Authority ; and that Monarchies were ereded upon the ruins or great diminution of it ; and whether this were by confent, or (as is moft probable) by violent Ufurpations, of which Ntmrod feems to have fet the firft Example, it was equally unjuft ; for no Authority is fb Sacred, as what is Natu- ral, which no man had Authority to give away, or to Ufurp : But H Tfce Cafe of the Allegiance But by this means God erefted Monarchies, and gave his Au- thority to Men, who had no. Authority of their own. It the Choice and Confent of the people makes a Prince,then fto man is a Subject, but he who confents to be (6 j for the Major Vote cannot include my confent, unlefs I pteafe ; that is the efled; or Law and Compaq or Force, not of Nature. If Subjects give their -Prince Authority, they may take it away again, if they pleale; there can be no irrefiftible Authority derived from the SfTif-' f ° r if the Authorit .y be wholly derived from them, who Jhall hinder them from taking it away, when they fee fit? Up- on theie Principles, there can be no Hereditary Monarchy: one feneration, can only choofe for themfelves, their Pofteritv ha- ving as much Right to choofe as they had : > If Conqueft gives a Right, then Force, the moft unjufr and violent Force,is Right,- and then every man by the fame Rule who Jsltronger than I am, has a Natural Right to govern me ' Submiffion is only a forced and afterconfent not to make a King, but to own him, who has made himfelf King, and whom very orten we would difown and rejed, were it fare todofo- and what Right can that give more than Force? The continuance of an Ufurpation can never give a Right unlefs that which is wrong can grow right by continuance: An Ulurper by long continuance may out-live thofe, who formerly wore the Crown ; but does it give Right to him, who has none, that he out-hves thofe, who had the Right? For though nobody die has any Right to the Crown, how does this make him a Rightful King, who has no Right? An Hereditary Right is either a continued Ufurpation, which can give no Right, or a Right by Law ; that is, by the confent of the people to entail the Crown on fuch a Family, which, as I ob- lerved before, if Right be refolved into the Choice and Confint of the people, cannot be done ; for what Right had my Ance- ltors three or four hundred years ago, to choofe a King for me? So that I cannot fee where to fix the Foundation of Govern- ment, but in the Providence of God, who either by the choice of the major or ftronger part of the people.or by Conqueror by Sub- miffion, and the long fucceffive continuance of power, or by Flu- mane Laws.gives a Prince and his Family poffeffion oft he Throne, which is a good Title againft all Humane Claims, and requires the Obedience and Submiffion of Subje&s as-long as God is pleafed to continue him and his Family in the Throne j but it is no Title a- gainft God, if he pleafe to advance another Prince. To due to Sovereign Powers, &c 25 To fay that God fets up no Prince, who afcends the Throne without a Human and Legal Right, is to fay, that fome Kings are removed, and others fet up, but not by God 5 which is a direct contradiction to Scripture •, it is to fay, That the Four Mwarcbier were not fet up by God, becaufe they all began by Violence and Usurpation : It is to fay, That God, as well as men, is confined by Human Laws, in making Kings: It is to fay, That the Right oi Government is not derived from God, without the confent of the Peoples for if God can't make a King without the People, or againft their Confent declared by their Laws, the Authority muft be deri- ved from the People, not from God ; or at lea It if it be God's Au- thority, yet God can't give it himfelf without the People, nor otherwife than as they have directed him by their Laws. This is all very abfurd, and what thofe perlbns abhor the thoughts of, who infill fo much upon a LegU Right, that they will own no King, who afcends the Throne, without it, nor believe that God places him there without and againlt a Legal Right ; but if they would examine themfelves for what Reafon they believe that a King who has no Right to the Throne, is not fet up by God, and invelted with his Authority, they will rind, That it mult ultimately refolve it felf into the Authority of the People to make Kings, which it is unjuit for God himfelf to over-rule and alter s for a Legal En- tail is nothing more than the Authority of the People ; and if the People have fuch an uncontroulable Authority in making Kings, I doubt they will challenge as much Authority to unmake them too. If the fole Authority of Government be from God, and God gives this Authority only by placing a Prince in the Throne, then by what- ever means he does it, it is the fame thing. When fuch a Prince is fetled in the Throne, he is God's King and Minifter, and muft be Reverenced and Obeyed by the People who live under his Govern- ment ; thus it mult be, if all Power be of God. But there are feveral Objections againlt this, which muft be briefly anfwered. 1. It is objected, That this makes a Prince lofe his Right by Objett. being notorioufly injured ; for if a profperous Ufurper gets into the Throne, and fettles himfelf there , God has taken away hi* Crow n, and given it to another; and therefore he ought not to at- tempt the recovery of his Throne (nor any other Prince to arlift him in it ) which is to oppofe God, and to challenge that which he has no longer any Right to. £ I anfwer, 26 The Cafe of the Allegiance Anfatr. Janfwer, By no means: The Providence of God removes Kings.and fcts up Kings,but alters no Legal Rights,nor forbids thofe who are dtfpofTeifedof them, to recover their Right, when they can. While fuch a Prince is in the Throne, it is a declaration of God's Will, that he (hall Reign for fome time, longer or fhorter, as God pleafes; and that is an obligation to Subjects to fubmit and obey •, tor Submiffion is owing only to God's Authority «, but that one Prince is at prefent pUced in the Throne, and the other remo- ved out of it, does not prove, that it is God's Will it mould always be(b, and therefore does not diveft the difpoffelt Prince of his Le- gal Right and Claim, nor forbid him to endeavour to recover his Throne , nor forbid thofe who are under no obligation to the Prince in pofleilion, to ailiif the difpolTcfTed Prince to recover his Legal Right : A Legal and Succeilive Right is the ordinary way whereby the Providence of God advances Princes to any Hereditary Throne : And this bars all other human Claims ; but yet God may give the Throne to another, if hepleafes; and this does notdeftroy the Legal Right of the difpoffeifed Prince, nor hinder him from claiming it, when he finds his opportunity. But it may perhaps be farther (aid, If thedifpolTelTed Prince may ftill have the Legal Right and Claim to the Crown, and he who is poflefled of the Crown, may have none, is it not very un juft in Sub- jects to pay Allegiance to him who is poiTefTed of the Throne with- out Right, and to withdraw their Allegiance from him who has the Right? Is not this to juftihe and fupport Injuitice and Violence, and to opprefs oppreiTed Innocence and Right? And can the Provi- dence of God make that our Duty, which is ib manifeitly unjuft and wicked ? I anfwer ; To deny any man, much more a Prince, what is his juft Right, and which I am bound to give him, is certainly very unjutl, and that which the Providence of God can never juihrie ; but then we muft conlider, What the Prince's Right is; and, What is the Duty of Subjects ; and, When Subje&s may be faid to deny their Prince's Right. The Right of the Ptince is to adminifter the Government of the Nation •, the Duty of Subjects is to fubmit to his Government, and ©bey his Laws, when he does acliuUy adminiuYr the Government \ and thofe who do not refufe to obey him when he governs, deny him no Right that they owe him j for there is no Duty Subje&s owe to Princes, as Subjects, but to obey them \ and not to obey, whoa they don't and caa't Govern, is to deny no Right. Yes, due to Sovereign Powers, &c. ij Yes, you'l fay, The pofldfion of the Crown, and the a&ual Ad- miniflration of Government, is his Right ; and if we own any other Governing Power, we deny him that Right. I anfwer, Suppofe he have a Legal Right to Govern, but can't 5 Obedience is not his Right ; and therefore to pay my Obedience to thofe who do Govern, is no denial of his Legal Rights but a due SubmifTion to the Providence of God, who hath a Right fuperiour to all Human Rights , in the difpofal of Crowns and King- doms. The Duty of Subjects as fuch, is to obey their Prince, and fub- mit to him whillt he governs, and is hi pofTdfion of the i hron: : But then Kings mult take Tome care alfo topreferve their Crowns by good Government } and if they will run the hazard of their < rowns, thofe of their Subjects are certainly not to be blamed by fuch a Prince, who did nothing to take his Crown from him. But fomeit may be will fay, That fuch Subjects are bound even in fuch a cafe to maintain and defend their King in his Throne. I am not fo very fure of that ; but this I am (ure of, That when- ever People have a good King, it is both their Duty and Inrerclt to defend him •, and if they be not milled by the Cunning and Arti- ficeof ill men, they will certainly do fo. But if they have a very bad one, that notoriously violates their Rights, and breaks che.Con- ftitution upon which himfelf ftands, and itrikes at the deareit things they have, their Religion eftablifhed by Law, and their Properties, I doubt the cafe may be altered \ and though every body ill not fpeakitour, yet moll may fay in their hearts, Let him go, if he can- not defend himfelf. It is enough in confeience patiently to bar fo bad a Prince, but a little too much to venture their Lives and For- tunes to keep him in the Throne to opprefs them \ this is ag.inft Reafon and Nature, and I know no Law of God which req£ res it: A Subject, and a Soldier \ to Obey a Prince, and to Fign\ tor him, are two things •, and to be a Subject of any Prince, do: s not either by the Laws of God or Man, necefTanly make him a Soldier. But have we not fworntothe King, his Heirs and Lawful Succef- fors, to defend and maintain his Perfon, Crown, and Dignity > And are we net bound by this Oath t I anfwer, 1. I grant it is fo 5 but then we mult diftinguifh two parts in this Oath : 1. The Natural Duty of Subje&s, which is Faith and true Allegiance, or Obedience and Submiilion to the Govern- ment of the King. 2. That Duty and Obligation which is fuperindu- E 2 ced The Cafe of the Allegiance ced by Law, to maintain and defend the King's Right to the Crown, and all the Dignities and Prerogatives of it, which is now made a part, not of our Natural, but Legal Allegiance. The reafon of the thingtells us, That this is not an Arbitrary, but real Diitindtion; and then, tho our Natual and Legal Allegiance be both included in the fame Oath , they are of a diitinit Conlidera- tion. Natural Allegiance, or Obedience and Subjection to Government, is due to the King,confidered in the actual Administration of Govern- ment, and no other wife, becaufe it can be paid only to the Regnant Prince j and it is due to all Kings, who are fetled in the Govern- ment ; for it is due to Government, and for that reafon, to the Prince who governs. Legal Allegiance , or Maintenance and Defence, is due only by Law, and therefore can oblige no further than Human Laws do, which mult always give way to the Laws of God ; and therefore Natural Allegiance (in cafe of a Competition) vacates the Obliga- tion of Legal Allegiance and Oaths \ as the Laws of God and Nature muft take place of all humane poiitive Laws and Oaths. If then, I have fworn to maintain and defend my King, who has a Legal Right to the Throne, whatever is meant by this Maintenance and Def n :e, if he happen to be difpolfeiTed of his Thione, and another Prince placed there, whom,in Reverence to the Authority of God, I am to obey, and fubmit to, without Refinance » I amabfolved from my Legal Allegiance to maintain and defend my ejected Prince, becaufe I cannot do it without violating that Allegiance, which by the Laws of God I owe to the Regnant Prince •> for I cannot defend the dif- jDofTeffed Prince, whom I have fworn to defend, without oppoling and retiring the Regnant Prince, whom by the Laws of God I am bound to obey. 2. This Legal Allegiance, or Maintenance and Vtfence , is Sworn only to a King in Pofleifion, and iignifies no more, than to main- tain and defend him in the Polfellion of the Throne , as having a Legal Right to it: We can legally take this Oath only to a King, who is in Poflcilion, for it mull be admjniftred by his Authority; and the Obligation of Oaths muft not be extended beyond the ne- ceflary Signification of Words.; now to maintain and defend the King's Perfon, Crown, and Dignity, and to reftore him to his Throne, when heisdifpoiTeifed, are two very different things ; and therefore he, who Swears to maintain and defend, is not by virtue oi due to Sovereign Foirers, &c. sp of that Oath obliged to reftores while a Prince is on the Throne, Subjects are in a capacity to defend and preferve him there ; and therefore may obi: ge themfelvcs to it, and there may be Reafons why this mould be exac-t ed from them •, but In ordinary Cafes, if they cannot defend the King in PoiTeHbn , there is little likelihood they (hould be able to reltore him; and therefore no reafon , that Subjects mould bind themfelves by fuch an Oath. To venture our Lives and Fortunes to preferve the King's Perfbii and Government, while he is in Poffcilion, is reafonable enough ; becatrfe it is a real Service to our King and Country, to prevent un- jjit Usurpations, which overturn the Government , and often un- fettle or deltroy the Laws, and with them the Rights and Libenies of Subjects , as well as the Right of the King 5 but to Swear to do our utmolt to reltore the King, when he is difpoirciTed , is to Swear never to fubmit to ufurped Powers , but to take all Opportunities to overthrow fuch Governments to reltore our King, which is contrary to our Duty , when God removes one King, and fets up another; which expofes our Lives and Fortunes to ruin, when we cannot ferve our King by it; which provokes fuch new Powers, if they be not more merciful, to fecure themfelves by rooting out fu;h fwbrri Enemies to their Government; and then theConfequer.ee of this Oath, is, Thar if out King be driven out of the Land, we will follow him into Baniihment, or venture be- ing hanged at home; that we will . diiturb all Governments, and raife Rebellions, and Civil Wars, if we can, to reltore our King, tho with the utter Ruin and Deltru&ionof the Nation. 1 believe, (hould all this be expreijed in an Oath, there is no Man in his w'rts would take it, for the fake of the belt Prince that ever fway'd a Scepter ; and how unreafonable then is it, to expound an Oath to fuch a Senfe, as no Man would have taken it in, had it been ex- prelTed ? However it appears , that there is fu:h a valr difference be* tween maintaining and defending a Reguam Prince, and rejtitHng a Dil- polfelTed Prince, that to rejhrc is not neceffarily included in mMntjh,- - ing. But we Swear not only to the King, bud to his Heirs, and Lawful , SuccelTors, who are not in Adhial PoiT.ifi >n ; and therefore that mu ft fignify to give them Poffdlion: Right! if the King dye.porTeft of the Crown, we Swear to maintain the Succeifion, and to own the true Heir, for our Kings but if the Kingbedriven out of PofTeffion, and his Heirs with him , and another Prince poffeifed of the Throne,. . 3o The Cafe of the Allegiance Throne, this Oath can no more oblige us to Cct the Baniflied Heir upon the Throne, than to reixore the Banilhed King. But by (wearing to the Heirs, and Legator Lawful Succcffors, we Swear not to own, or fubmit to any Prince, who is not the Legal Heir. That I deny ; we Swear , if you pleafe, not to make it our A&, not to fet up any Prince, who is not the right Heir 5 and we Swear to own the right Heir, if he gets PoiTellion ; but we do not Swear not to fubmit to any Prince, who gets into PolTeilion, and is fetled in the Throne without a Legal Right ; the words tignify no fuch thing, no more than Maintaining and Defending, fignities Re- storing. 3. I obferve further, That this Maintenance and Defence, which we Swear of the King's Perfon and Crowu, is only a Legal Mainte- nance and Defence •, for the Law will not jultify, much lefs docs it . command any illegal Defence ; and therefore a Legal Oath can ob- lige us only to a Legal Defence. This is true, with reference to the Cattfe-, for we are not bound to defend the King againft Law, or when he Subverts the Laws, and Liberties,and the Legal Eftabli'hed Religion of the Kingdom, by Illegal Methods. A Sovereign Prince muit not be rehired by force, nor muff he be ailiiied and defended againtt Law 5 for tho the King be unaccountable, yet his Minitters and Inliruments are not; and no Man is bound to ferve or defend the King in that, for which by the Law of the Land he may be hanged for a Trayror; and this in a limited Monarchy, fets Bounds to Sovereign Power; for un- lefs Subjects will betray their own Liberties, and venture to be hanged for it, fuch a Prince cannot hurt them - , and the late Revo- lution teaches us, ( and all Princes ought to take warning by it ) how eaiily a Prince is ruined, when he has forfeited the Affections, and the Legal Defence of his Subjects, by the Exercife of an Illegal and Arbitrary Power ; and if the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige Subjects to defend a Prince in the Exercife of an Arbitrary Power; I think, it much lefs obliges them to reftore fuch a Prince, and Arbitrary Power with him. Eut that which I mean by a Legal Defence,(let the Caufe be what it will) is fuch a Defence , as the Law requires all Subje6ts to give their King ; for a Legal Oath can require no other Defence than the Law requires. Now the only Legal Defence, wherein all Subjects are concern'd, is either the Militia^ or the Pojje Comitatus , which are in the Power ©f due to Sovereign Powers, &c. $i of the Regnant Prince, and cannot defend a Prince who is out of Poffeilion ; and therefore , if this Oath means only a Legal De- fence, it muft be confined to the King while he is in Potlellion, and has the Power of the Kingdom in his hands-, for I cannot de- fend a DifpolTefled Prince by ferving in the Militia, or Pojfe Cumhatm^ which is always in the Power of the Regnant Prince. But a Prince may raite an Army for his Defence , befides the Mi'itia of the Country s and this he may do , when he is out of PofTellion , and Loyal Subjects ought chearfully to ferve him m it. Now here is a great Queftion, which I am not Lawyer enough to decide •, Whether a Commillion granted by a King out of PolTef- fion, be a Legal Commiilion; but be that how it will, I am fure, there is no Law that requires all Subjects to receive Commiilions from the King, tho he be in PofTellion of the Government, nor to Lilt themfelves Soldiers in his Armyj and therefore this is no part of that Legal Defence which, we Swear. All that Legal Defence which we Swear to the King, can be paid only to the King in PofTellion ; and what we have not Swore, we are not bound to by the Oath of Allegiance, which is the only thing we are now inquiring after. This the whole Nation, both Prince and People have, fufficiently acknowledged , by making and receiving AddrelTes of Lives and Fortunes, which is fuppofed to lignify fome other defence than the 0-rth of Allegiance obliged them to; and therefore,were not of the mind of thole Men , who think their Sworn Allegiance binds them to rcftore the King, when DifpofTclTed of his Throne, at the Ex- pence of their Lives and Fortunes. 4- It is worth confidering alfo ; That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath , and therefore the defence or maintenance we (wear, is National, that is, to join with our Fellow-fubjedfcs in de- fending the King's Perfon and Crpwn : for Tingle Subjects cannot do this by themfelves, and the way to oblige them all, is to impofe a National Oath to be taken by all Subjects. Now Tuch Oaths as thefe oblige every particular Man to do no in- jury to the King's Perfon or Crown , not to enter into Plots and Confpiracies again!! him* and as for adrual defence, chearfully to venture his Life and Fortunes with his Fellow- fubje&s to preferve the King. But in cafe the great Body of the Nation abfolve them* felves from thefe Oaths, and depofe their King, and drive him out of his Kingdom, and Qt up another Prince in his room, it is worth confi- 3 2 The Cafe of the Allegiance . confidering, Whether fame private men, it may be but a little hand- ful, are it ill bound by their Oath, to make fome weak and dange- rous attempts, and to fight for their King againft their Country ; certainly this was not the intention of the Oath, for it is a National, not a private Defence, we fwear ; and therefore a general revolt of a Nation., though it mould be wicked and unjuftifiable, yet it feems to excufe thofe, who had neither hand nor heart in it, from their fworn defence of the King's Pcrfon, and Crown, and to make their compliance with the National Government innocent and necefTary.- For an Oath to right tor the King, does not oblige us to fight againit our Country, which is as unnatural, as to fight againft our King. The fum is this '•> God, when he fees fit, can remove Kings, or (&t up Kings, without any regard to human Right , as being the Sove- reign Lord of the World , who rules in the Kingdoms of Men, and giveth them to whomfoever he will : but Subjects, in fetting up, or removing Kings, mutt have regard to Legal Right ; and if they pull down a rightful King, and fit up a King without right, (unlefs the ConiHtution of- the Government in fome Cafes thould allow it ) greatly fin in it, etpecially when they have fworn the defence of the Legal Right, and Legal Succerfion : but the Duty and Allegiance of Subjects does not immediately refpect Right,* but the actual admini- ftration of Government, when there is a fetled Government in a Na- tion \ for that is God's Authority, which mult be obeyed : no man mutt fwear away this, no more than any other part of his Duty ; and no man does fwear away this by the Oath of Allegiance, as I have already mown. ■Objection. But it will be farther objected, That if this Doctrine do not take away the Legal Right, yet it makes it impoffible for fuchap injur d Prince to recover his Right, when all his Subjects have fworn Alle- giance to a new Prince, and therefore can no longer ailift him. Anfiver. I anfwer ; This may be called a difficulty in Providence, if you pleafe, but it is no difficulty to the Subject, if he purfue his Duty «i it, unlefs a paffionate affection for the difpofieffed Prince make it a difficulty : but fuch a misfortune as this , can rarely happen to a beloved Prince; and when Subjects are overpowered by force, and can neither defend themfelves, nor their Prince, there is no remedy left but to yield to neceility, and leave every thing elfe to the Di- vine Providence. The Divine Providence has ways and methods of removing Rings, -.and fetting up Kings, whkh we are not aware of, nor concerned to due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 33 to know , becaufe it is no part of our duty : No man could have forefeen,how Ch. II. mould have returned,who had a powerful Army againft him; or J. II. be driven out of his Kingdom,at the Head of a powerful Army, without fhedding of blood. All the Plots and Confpiracies of the Loyal Party were vain, and had no other effect, but to bring fome worthy and gallant Men to an unhappy end ; but what they could not do, God did without them j and all fuch Ca- fes we mud leave to God. But does not this encourage daring and ambitious Spirits to grafp Objefiittt. at Crowns, and invade their Neighbours, when they know thatSuc- cefs gives them Sovereign Authority, and obliges Subjects, not- withitanding all former Oaths, to pay all Duty and Allegiance to them ? Ambitious and daring Spirits need no other encouragement but Anfoer* Power to grafp at Crowns ; and if they have this, they value no more : promife them but Succefs, and they will try, whether Sub- jects will obey or not. I dare fay, fuch men never took it into con- iideration, whether Subjects would think themfelves bound inCon- fcienee to obey them , in cafe they prevailed •, they feldom trouble themfelves about Confcience, but truft to other Arguments to fecurc their Thrones , when they haye once gotten them. And if they take this Doctrine all together, as they mult do, if they encourage their Ambition, by Realon, and Principles, it will give no encou- ragement to Ambitious Spirits without a great dofe of Enthufiafm : For if the Kingdoms of the World be difpofed by God, and no Art ■ or Power can place any Prince on the Throne, but by God's appoint- ment, unlefs they can flatter themfelves , that God has ordain'd them to be Kings, it will check all their ambitious Attempts, which God can fo eafily defeat. But if this Doctrine mould prove inconvenient to Princes , and dangerous to their Thrones ; I am fure the contrary Doctrine is much more dangerous to Subjects, when any fuch Revolution hap- pens ; for it facritices them to the rage and fury of Conquering and Reigning Princes, when they are obliged by Principles of Confci- ence to oppofe and difown their Government , which it is folly to think any Prince will endure; and though I have as great a reve- rence for Princes as any man, I do not think the Right and Intereit. of any Prince fo confiderable , as the Safety and Prefer vation of a Nation, and the Lives and Fortunes of all his Subjects. F It 34 The Cafe of the Allegiance ^ In a word , The Objectors do not think it a diffident Confuta- tion of the Doctrine of Non-refiftanee , and Paffive Obedience , to fay, That this puts it into the King's power, to invade the Laws and Liberties, the Lives and Fortunes, of his Subjects at pleafure ; and yet there is mo ; re danger of this from an Ambitious and Arbi- - trary Prince, than there is, that the Doctrine of Obedience and Sub- million to the Governing Powers, (hould enrourage Ambitious Spi- rits to invade their Neighbours Thrones * the Divine Providence takes care of all fuch extraordinary Cafes, and there we muti leave them. Cbjett, B ut nav e not Pyrates and Robbers as good a Title to my Purfe, as an Llfurper has to the Crown, which he feizes by as manifeit force and violence ? Docs not the Providence of God order and difpofe all thefe events ? And are we not bound then as much to fubmit to Pyrates-, as to Ufurpers ? Anfo, The difpute is not about human and legal Right in either Cafe, but about Authority, which is the only reafon of a confeientious fubjection •, now no Man pretends, that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Authority, to which we muii fubmit •, but the Scripture ex- prefly tells us, That Kingdoms are difpofed by God -, That all Power is of God 5 and therefore when any Prince , by what unjuft means foever , with refpect to Men , is placed in th? Throne , and fetled there, He is advane'd by God, is God's Ordi- nance, God's Minifter, and muft be obeyed for Conscience fake : And therefore the outrages of Thieves and Pyrates are very imper- tinently alledged in this Caufe. They have force and violence, which every Man muft fubmit to, when he cannot help it ; but So- veraign Power is God's Authority, though Princes may be advan- ced to it by no honefter means, than Thieves take a Purfe, or break open my Houfe, and take my Money, or Goods. The beginnings of the four Monarchies were no better, and yet their Power was God's. Objett. But did not Jebojada the High*prieft anoint Joafb the King's Son, anddepofe rndkiMAtbaliab, who had ufurped the Throne for fix aCb. 23. years? And did he think then, that an Ufurper's poffeilion of the i, a. Throne y required the Allegiance and Fidelity and Obedience of the Subject? , ,. _ Anfrv. 1. AH that this Story amounts to, is no more than this, That when the Legal and Rightful Heir is actually pofleffed of his Throne, Subjects may return to their Allegiance, and by the Authority of their King profecute the Ufurper; for Joajh was firft anointed and pro- due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 35 proclaimed, before any one ftirrcd a finger againft Atbaliah: Now this is a very different Cafe from railing Rebellions againft a Prince, who is in the pofleilion of the Throne , to reftore an ejected Prince. 2. But this was a peculiar Cafe i for God himfelf had entailed the Kingdom of Judab on the pofterity of T>avid, and therefore no- thing could juftify their fubmiilion to an Ufurper, when the King's Son was found, to whom the Kingdom did belong by a Divine entail 5 and by this, Jebojada juftifies what he did, Behold, the King's V. 3. fon-.Jhall reign, m the Lord bath [aid of thefons of David. Now when God has entailed the Crown by an exprefs declaration of his Will, and nomination of the Perfon, or Family, that (hall Reign ( as it was in the Kingdom of Judab ) Subjects are bound to adhere to their Prince of Gcd's chuling, when he is known, and to perfe- cute all Ufurpers to the utmoft, and never fubmit to their Govern- ment ; but in other Kingdoms, where God makes Kings, and en- tails the Crown, not by exprefs nomination, but by his Providence, the placing a Prince in the Tyrone, and fetling him there in the full adminiiiration of the Government, is a reafon to fubmit to him, as to God's Ordinance and Minifter. But it is further urged, That according to thefe Principles, all Obje&. Kings are fet v up by God, and yet God exprefly charges Ifrael with making Kings without him, Hofea 8. 4. They have fet up Kings, but not by me i they have made Princes, and I kiievp it not. Now 1. This is not true as to all the Kings of Ifrael, after their Anfr*. feparation from the Tribe of Judab , (or fome of the Kings were iet up by God's own appointment and nomination, as Jeroboam and Jehu, and their poikrity : So that this can be true only of thofe Kings, who Reigned over Ifrael between the Pofterity ot Jeroboam and Jehu, and after the Kingdom was taken from the Line of Jehu. 2 . One of thefe Kings was Baafbah, who flew Nadab the Son of 1 Kings Jeroboam, and made himfelf King without God's exprefs nomina- *?• *7« tion and appointment, and yet God tells him, I exalted thee out of* 6 - 2 - the dufi, and made the Prince onr my people Ifrael. And all the other Kings, who were not nominated by God, nor anointed by any Pro- phet, no more than Baafha was, were yet fet up by God, as he was. •3. The true Anfwer then is this: Ifrael was originally a Theocracy, as well as Judab 5 and though God allowed them at their requeit ' F 2 tg gtf The Cafe of the Allegiance to have Kings, yet he referved the appointment of them tohimfelf ; and therefore, as in the Kingdom of Judab, he entailed the Crown on David's Poftcritj, fo he appointed Jeroboam to be the ririt King in Ifrael, and they ought, when that Line was cut off, to have con- fulted God, and received his nomination, by his Prophets, of a new King j but inltead of that, when Jeroboam's Line, and Jehus, were cut off, who were the only Kings named by God, and a- nointed by his Prophets, they fubmitted to any, who could fet themfelves over them : This was a great fault in a people who were under the immediate Government of God 5 for hereby they fell out of the Itate of Theocracy, into the common condition of the reft of the World, where Kings are fet up by the Providence of God, as Baafha was, but not by his appointment and nomination •» which was the privilege of Ifrael, but which it feems they defpifed and negle&ed, as no privilege or favour*, as great a Crime, asfor£/^« to contemn his Birth-right ; and therefore are very juftly reproved for it by God, and charged with it as a great crime, it being in ef- fect, a renouncing their prerogative, of being God's peculiar Peo- ple. ^dly, To juftify this Doctrine of Obedience and Allegiance to theprtfent Powers, there is an Argument, which I know fome Men will not like, but mult be a good Argument to thofe, who molt fcru- ple the new Oath; viz,. That it is founded on the fame Principle with the Dodtrine of Non-refijiancemd PajJive'obedience.y and therefore both mud be true, or both falfe •> for it is founded on this Principle, That God makes Kings , and invefts them with his Authority -, which equally proves, That all Kings, who have received a Sove- raign Authority from God, and are in the adfual adminiftration of it ( which is the only evidence we have that they have received it from God ) mult be obeyed, and mult not be retifted. Set afide this Principle, That all Soveraign Princes receive their Authority from God, and I grant that Non-retiltance is nonfenfe > for there is no other irretiftible Authority, but that of God. If God have given a Soveraign Authority to them, they are immediately his Minifters, *and unaccountable to their Subjects; but if they receive their Authority from Men, and human Laws, I cannot imagine, that their Power is any more than a Truft, of which they mult give an account to thofe who have entrulted them with it, according to th«feLaws, by which they were entrulted to exercife that Power 5 for whether there be any expr^fs provifion made in the Law to call them due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 37 them to an account or not, the nature of the thing proves, that if they receive their Power from Men, they are accountable to them 5 for thofe who give Power, may take an account of the ufe and abufe of it. I am fure St. Fanl, who molt exprefiy teaches this Doctrine of Rom. 13. Non-refiftance, joyns thefe two together, Obedience to the prefent Powers, and Non-reliftance, and deduces them both from the fame Principle, That all Power is of God: Let every foul be fubjetl to the higher powers, for all power U of God ; the powers that he, are ordained of God', he therefore that refijieth the power, refijieth the ordinance of God, and they that refijt, fhati receive to thetnfelves damnation. And Bp. OveraFs Convocation Book^, which is lately publifhed, the principal defign of which is to affert the irrefiftible Authority of Sovereign Princes, does as plainly affert this too, That all fetled Governments, whatever their beginnings were, have God's Au- thority, and mult be obeyed ', of which, more above : For thofe wife Men , who fate in that Convocation, plainly faw the necef- fary connexion between Non-refiftance, and Obedience to the pre- fent Powers; both which were equally refolved into the Authority of God, in removing Kings, and fetting up Kings. So that Obe- dience and Allegiance to the prefent Powers, when they are once well fetled among us, is fo far from being a renouncing of the Dodrine of Non-refiftance and Paffive-obedience, that thofe who re- fufe to comply, muft renounce the only Principle whereon that Dodtrine is reafonably founded, and confequentially renounce the Do&rine it felf. $thly, To fay, That when the Divine Providence has removed one King, and fet up another, we muft not own this new Prince, nor pay the Duty of Subjects to him, if he have no Legal Right, is to deny God's Authority to remove Kings, or to fet up Kings againlt Human Law ; for he cannot make a King , if he cannot oblige us to obey him \ nor can he remove a King, if he cannot difcharge us from cur Allegiance to him ; and thofe are bold men who will venture to fay,in plain contradi&ion to Scripture, that God cannot remove or fet up Kings. $tb!y. Nay this limits the Providence of God, in governing Kings, and protecting Innocent and Injured Subjects : We fay, the Punilh- ment of Sovereign Princes, who are unaccountable to their Subjects, is peculiar to God, who is the King of kings ; and thus we anfwer the Qbje&ions againlt Non-Refiftance, That if Princes abufe their 297586 Pwer ' 38 The Cafe of the Alkgiance Power, God will punifh them for it, and deliver their oppreiled Subje&s; but it feems God has no way to do this, but either to turn their hearts,or to take them out of the Worlds for he cannot remove •them from the Throne $ or if he does, the Subjects are never the- better for it ; for they muit not own any other Prince, though he would be never fo kind to them j but muft bring new calamities upon themfelves by an obftinate adhering to their old Prince , and provoking the new one: This feems very hard, that when God has actually delivered us, we muft refufeour deliverance; That we will not allow God to deliver us, unlefs {ic do it by Law •, as if God were as much confined to human Laws, as Men are : It is enough, merhinks, if we fuffer patiently, without violating the Laws to de- liver our felves; but let God who is above all human Laws, deli- ver us what way he pleafes. 6tbly, That which is (till more confiderable, is the neceffity of Government to preferve human Societies * for human Societies muit notdhTolve Into a Mobj or Mr. Hobbs's ftare of Nature, becaufe the Legal Prince has lolt his Throne, and can no longer govern. Bitiiop Sanderfon tells us, That the end of Civil Government, and of that Obedience which is due to it, is the Safety and Tranquility of Hu- man Societies*, and therefore whatever is necefTary and ufeful to this end, becomes our Duty •, for the End prefcribes the Means. ejl, eat eviu fieri oportet, in quantum eifini confequendo neceffariwn vel utile videbittir. Civilis ttutem regiminu, ejufque qua ipfi debit a efl obedient id, finis eji, humana Societatis falus &■ tran- fuihtas. De Oblig. Confc. Prael. 5. Sett. 19. And therefore this Great Man, and the moft zealous Loyalifls, do own it lawful for Subje&s fo pay fome kind of fubmiflion, and com- pliance, to Ufurped Powers. Let us then examine what it is they al- low, and whether it anfwers the great End , which gives Law in all thefe Cafes, The fafety and tranquility of Human Societies. They grant then, that we may obey the Laws of fudi a Prince, who has no Right or Authority to make them, it they amain no- thing which is imful (which is an exception againiV all Laws, whatever Prince makes them) ard may defend ourCountrey againft a Foreign Enemy,, -mayadminiftcr Juitice to reward the Good, x ar,d punifh the Vv Lked, and preferve the Trade and Commerce of the Nation : but then we mult have no. regard to the Authority of the Prince, nor of his Laws •, for he has r.o Authority, and his Laws do not oblige the Confcience •, but we may thus far comply to preferve our Stuicquid en im finis tlicujus gratia fa- ciendum Ibid. Se& 16,17,18, 19. due to Sovereign Powers , Sec. 3P ourfelves, our Lives, arrd Fortunes, and Eftates, and for the good of the Community ,and out of gratitude to the Reigning Prince for his protection , and the many Bleilings they enjoy under his Govern- ment ; though a late Writer thinks this gratitude a little too much, and not owing to an Vfurper-, which feems ll range $ for I v\ ill thank any man, and make grateful Returns too of his kind nefs, who has power ( whatever his Authority be ) to do me hurt, and does me none, but a great deal of good. I am forry Loyalty , which is a very great Virtue, (hould put men out of conceit with any kind or inftances of Gratitude ; which I think is not a kfs Virtue than that. But tho 1 greatly reverence the profound Judgment of Biftiop San- derfon, I cannot be of his mind in this pointy if the Safety and Tranquility of Human Societies requires any thing of us, it both re- quires and jultirits a great deal more. For 1. As he ftates the matter, this deftroys Civil Government, and a governed Society, for here is neither King, nor Subject, no , Authority to Command, nor Duty to Obey j and I fuppofe no Man, who conliders it well, will call this a Civil Government, or a Ci- vil Society, to which Authority and Obedience is Effential: He would have a Civil Society preferved, this is the fundamental Law of all j but he will allow no Authority to fupport it , which is as vain a defign , as to refolve to maintain the Superltrudure , but to take away the Foundation. The Prince governs by force without Authority j the Subject obeys for fear or gratitude, without a fenfe of Duty, which may laft as long as the Prince has Power, or the Subjects are in good Humour , and no longer , and is this a fure. bottom, for the Safety and Tranquility of Human Societies ? If Hu- man Societies muft be preferved, then the neceflities of Government give Authority to the Prince , and lay an Obligation of Duty on the Subject; if Gcd will preferve Human Societies, we muft . conclude, that when he removes one King out of the Throne, he gives his Authority to him whom he places there 5 for without Authority , Human Societies muft disband ; Power may tye them together a while, but can never unite them into a. Civil Body, without the Bands and Ligaments of Duty and Con- fcience. 2. For I would ask, Whether the care of my own Prefervation, and the publick Duty, and Gratitude to the Government for my Protection, do oblige me in Conscience to obey and fubmit to the Government, and the Prince who Governs, and to wilh and pray. for, 4o The Cafe of the Allegiance for, and do my utmoft to endeavour their Profperity ? If it does, I fee no difference between this and Allegiance ; and what I am bound in Counfcience to do, I may fwear to do: If it does not, then I am at Liberty to difturb the Government, notwithstanding all my gratitude , when I can •, nay , am under Obligation by my Al- legiance to the Difpoffeifed Prince , to do it when I can \ and how does this contribute to the Safety and Tranquility of Human Socie- ties? 3. Suppofe then the Government does not think its felf fafe, to leave all Men at Liberty to difturb it when they pleafe, and when they have a promifmg Opportunity to do it , but (hould require an Oath of Fidelity from them, which , we fee, is the univerfal Pra- ctice of all Governments ; what (hall Subjects do in this " Cafe? According to thefe Principles , no Subject , when his Rightful Prince, to whom he owed, or to whom he had fworn Allegiance (which the Bifhop makes the fame Cafe) is difpoffeifed, ought to fwear Fidelity and Allegiance to any other Prince j and now, then let us fuppofe, that they all did their Duty, and refufed this Oath, and the Prince had power enough to compel them 5 what mult be the effect of this , but the utter Ruin and Deftruction of the Nati- on? The Land, indeed, would remain as it was, and where it was, for that can't be removed $ but the People of it muft either be deftroyed, or imprifoned, or tranfplanted into fome Foreign Coun- tries , as was formerly practiced in the Eaftern Conquefts , witncfs the Ten Tribes, who were carried away Captive, and the Country new peopled ; and is not this a DhTolution of Human Society ? And if the Prefervation of Human Society, be the great ultimate end of Government, and will juftify what it makes neceffary, nothing can be a Duty, which if univcrfally obferved , mult unavoidably in all fuch Revolutions of Government, deftroy Human Socie- ties. For to fay, That it can never be fuppofed , that all, or the great- eft part of any Kingdom in fuch Revolutions will adhere to their Duty, and obftinately refufe to fwear Allegiance to a new Prince , and that is fufficient to preferve the Nation, tho fome few confcien- tious People fuffer by it, does not alter the Cafe ; for ft ill , accord- ing to thefe Principles, Human Societies in fuch Pvevolutions can- not be preferved without Sin ; for if all Men did their Duty, they muft all be deftroyed: Now, I believe it will be hard to perfwade due to Sovereign Power s, &c. 41 any confidcring Men , that that which in fuch Cafes is necelfary to preferve a Nation, is a Sin; and that which will infallibly deftroy it, is a Duty and Virtue ; if we allow the fafety and prefervation of Human Societies, to be the great Law. of all. 4. I obferve further, that as cautious as the Bilhop is, That wc fliould pay Obedience to Ufurped powers, without owning their' Au- thority ; yet he is forced to allow us to do fuch things for the pub- lick Good, as cannot be done without owning the Authority ; as the Defence of our Country againlt a Foreign Enemy, and the Ad- miniltration of publick Juitice; for this mult be done by Commif- lion from the King, and, Ifuppofe, to take aCommiilion from him, owns his Authority , and owns it to be a good Authority ; for if they hang any Man either by Military Discipline, or Civil Jullice, and have not good Authority for it , they are Murderer's. The truth is, to exercife all the Adts of Civil Government, which are necelfary for the Community, without owning the Authority of the Prince, in whofe Name , and by whofe Authority all is tranf- acted, is a Riddle to me^ if we mull not own the Authority of the Prince, we mult do nothing by his Authority, and then Civil Go- vernment in fuch Cafes mutt ceafe, and Human Societies diflolve. So that the. prefervation of Human Societies does of necellity force us to, own the Authority, even of Vfurped Powers - , and if the prefer- vation of Human Societies be the end of Civil Government, and the reafon of that Obedience which we owe to Government, as the Bi(h)p alTerts; then when an obitinate Allegiance to the DifpoiTclfcd Prince mutt diifolve Civil Government, the reafon of that Allegi- ance ceafes , and therefore that Allegiance mutt be at an end ; and when x^llegiance to Ufurped Powers, is necelfary to the prefervation of the Society, it mull become a. Duty. 5. The Bijhop refolves all this into the prefumed Content of the ibid. Se8. eje&ed Prince, that his Subjects ihould rather confult their own fafety by a modeit compliance with the prefent Powers, than bring certain Ruin upon themfelves by an unfeafonable Oppofition : Now tho 1 confefs, I lay no ftrefs upon a prefumed Confent; yet, if wc will prefume, we Ihould prefume all that is reafonable, that is, all that is necelfary for the Prefervation of his Subje&s, when he can govern them, and protect them no longer 5 and then we may pre- iumehis Confent to Oaths of Allegiance and Fidelity, when this is necelfary to their prefervation ; and I can very ealily prefume, that Princes think this a lels fault, than fome Subjects do; they know G what 21. 4-2 The Cafe of the Allegiance what they themfelves expedfrom Subjeds, where they have Power, whatever their Right be, and therefore cannot complain of their Subjeds, it they pay it to another Prince, in whofe Power they are -, this is the Pradicc of the whole World, and Princes know in and may as reafonably be prefumed to'allow it, as any other Ad of Obedience and Subjection to Ufurped Powers. And tho I will not meddle with that Queftion , Whether a King's leaving his Kingdom in a great Fright, without any one to Govern and Pro- tect his Subjeds , be to all intents and purr, ofes an Abdication of the Government > Yet one may reafonably prefume , that a King, who forfakes his Kingdom to confult his own Safety, will give his Subjeds leave to confult theirs ^ if this will jufiity a King to- fave himfelf by leaving his Kingdom ; why will it not juMy Sub- jects, when their King has left them, to lubmit and comply with the prevailing Powers, as far as is neceffary to preferve themfelves ? That is, even by Oaths of Allegiance, if that be neceffary: Self- prefer vation is as much a Law to Subjeds, as to the Prince; and he is as much fworn to Govern and Pro ted his Subjeds , as they are to Obey and Defend him; and if the neceffities of Self-prelervati- on abfolve him from his Oath of governing and proteding his People y I deiire to know, why the fame necelfity will not abfolve Subjeds from their Oaths to their Prince ? Protedion and Allegi- ance are not fo reciprocal , as to be the neceffary Conditions of each other ; that if a Prince violate his Oath of Governing by Law, and inflead of Proteding does Opprefs his Subjeds , Subjeds are then freed from their Oath ot Allegiance, and may take Arms againlt their Prince ; for tho Protedion and Defence are the Duties of Pve- laiives, of a Prince and his Subjeds ; yet they are not neceffarily fuch Relative Duties, as thai neither of them can be performed unlets both be. A Prince may govern by Law , and proted his Subjeds, and yet m Fad they deny their Allegiance to him ; and Subjeds may pay their Allegiance to their Prince when he Oppref- fcs"them» thefe Duties may be diftindly and feparately obferved, and therefore do not in their own Nature, either infer or deltroy each other. But Government and Allegiance are fuch Rela- tives, as do mutuo fe pvnere & tol'ere ; the one cannot fubfi& ■without, the other : if the Prince can't Govern , the Subjed can't Obey -■> and therefore , as tar as he quits his Government , he ^uits their Allegiance, and leaves hisSubjeds as he does his Crown, 40 be poijfcffed by. another > ar^d mull recover them both together. He due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 45 He may have a Legal Right to both, but he cannot actually have the Subjects Allegiance without the Crown ; nor can Subjects pay him their Allegiance, without his being reftored to the Poifeilion of his Throne, no more than they can obey, when he v can't command ; or fubmit, when he has no Power to govern ; or defend his Perfon and Crown, when he has withdrawn his Perfon, and left his Crown. This is as certain as any Proportion in Logick^s and to extend Alle- giance beyond the Actual Adminilrrationof Government, is to pre- (erve a Relative without its Correlate : for when one of the Rela- tives is loit, the Relation is deftroyel, and notliing but the Memory of it left. "Jtbly, Thefe Principles anfwer all the ends of Government, both for the fecurity of the Prince and Subjects, and that is a good Argument to believe them true. A Prince who is in PofTetlion, is fecured in Poffeilion by them, (as far as any Principles can fecure him ) againit all Attempts of his Subjects, who mult reverence God's Authority in him j and fubmit to him without Refinance, though they are ill ufed. They will not indeed ferve the Revolutions of Government, to remove one King, and fet up another •, and if they would, Princes might be jealous of them ; for whatever Service they might do them at one turn, they might do them as great Differ vice at another: The Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty, but God's Prerogative ; and therefore it is not likely that he has pre- fcribed any certain Rules or Methods for the overturning and changing Government, which he keeps in his own hands, and which when he fees tit to do it, he never wants ways and means of doing. But when any Prince is fetled in the Throne, by what means fo- cver it be, thefe Principles put an end to all difputes of Right and Title, and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Confcience, an J a Reverence of God's Authority ; which is the fafteft hold he can poilibly have of them j for thofe whom Religion will not bind, no- thing but Force can. And therefore thefe are the only Principles which in fuch Revo- lutions can make Government eafie both to Prince and People j and if Government muft be preferved in all Revolutions, thofe are the beft Principles which are mod for the eafe and fafety of it. But 011 the other hand, fuch an immoveable and unalterable Al- legiance, as is thought due only to a Legal Right and Title, aud G 2 "*mft 44 Th e C a f e °f the Allegiance mult be paid to none, but to a Legal and Rightful Prince, ferves n© ends of Government at all 5 but overturns all Government, when fuch a Prince is difpoiTeiTedof his Throne, how longfoever he con- tinue difpolfefled : And what long Inter-regnwns may this occalion, to the ditto! ution of Human Societies ? If you fay that this is the belt Principle to prevent all Revolutions of Government, when it is known, that Subjects arc bound in Con- fcience not to fubmit to any Illegal and Ufurpinp, Powers ; and this •is very much for the peace and fecurity of Uvaran Societies •, I anfwer, 1. If this Principle would prevent all Revolutions of Govern- ment, it is a demonftration againit it, that it is a bad Principle, a meer Human Invention, which cannot come from God. For iince God has referved tohimfelf his Sovereign Prerogative of removing Kings, and fetting up Kings ; fince this is fometimes neceffary for the prefervation of the Church, and the deliverance of the Good from Oppreffion and Tyranny, and for the juft Punifliment either of King or People ; it is impoffible that he mould give any fuch Laws to mankind, as (hall debar him from the exercife of this Preroga- tive, in whatwayhepleafes* yet it is certain God cannot make Kings, if he cannot oblige Subjects to obey them 5 and that he can- not do, if they muft obey and fubmit only to Legal Kings. z. It is evident, That this Principle was either unknown to the World before, ( and that is an argument that i* is not the natural fenfe of mankind ), or elfe, That this Principle cannot prevent the Revolutions of Government -, for there have been fuch Revolu- tions in all Ages, and I believe will be to the end of the World. 3. Since then fuch Pvevolutions will happen, fuch Principles as mult dilTolve Human Societies , when fuch Revolutions happen, or expofe the molt innocent and confeientious men to the greatelt Suf- ferings, without ferving any good end by them, cannot be true; 1 the end of Government is the Prefervation of Human Societies, •md therefore that can benogood Principle of Government, which in any turn of Affairs , if purfued , muft diffolve Human So- cieties. Nor can that be a true Principle, which at any time obliges ho- ne fi men to lofe their Lives,their Eftatcs,their Liberties.moppofition to the Government of the Nation wherein they live, wficn they .y prtierve them all by Obedience and Submillion to the Govern- ment: I. am fure the Scripture teaches us to 'fuffer patiently in Obe- dience due to Sovereign Powers, &c. 45 dienceto Government, but not to fuffer in Oppofition to it : And when the very Reafon of our Obedience to Government, is for the prefervationof Human Societies, and that we our felvesmay enjoy the BlelTings of Government, it fcems very ltrange to extend this Duty to the overthrow of Human Societies, and to deny our felves the Security and the Bkilings of Government ; which is to extend a Duty to fuch cafes, as contradict the only Reafon, whereon that Duty is founded. It is true, we mult in all cafes be contented to furTer in doing our Duty ; for we mult chufe rather to fuffer than to fin 5 and it is no Argument that any thing ceafes to be my Duty, becaufe it expofes me to Suffering: But then we mull be very fure that it is our Duty ; that it is exprelly enjoynedus by the Laws of God or Nature, before we venture to futfer for it : But when we are to learn our Duty, not from any exprefs Law of God o: Nature, but from the Rea- fon and Nature of things, it is a fufficient Argument, that is not my Duty, which willexpofeme to great Sufferings, without ferving any good end 5 nay, which expofes me to Sufferings for contradict- ing the natural end and intention of that Duty, for which I pretend to fuffer. 4. But let us grant th it this Principle is the bed Security to the Rights of Princes i is the Right of any Prince fo Sacred as to Irani in competition with the very being of Human Societies , and the fafety and prefervation of all his Subjeds ? And mult we then de- fend a Prince's Right, with the deftrudion of the Nation, and the Ruin of ail his Subjeds ? Which is molt neceffary, That the Nati- on (hould be governed, or, That fuch a Prince mould govern it ? -And if he be driven out of his Kingdoms, and cannot govern, muff. we then - have no Government ? Or how Ihall the Nation be govern- ed, if Subjeds are bound in confeience to obey, and pay Allegiance to no other Prince ? This is to make all mankind the Slaves and Properties of Princes 5 as if all men were made for Princes, not Princes for the government of men. This, 1 think, is abundantly fufficient to juitirie our Obedience ani Allegiance to the prefent Powers, though it ■mould at any time happen, that the Legal and Rightful Prince mould lofe his Throne. But there is a great prejudice agamri all this j for fo I call it, ra- ther than an Oajedion ; for there is no Argument in it, nor can it be . formed into an Argument , viz. that this will equally ferve all Revo- lutions of Government, whatever they be; Upon theie Principles we might ^6 The Cafe of the Allegiance might fubmit and fwear to a Rump Parliament^ or to another Ptotettor, or to a Committee of Safety^ or whatever elfe you pleafe : And yet under that Usurpation, the Loyal Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy, thought themfelves bound in Confcience to oppofe that Ufurpation at their utmoft peril ; And (hall we Arraign them all, as relinking God's Ordinance by their oppofition to thoieUfurped Powers, and their attempts to reftore their King to his Throne ? This, as I obferved, is a great prejudice, but no Argument j for if thefe Principles be true, and according to thefe Principles they might have complied with thofe Ufurpations j that they did not, is no confutation of them. But yet, I fuppofe, all Men fee avaft difference between thefe two Cafes \ it is evident thofe Loyal persons, both of the Clergy and Laity, who fuffered in the former Caufe, and have now com- plied with the prefent Government, think there is a valt difference between them; and mult think themfelves more reproached and injured by fuch a Companion; than by fuch Principles as juftify their prefent compliance: And the great Body of the Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy, who have fworn Allegiance to their prefent Majetties, would take it very ill to be thought lefs Loyal than thofe were, who fuffered for King Charles I. and IT. under thofe Ufur- pers ; and therefore they alfo mu# apprehend a valt difference be- tween thefe two cafes. But what is it that makes this difference ? If you will allow the fuppolltion, That the Rightful King is difpoffeffed 5 and that in fuch a cafe it is lawful to comply with any Government, which be- comes the fetled Government of the Nation. lanfwer; The difference is very great upon all accounts ; and that no man may wonder at the obfiinate Loyalty of thofe days, and the eafie and ready compliances now, ("from whence fome men conclude a renouncing the Principles of the old Church-of- EwgAW-Loyalty, to the great fcandal of Religion), I (hall (how the difference upon many accounts \ and all together will be more than anfwer enough. 1. Firft then, The great Villanies of thofe days, in an open and bare-fae'd Rebellion, perfifted in after the molt Gracious Offers •nd Condefcentions ■, and in the Barbarous Murder of one of the lAtl\ Princes in the World, was enough to prejudice wife and good men, againit all compliances, though they had been lawful •, for who that could poifibly avoid it, would fubmit to fuch men ? 2. The due to Sovereign Power s> &c. 47 r. The barbarous Ufage the King's Friends met with, made a Sabmilli >n aiid Compliance ufelefs and impoilible : Thofe who had fought for their King, or expreO any diflikeof thofe Proceedings, whom they had any jealoutie or fufpicion of, or whofe Eitates they had a mind to pofiefs thcrafelves of, were plundered, fequeitred, imprifoned, forced to fculk and hide at home, or flie abroad, to preferve their Lives and Liberties. 3. BifbopS) T)eans, and Frebendaries were turned out, and their Lands and Revenues fold ; the Loyal Clergy were Malignant! for what they had done 5 and had no way to keep their Livings, efpeci- ally if they were of any Value, but by renouncing the Church of England, as well as by Submiilion to that Government, which I believe, notwithstanding their ready compliance in taking the Oaths, the Clergy at this day would more univerfally have refufed, than they did then. 4*/;/y, Another difficulty was, That the whole Government both of Church and State was overturned, which was the Fundamental Conftttution of the Nation : The King was not only Murdered, and the Rightful Heir driven out of the Land, but the Monarchy it felf wasdeftroyed, and neither King, Lords, nor Commons, leff, but a few of the Houfe of Commons, who by Force and Power had turned the reft out of doors, undertook to govern all, in the name of the Commons of England •> which was fuch an Invafion oiv the Rights and Liberties of their. Countrey, ( which are as facred as the Rights of the King ), as required the utmoft oppoiition that could be made. And it may be, if it be well contidered, the De- fence of Monarchy, and the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown, will appear a very material part of the Oath of Allegiance, which may bind Subjects when the Pcrfon of the King is changed \ and may make them think themfelves more obliged to reftore fuch a Prince, when they cannot rettare Monarchy, and the Ancient Laws and Government of the Nat. on without him. 5-. And moreover it is plain, That their Government was never fetled ; it was frequently changed, and new modelled, which was no Argument of Settlement; and which is more than that, they had not a National Confent and Submiilion. Men, who were forced, fubmitted to force -, but the Nation did not by any N ational Ad ever own them ; for I think the Rump-Parlumenty who were the Ufurpers themfelves ; or fome little packt Conventicles^ rather than Parlimmts, could not be calted the Reprefentatives of the Nation. This - 4& The Cafe of the Allegiance This feems to be muchlike the Cafe which Bifhap Owral's Gmvoc*- ^B^meiKions- in relation to Jntiodw, who had by force kept the Jar, m fubjedion for feme years;, and yet when MattathL took Arms in defence of their Religion, they juftify this A&ion by faying, That the Government oi Antiocbus was not fetled among them either by Submijjion or Continuance ; that is, tho People were forced to fubmit to Power, his Government was not owned by any Publick, National Submiffioiii and in fuch Cafes a long continuance is required to fettle a Government h whereas a'Nationai Submiffion fettles a Government in a fhort timers we may conclude from what they tell us of the Settlement of Alexander's Government among the . Jews who was but a very little while with them ; but Jaddm the %/>Pr/# arid the Governing-part of the Nation fubmittine to him ; this ietled his Government in a few days. This (hows how unlike all this was to our prefent Cafe in every particular; that thofe who thought it their Duty never to fubmit to that wicked Ufurpation, are now fatisried, they may fubmit with a good Confcience to their prefent Majejiies. In our prefent Cafe, all things are quite contrary to what they were in the former ; every thing concurred to make the Nation fond or fuch a Change, and very eafy under ir. King James, more,! [hope, by following ill Counfels,than by his own Inclination, had effectually removed all Prejudices and Objections againft fuch a Revolution, excepting the Obligations of Duty and Conlcicnce. In the late times of Rebellion and Ufurpation , all the Friends of Monarchy, and of the En&Jh Government, and of the Church of England, and of the Liberties of their Country, and of their own Ho- nours and Fortunes, were bound inlnterefttotakeall Opportunities to reftore the King In our late Revolution, the very fame Reafons and Intereas difpofed all Men to be very well contented to part with their King, if they had known how to do it honeitly ; for the Con- tinuance of his Government, by the bold Steps, and extraordi. ary Methods he had taken, gave them great Appreh'eniions that all rhefe were m danger, even the Rights and Prerogatives of the Crown it ielf (the prefervation of which was a main end of the Oath of Alle- giance) by his Submiffion to the See of 'Rom?, and rejeding theOath of Supremacy, and as far as he could, abfolving his Subjects from it - and yet in that Oath alone, we Swear to the Lawful Su:ceiFor, in Op- position to the pretences of the Bifhop of Rome, to depofe, and fet up Kings at p!eafure,for the Service of the Church. This due to Sovereign Powers ', &c. 49 This helpt fome Men eafily to abfblve themfelves from the Obligation of their Oaths ; for they could not think, that Oaths, which were made and impofed for the Prefervation of a Prote- flant Prince, and the Proteftant Rights and Liberties of Churc'h and State, could oblige thern to defend and maintain a Prince in his Ufiirpations, as they thought, on both. This made his Subjects, and even his Army defert his Service, when the Prince came with a Foreign Force ; and this made it neceflary for him to leave the Kingdom, and to leave his SubjeAs in the Hands of the Prince ; which made an eafie way for the Prince to be placed on the Throne. Now not to difpute the legality of all this, here was nothing fb formidable, as to prejudice an honed Man againft fubmiflion and compliance, as there was in the late times of Rebellion ; no- thing that could reafonably hinder a compliance, but an Opini- on, that we mufl never pay Allegiance to any buta Legal King; and poffibly had that Point been waved ; no Proteftant would have difputed a quiet and chearful fubmiflion to the Govern- ment. To fight againft a King, and not to fight for him, I think are two very different things ; and when Kings make it impoflible to fight for them, without fighting againft the Religion and Li- berties of our Country, they may thank them felves, if their Sub- jects cannot defend them. This is a dangerous ftate Princes bring themlelves into, efpecially where there are different Per- fuafibns in a Nation: whenfbme Men think, they may lawfully defend their Religion and Liberties againft the Ufurpations of their Prince ; and others think, they are not bound to defend and maintain their Prince in his illegal Usurpations on their Re- ligion and Liberties ; for a little oppofition without any defence will quickly ruin any Prince. To take a Crown from a Prince, and his Liberty and Life with it, and to fuffer him to leave his Crown if he pleafes, and to defert his Government, are two very different things. I cannot indeed think f neither do I believe, that any body elic does) that for a King to leave his Crown and Government in a fright is in all cafes neceflarily to be interpreted fuch an Abdica- tion as is equivalent to a voluntary Resignation ; whereby he re- nounces all future Right and Claim to it. But if he have re- duced himfelf to fuch a ftate, that he is forced for his own pre- H fervatiGii 50 The Cafe of the Allegiance fervation to leave his Kingdom and Government ; ic is plain^ that in fbme fence he leaves his Throne vacant too ; that is, there is no body in it, no body in the actual Administration of the Government. Thus far I think Subje&s may be very guiltlefs, who do not drive the King away, but only fiifFer him quietly to efcape out of his Kingdoms; for this is no Rebellion, no Refinance , but only Non- .-tjjiftartce, which may be very innocent : for there are fbme cafes, wherein Subjeds are not bound to affifl their Prince ; and if ever there were fuch a cafe, this was it. What then mall Subjects do, when the King is gone, and the Government DifTolved, the People left in the Hands of another Prince, without any Reafbn, or any Authority, or any formed Power, to oppofe him ? The Government muft be Adminiftred by fbme body, unlefs we can be contented, that the Rabble mould Govern. But I mail not meddle with that Interval, between the going away of the King, and the Prince's coming to the Throne ; but only cofider him as placed in the Throne, and fettled there. And now we can find no alteration in the Ancient Govermentof the Nation, but only the exchange of Perfbns ; and all things concur to make this a very advantageous and acceptable Change, ex- cepting fuch difficulties, as ufaally accompany fiich Revolutions. The Monarchy is the fame ftill, and the Three Efiates of the Na- tion the fame ; the Church of England, and the Laws and Liber- ties of the Nation fecured ; and no profpeft of fecuring them by any other means: fo that here is nothing to prejudice any Man againft the prefent Government, or to make the Reftoration of the difpofleffed Prince neceflary, as there was in the late Ufur- pation, but only a miflaken Notion of Allegiance to that Prince, whom we fuppofe to have the legal Right though he be difpof fefled, and another Eftabliftied in his Throne ; which I have alreadly proved to be a miftake. But not to difpute the legal Right (which is nothing to my pre- fent purpofe) here is a fettled Government, which was not in the former Cafe. Their prefent Majefiies are in the full Poffeflion of the Throne, and Adrainiftration of the Government by a National (ubmifli- on and confent ; for though fome Men difpute, whether a Con- vention of the Eftates, not called by the Kiags Writ be a legal Parliament, due to Sovereign Towers, Sec. 5 1 Parliament, yet all Men mull confefs, that they are the Reprefen- tacives of the Nation; or elfe a Nation can have no Reprefenta- tives, when it has no King in the Throne, or when there is any difpute about the Title to the Crown. Now, though this might be improved farther, I /hall content my felf only to fay ; that the confent and fubmiffion of the Con- vention, efpecially when confirmed by fubfequent Parliaments, is a National A&, and makes a Settlement of the Government, efpecially fince the generality of the Nation have (b willingly and chearfully fubmitted, and bound their Allegiance by Oath; which is a very different thing from fubmitting to mere force, when the inclination of the Nation (lands bent another way; when there is nothing but mere force, it may admit fbme difpute, when the Government is fettled ; but though in fbme cafes, it may be hard to determine, when the Government is fb fettled, as to make Allegiance due; this is no reafonto deny Allegiance, when there is a viffible Settlement. If this be not a fettled Go- vernment, I know not what is ; I am fure, we have reafon to pray for the continuance of it ; when nothing can unfettie it, but fuch a Power, as will overturn our Religion and Liberties with it. It is indeed commonly laid, as I obferved before, thac the fubmiflion of the People without the fubmiflion of the Prince, cannot transfer the Government ; by which they may mean the legal Right of Government: Now to avoidunnecef fary Difputes, fuppolethis were true; yet the fubmiflion of the People, when their Pnnce has left them, if it cannot give a legal Right to another Prince, yet it may give an actual Settlement to him ; and that is all we are enquiring after. This 1 think is a fufficient anfwer to that odious Companion between the late Ufiirpations, and this prefent Revolution. I mall conclude the whole with anfwering an Obje&ion, Objeft. which many, who refute the Oaths, place great confidence in ; and that is from the Laws of the Land : In all fuch cafes as thefe, the Laws, they fay, are the meaiure or our Duty, and the Rule of Confcience, and therefore we muft own no King, but whom the Law owns to be King ; that is, in an Hereditary Monarchy, the right Heir : and to pay and (wear Allegiance to any other Prince, though polfeffedof the Throne, when the rightful King is difpofldl.ed, or the right Heir Jiving, is contrary toW duty to God, becaufe contrary to the Laws of the Land. Ha I, In 52 Tl?e Cafe of the Allegiance Anfw. I . In anfwer to this I confider ; this is no real Objection againfl any thing, I have faid; but all that I have (aid, if it prove true, is a diffident anfwer to this : The Laws of the Land are the Rule of Corifcience, when they do not contradict the Laws of God : but when they do, they are no Rule to us; but their obligation muft give place to a Divine Authority. Suppofe then there were an exprefs Law, that the Subjects of England mould own no King, but the right Heir; and notwithstanding this Law (as it will fbmetimes happen, and has often happened in England) a Prince who is not the right Heir, mould get into the Throne, and fettle himfelf there: If the Divine Law in fiicha cafe, com- mands us to pay all the obedience and duty of Subjects, to a Prince in the actual Poileflton of the Throne, and the Law of the Land forbids it, which muft we obey, theiLaw of God, or rhe Law of the Land ? This, I think is no difpute ; and therefore it is in vain to urge the Laws of the Land in any cafe, where we are under a Superior Authority : let them firft prove that no King is fee up by God againft the Laws of the Land ; and then I will confefs, we muft own none but legal Kings, for we muft own no Kings, whom God does not make, and who have not Gods Authority. 2. The Englifli Monarchy is Hereditary, and the lineal Heir has the legal Right to the Grown; grant this: but ftill we muft confider, now far this is a Law to all private Subjects ; how far every Subject is bound in Confcience by this Conftitution, to give the Pofleflion of the Grown to the right Heir, and not to fufFer any one ehe to take it ; or it he do, not to pay Allegiance to him, or own him for his King. What Law is there, that fays this I And 1 think, the reafon of the thing does not prove it. The Law does not refer the Cognizance of fuch matters to private Subjects ; and therefore they are not by Law bound to take care of it, and I know nothing but Law can bind us to a legal Conftitution, Legal Rights muft be determined by a legal Authority ; and there is no Authority can take Cognizance of the Titles and Claims of Princes, and the difpoial of the Crown, but the Efiates of the Realm : They indeed are obliged to take notice of the legal Delcent of the Crown, and if through miftake or any other caufe, they fet the Crown upon a wrong Head, they muft an- fwer for it ; but private Subjects, who have no legal Cognizance of the matter, are bound by no Law, that I know of, to difbwn a King, due to Sovereign Towers, Sec. y g a King, whom the Eftates have owned, though they ftiould think the Right is in another. If Authority may not over-rule private Subjects in thefe cafes, even againft their own private Opinions, and juftifie their Obedience to a King, who is placed in the Throne, Subjects are in a very ill cafe, who have no Authority to Judge, and no Power to Refill : There are numerous cafes, wherein Subjects muft acquiefce in the determinations of a legal Authority againft what they think a legal Right : the realbn and neceffities of Government require it ; and the Law, which gives a Right, will not allow us to vindicate our Right againft a legal Authority. And therefore it does not follow merely from the Law of Succeffion, that Subjects are bound in Conference to own no King, who is not the rightful Heir: And Duty and Con fci- ence in Obedience to Laws, is the only thing I am now inquiring after. 3. Tho I have not skill enough in Law, to know certainly what our Conftitution allows in this point ; yet it is the declared Judgment of fome of the beft Lawyers of former day?, and fo far as I can learn, the moft common and prevailing Opinion ftill, That our Laws do allow and require Allegiance to a King defablo, who is in Poileffion of the Throne without a legal Right. And this they have done in the Reigns of legal and rightful Kings, as my Lord Cb. Jufi. Coke, the Judges in Bazget\ Cafe, ray Lord Cb. Juft. Hales, my Lord Cb. Juft. Bridgman in the Try- al of the Regicides, in Anfwer to Cook's Plea ; who allowed the Law, but would not allow his Cafe to be within the purview of it. Now when the Difpute is meerly about the Senfe of the Law, to judge rightly of which, requires fome skill in Law, and a great deal more than I can pretend to ; Which is the fafeft way to refblve my Confcience? Whether to adhere to my own Judgment, againft the Judgments and Opinions of the ableft Judges and Lawyers ? or to rely on their Judgments ( when learned Men generally agree in it) tho I do not comprehend the Reafbns of their Opinions ? In moral and natural Duties, which every Man may and muft underftand for himfelf, the Cafe is different ; we muft not there rely wholly upon Authority, efpecially not againft the Reafbn and Sentiments of our own Minds, tho Authority is in that Cafe of great ufe to over-rule meer Doubts and Scruples; but when the Cafe of Confcience is a meer Point of Law, and we con- clude 54 ' Tk Cafe of the Allegiance elude that to be our Duty which the Law determines, I am of Opinion, That Judges and learned Lawyers, efpecially when they have determined the matter without any Byafs on them, or any proipedt of our preterit Affairs, are the beft Cafuijts, be* caufe they underftand the Law beft. That we mull obey and fubmic to our Prince, is a Duty which the Laws of God and Nature enjoyn; and we muft not fuffer any Man, be he Lawyer or Divine, to perfiiade us, that this is not our Duty: but what Prince we muft obey, and to what par- ticular Prince we muft pay our Allegiance, the Law of God does not ceil us, but this we muft learn from the Laws of the Land. Here is a Queftion then arifes, Whether the Subjects of England (when fuch a Cafe happens) muft pay their Allegiance to the King de jure, who is dil'poffefled of his Throne, or to the King de faBo y who is pofleffed of it without a legal Right ? Now will thefe Men, who ground their Ditlent upon the Laws of the Land, abide by the Decifion of the Law ? If they will not, Why do they infift on it, and urge it, as an unanfwerable Objedion ? If they will, Who muft judge of the Senfe of the Law, and from whom muft they learn it ? for every one is not a competent Judge cf this matter, tho he thinks he very well underftands the Grammatical Senfe and Conftru&ion of Words. And is it not nioft reaibnable to think that to be the Senle of the Law, which learned Judges and Lawyers have agreed is theSenfeof it? Is it not reafonable to take that to be the Senle of the Law, which has been the Senle oiWefimmller-Hallj and is like to be fb again, if we think fit to try it ? I do not think it fb dangerous to miftake in a human Law, as in natural or divine Laws ; our Obligation to obey human Laws, is that Obedience which is due to Government, and then what- ever we apprehend the Ssnie of the Law to be, we muft not pre- tend to obey human Laws in our Senfe, in opposition to Govern- ment : if We miftake with Authority, and obey the Law in that Senfe which has been allowed in all Reigns, even of the moft rightful Kings, we are fare in Confcience : And he who will ad- vance another Senie of the Law, upon confidence of his own private Judgment, and venture his Eftate and Fortune, his Liber- ty and Life on it, I think does neither wifely for himfeifi nor pays that deference he pretends to Government. But due to Sovereign Powers, 3cc. 55 But here is an Oath concerned, and danger of Perjury, if having (worn Allegiance toK. James while he is living, we fwear away our Allegiance from him to K. William and Q^Mary: bar I (uppofe legal O iths mail be expounded by the Laws ; and if by the Law of the Land Allegiance to K. James ceafes, as being out of Poflcflion, our Oath can oblige us no longer ; and if by the Law of the Land we owe Allegiance to YLWilliam and Q^Mary as in Poffeflion of the Throne, then we may, and ought, to iwear Allegiance to them : and this being a point of Law, mull be decided by the proper Judges of it; for, if we keep an Oath when the Law does not allow it, and refute an Oath when the Law requires it, we tranfgrefs the Law. And this is not the only legal Oath, wherein Men govern themlelves by Judgments of Law, I am fure as much, and I think more plainly,again(l the exprefs Words of the Law, than can be pretended in the Oath of Allegiance ; I mean the Oath of Simony, in which Men (wear in as general Words as can be thought of, againft all Barg.iins o. Contracts, either directly or indirectly, for the obtaining (ucn a Living, or Spiritual Preferment ; and yet make no Scruple of anv (uch Contracts, as are not adjudged Simony in Weftminfter-Hall % tho they feem included in thole general Words. And if we will not allow it to be a fafe Rule of Conference to obey Laws, and to take le«al Oaths, in that Ssnfe which Courts of Juftice, or learned Judges and Lawyers give of them, tho we muft abide by their Judgments when it comes to be tryed whether we have bro- ken or kept thefe Laws; Subjects are in an ill Condition both with refped to their Conferences, their Lives, and Eftates. This might very well ferve in Anfwer to the Argument from Law ; for it is acknowledged, That there is great Authority for our Allegiance to a King de facto, when the King de jure is dil- poflefled : but I have a mind to confider this matter a little farther. There is a. Book lately Printed, Entitulcd, The Cafe of Allegi- TJ f ance to a King in Fof]e(Jion : The learned Author has taken a great deal of pains in considering oar Statutes and Hiftories ; and his Defign is to prove, that my L. Ch. JuJ}. Coke^was miftaken in his Opinion, That the Statute of Treafon 15 Ed. 5. c. 2. is to be underftood of a King in Vojfejfwn of the Crown and Kingdom ; for if there be a King regnant in PoJJejfion, tho he be Rex de facto, & non dejure, yet he is Seignior le Roy within the Pur-veiw of this Sta- tute \ and the other that hath Right, and is out of Po£?j! ^, is not within 5 6 "The Cafe -of the allegiance within tie Aft. It is too long a Book to be particularly anfwer- ed here ; but as 1 apprehend, nis Fault is, that he does not rea- fbn right upon matters of Fa& ; and fome of his fundamental Miftakes may be anfwered in a fmall com pa fs : and I choofe the rather to do it, becaufe they are the very fame Miftakes that impofed upon me for fbme time. 6. Our Author thinks, Jf would feem a very odd ^uefiion for any to ask, touching the Laws that are made in any fettled Monarchy for the Defence of the Kings Verfon, Crown, and Dignity, who is meant by the King in thofe Laws ? the lawful and rightful King of that Realm, or any one that gets into the VoJJ'ejfion of the Throne, tho he be not a rightful King, but a Ufurper ? Now this feems to me no odd Queflion at all ; for when the Law only mentions the King, and the Law-makers certainly knew that Kings without a legal Right do often afcend the Throne ; if they had intended to except all fuch Ufurpers, they mould have (aid fb: for a YLmgdefafto, as the Ch. Jufl. aflcrts, is Seignior le Roy, or King ; and there is no other King but he : for King fig- nifies that Perfbn who has the Supreme Government in the Na- tion ; A King de fatlo is he who a&ually has the Government ; that is, who is actually King ; a King de jure, as oppofed to a King defaBo, is he who of Right mould have the Government, but has it not ; that is, who of Right mould be King, but is not: and the Statute of Treafon tells us what is Treafon againft him who is King, not againft him who mould be, but js not King. Buc he proves, this Statute can intend only a King de jure, be- : 8. caufe it makes it Treafon to kill the King's eldeft Son, to vio- late the Queen, or the Prince's Wife, or the King's eideft Daugh- ,. ter, all which, is to fecure the Succeflion to the Crown, and therefore cannot concern an Ufurper, who has no Right him- felf, and therefore his Heirs have no Right to Succeflion ; and we cannot fuppofe that the Law mould take care to fecure the Succeflion to the Pofterity of an Ufurper. But this is no Argument to me ; for the Law looks upon the Crown as Hereditary, and the Change of the Pei fbn or Royal Family, does not make the Crown ceafe to be Hereditary ; and therefore whoever has Pofleflion of the Crown, has an heredita- ry Crown, and leaves it to hk Heirs, as long as they can keep it ; as is plain from the Example of the three Henries, who fucceed- ed each other. And this is Reaibn enough, why the Law mould make due to Sovereign Towers', &c, make no difference upon this Account between a King de facio & de jure. But, my Lord Ch. Juft. Coke does not found his GlcJSupon the fun- damental Conftitution of the Realm, tho methinks he mould have underftood it as well as our Author. But what is this fundamen- tal Conftitution ? Why, The Regal Authority, and the Allegiance of the SubjeBs, is appropriated to the lawful and rightful King. But where does he find this fundamental Conftitution ? The funda- mental Conftitution, I take to be an hereditary Monarchy • not that the Monarchy mould continue always in fuch a Family * for that may fail, or may be changed by Gonquefts or Ufurpati- ons, as has often been, and the Conftitution continue. The moft that can be faid is, that when any particular Family, by the Providence of God, and the Content and Submiflion of the Peo- ple, is placed in the Throne, of Right the Crown ought to de- fcend to the Heir of that Family : but fuppofe it does not, muft we pay Allegiance to no other Perfbn,tho poflefled of the Throne? Let him mew me that fundamental Conftitution, for a meer He- reditary Monarchy does not prove it; and according to the judg- ment of the beft Lawyers, the Laws of the Land require the con- trary, that we muft pay our Allegiance to him who is actually King, not to him who ought to have been King, but is not. And to think to confute this by pretending the fundamental Conftitution of an Hereditary Monarchy, is to take that for granted which ought to have been proved. The Queftion is not, Whether the Monarchy be Hereditary that is agreed; but whether in an Hereditary Monarchy we muft pay Allegiance to no Prince who is not the legal Heir, thopof- fened of the Throne ; This the Lawyers deny, and produce Law tor it, and it there be luch Laws, it is certain by Law we may pay Allegiance to a King m PofTeffion, notwithstanding the funda- mental Conftitution of an Hereditary Monarchy: for theLaw 3 which makes one, allows and commands the other : and than it is an Hereditary Monarchy with this referve; of paying Allegi- ance to the King in PofTeffion, when the legal Heir cannot ob- tain his right. ♦ J^ 1 t I 1 u ke t0 r bc a very Wlfe Conftitution, which fecures the King s Right as far as Law can do it * but if the King mould be deprived of his Right (which the Experience of all Ages proves he may be; does not think fit, tnat the Government I mould 5/ p. 9. Tl?e Cafe of the Allegiance mould imk with him, and. therefore makes provifiofi 1 For the icc\£ rity of the Government and of Subje&s under the Regnant Prince, which the Keafbns and Neceflities of Government re- quire and juftifie, though there had been no Law for it. 2. He (ays, my Lord -Coke's Glofs is contrary to the confiant Pra- ctice and Cufiom of the Realm. For ifTreafon by the Cufiom and Pra- Bice of the Realm lay only, again/1 a King in Pojjeffion. of the Crown and Kingdom, then 1. Thofe only would be attainted by our Kings and Parliaments, who tbled againft a King-in PoJJefion. * And then certainly a King in PoJJeff im himfelf cannot be guilty, oftreafon for what he does while in Pojfefwn againt a Kmgout^ofPof Mm. And yet when a King de jure has regained his Throne, the King defaBo and his Adherents have been attainted by Par- liament for'Ufurping. the Throne, and oppofing the right of the King dejure. -^ . , . In anfwer to this, Xobferve, 1. That this does not prove that any one A& which is Treafon againft a King de 7 are, is not Trea- fon when committed againft a King de facto ; now that is enough to prove, that Allegiance is by Law due to a King de facio, if Treafon may be committed againft him : for no Treafon can be committed, where no Allegiance is due. This is eonfeffed, that all fuch Afts, as are Trealan againft a King dejure, are Treafon when committed againft a King de faio, but not, fay they, becaufe Allegiance is due to him, but becaule they are againft the Order of Government, and there- fore are Treafon by the prefiimed confent of the King dejure, 'That fuch Arts are againft the Order of Government, and very deftrudive to it, is the only Reafon why they are made Treafon by Law ; and this is as good a Reafon why the Law Ihould make them Treafon againft a King ^efaclo, as againft a ' King dejure; for they are equally againft the Order or Go- vernment, and deftrudive to it, whoever be King ; and that is the only Reafon why they are made Treafon at all. The prefumed ConCent of the King de jure is a very pretty no- tion, and ferves a great many good turns; it makes Laws, and it makes Treafon, and gives Authority to the inauthontative AAsofaKmg^/*^: that isto fay (or they fay nothing) that the pr*fumcd Confent ofaKingr*, inverts the &mg defath with iu^ to Sovereign Towers , &c. y f with his Authority ; for if he have no Authority of his owri„ un- lets the prefumed Content of the King dejure give him Anthoa- ty, ic cannot make any treafbnable A& done againft him to be Treafon ; for it cannot altar the nature of things, nor make me guilty of Treafon againft any Perfon, to whom I owe no Duty and Allegiance. And if the prefumed Confent of the King de jure inverts the King defablo with his Authority, it muft transfer the Allegiance of Subje&s too ; and then Subjects are as fafe in Confcience, as if the King de jure were on the Throne ; for it feems there is his Authority and Confent, though not his Perfon. But this is all meer trifling ; the King defatto has Authority, or none of his Acts of Government can have any ; for that which is done by a Perfon, who has no Authority can have none : whence then has he this Authority, fince he has no legal Right to the Throne ? Not from the prefumed Confent of the King de jure, which is great non-fenfe to fuppofe, but from the Pofleffion of the Throne, to which the Law it felf, as well as the Principles of Reafon and Religion,have annexed the Authority of Government. r. As for the Attainders of Kings de facto and their Adherents in Parliament, that does not. prove that Subjects cannot be guilty of Treafon againft a King in Pofleffion, nor that the Statute of Treaibn does not relate to a King in Pofleffion : for the Statute of Treafon does not relate to the disputes of Princes,but to the Order of Government ; and therefore may relate to a King in Pofleffion, though the King himfelf, if he be an Ufurpar, when ev$r the rightful King regains the Poffeffionof his Throne; if he ware a Subject before, may be attainted of Treafon for his Usurpation. And thefe things are as confident, as it is to take care of the Go- vernment, when fuch Revolutions happen, and yet to difcourag* all illegal Ufurpations. And yet the truth is, there is no Argument to be drawn from this ; for whenever there is a Competition for the Grown, there is no doubt but he. that prevails, be he King de faclo or dejure, will attaint his Rival and all his Adherents : Thus it was between Edward IV. and Henry VI. between Richard III. and Hen. VII. who attainted one another ; and this is no proof, what the Law of the Land is, but it proves, that Parliaments have always fa- vored the King in Poifeflion. ;. He argues, that if Treafon lay only againft the Ring in ?oj]effi- m, whether de jure or no, the Subject rnuft look upcnthemfelves as I 2 obliged ^o The Cafe of the Megwui obliged tifm pain of Hgh-Treafon not to admit of any claim of the King de jure — and yet Richard Duke ofTork, put in his claim to the Crown tnthe Parliament 2.9 H 6. and it was received and. allow- ed by them. But I would fain know what kind of Treafon this is for a Par- liament, to whom, or to none upon Earth, appeals in fuch Cafes can be made, to receive a Claim to the Crown ? a little improve- ment of the Argument would make it High-Treafon, for any of the Courts of Weftminfier-Hall to receive a Complaint, and trv and judge a Cauie againft the King. If he had faid, that the Law had allowed Subjeds to fight for the King dejure againft the King in Pofleflion, this had proved his Point, that Treafon does not lie only againft a King in Pof- leffion j but there is no fiich Law as this to be found : It is Trea- son to fight againft the King, and that, fays my Lord Coke, is the Kingin Poiieffion, without making any referve for the defence orre-eftablilhmentoftheKing dejure, when out of Potfeffion- For it feems the Wifdom of the Nation has not yet thought fit to make a Law to jufhfie Civil Wars when fuch a Revolution hap. pens, with an orderly and national Submiflion. An appeal to Parliament is a proper way to declare to Whom of right the Crown. belongs, when there is a Competition; but though fuch Ufurpations very often occafion Civil Wars, yet the necefiity of Government requires, that the Law mould always be on the fide of the King in Pofleffion, and then it can never mfti- S» 12} ne any Man in fighting againft him. &c -' • t J^. S nCXC Ar § ument is > that "f Treafon lay only againft a Kin* m Yojjeffion, then the Law m other regards would look upon the Kimr mVofJejfum, as having the dignity and honor of a King, whereas he oblerves l. That the Law, where it confiders them asUfurpers, does hardly vouchfafe that the name of King-, for in the Statute 1 Ed IV Henry IV. is called Henry Earl of Derby, and the Henries arecall'd pretenjed Kings, and Kmgs indeed, and not of right : But he has an- iwered this himfelf, that our Law allows them the name of Kings with regard to their having the Execution of the Kingly Office ; that is, our Laws^do not allow thofe to be legal Kings who have no legal Title, but yet allow them to be Kings as exercising the Re- gal Power, and what would he have more unlefsour Laws mould Ipeak non-fenfe? And yet he mould remember that Ed. IV after this had as hard words from H. VI. Parliament as the Henries had from Edward the Fourth's, 2. He due to Sovereign Towers, &c. 6\ 1. He obferves, that the Law does not look upon tfk Acts of Go* vernmentdone by a King in Poftejfiin, if an U far per, as valid and at:~ thoritattve in them/elves, becaufe thev have been confirmed by Subfequent Kings ; and yet he himfelf confers, that they had P. 14. not been invalid without fuch a Confirmation, bit not upon ac- eountofany Authority in tbefe Kings but upon accoimt of the necejjity of Government 3 and the prefumed Confent of the Kmgs de jure excluded front their right. But if thefe Kings have no Authority, I know not how their Ads mould be authoritative ; he ought to have faid,that the neceffity of Government givesAuthority to fuchKings and their Ads without a legal Title, and that had been Senfe; but this and the prefumed Content has been confidered already. But he has made an untoward Objedion againft this himfelf, that the Ails of Parliament made by Hen.I V,V, Wpvere not confirmed by the Parliament 1 Ed. IV. and yet are good Laws frill ; and his anfwerto it is very lame, that fome of their Ads of Parliament are confirmed there, viz,. An Aft for Founding any Abbies or Religi- ous HouftSy &c. but this feems to be abundans cautela ; for the fame Reafon, that the Universities and other Religious Founda- tions renew their Charters infeveral Princes Reigns, though con- firmed by Ad of Parliament ; which does not fuppofe, that they thought their former Charters invalid, but for their greater ftcu- nty defire the Confirmation of the prefent Powers : but when all publick Ads made by Parliaments called by Kings de fatlo are receiv'd and own'd for good Laws without any new Confirmation that is proof enough, that they thoughtlthe Authority fufficient, J whereby they were made, though the King had not a legal Right* But yet let me add, that had it been the conftant and univerfai Pradice for the Kings <&y«r*,when they return'd to their Crowns to confirm all the judicial Ads, Grants, Statutes, &c. of the Kings d* fatlo, this had been evidence enough, that the Neceffities or" Government require, that all the Ads of Kings de fatlo mould be valid ; for that is the only Reafon why they are confirmed by p l6 , a legal Authority ; becaufe it is needfary they mould bt valid, and ' ' yet convenient for the difcouragement of iuch Usurpations/ that they mould not be thought valid, without a legal Confirmation but what the neceffity of Government makes valid, is valid in it felf without any new Confirmation ; though the Reafons of State may make luch a Confirmation ufeful. The next thing he undertakes to anfwer is Baggot\ Cafe, con- cerning the validity of his Patent of Naturalization granted by Htn. Vf. g$ The Cafe of the Allegiance. Men. VI. who was only King d 'e faBo ; though it were not con- firmed by the Statute i Ed. IV. This he branches out into feveral Particulars, ami fays a great deal about it, but nothing new : He always takes San&uary in his old Salvoes of the neceffity of the Government and the prefumed Content of the King de jure, which have been fufficiently considered already. All that I mall conclude from this cafe (which I muff take as he has reprefented it) is this; that the neceffity of Govern- ment ( for both the Judges and Council underftood things better than to urge the prefumed confent of the King de jure,) gives Au- thority to all thole Ads of a King de faclo, which are for the Adminiftration of Juftice, and belong to Sovereign Powers ; and then by the fame reafbn, they muft juftifie Subjeds in pay- ing Allegiance to fuch Kings'; for this is neceiTary to Govern- ment. Our Author will allow this in all cafes, which are not againft the Intereft of the difpofleffed Prince ; but this is to al- low nothing, for the very Pofleffion of the Throne, and every Ad of Authority the King de facto does, is againft the Intereft of the King dejure : But he feems all along to miftake Gifts and Grants, to the Diminution of the Crown fwhich they would not allow to ftand good, when the King de jure returned ) for all Ads againft the Perfbnal Right and Intereft of the King de jure ; But the Diminution of the Crown, and the Right of the Per- fon, are very different things, as he willeafily lee, when he con- siders it again, As for the Statute n. H. 7. which indemnifies Subjects in Pag. 26. Fighting for the King in pofleffion; he dilputes very largely about it, but I can at prefent make only fome mort Remarks on what he fays. 1. He obferves, that it is only faid in the Preamble, not ena- cted in the Body of the Statute, that the Subjects flail be obliged to ■pay Allegiance to the King for the time being ; but whether a Pre- amble be Law or no, it is an Authoritative Declaration of the Law, and that is a Sufficient rule for Subjeds ; and if 25. Ed. 5. concerns Kings in Pofleffion, it is enaded there. _ 2. He will not allow this Preamble to be a direct andpofit'vue De- a ^' ' claration of the Law ; becaufe the King only fays, t bat-he calls to remembrance his Subjects duty of Allegiance, &c. But if the King and Parliament declare, that they remember, this is the duty ot Allegiance, does not that declare their Opinion, that it is a duty as im to Sovereign Powers, &c. 6} as efTb&ually as can be done in any other form of words ; nay fbmewhat more, for what they remember, they declare was (b before, and not made fo now, merely by their Declaration ; and what the Parliament fiippofes and takes for granted, it more ef- fectually declares. ;dly. He fays, what is laid down in the Preamble, is exprejly Pag. 28. falje that it is not reasonable, but againft all Laws, Reafon, and good Confcience, that the Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord to Wars, any thing jhould lofe or forfeit for doing this their true Duty and Service of Allegiance ; Now if this be falfe, I know not what can be true m y is the contrary to it true ? that it is agreeable to Law, Reafon, and good Confcience, that Subje&s mould lofe or forfeit any thing for Fighting for their King ? But this is meant of Fighting for an Ufurper againft their lawful King. And yet here is not one word of Ufurfer, or Lawful King, but our Sove* reign Lord, whom the Law requires us to own for our Sovereign ; and it is againft Law, Reafon, and good Confcience, that Sub- jects mould (uffer for Fighting for any Prince, whatever his Title be, whom the Law owns for Sovereign at that time : That Kings and Parliaments as he urges, have attainted Subjects upon fuch accounts, does not prove, that it was not againft Law and Rea* fbn and good Confcience to do fo ; and it feems H. 7. who had done this himfelf, was now convinced of it, and took care to provide it fhould be (6 no more : I am fore my Lord Bacon fays this Law was rather juft than legal ; and therefore owned the Reafon and good Confcience of it, though he demurred about the legality. But our Author will be fb liberal, as to grant, that all this Pag. 29. were the Body of the Statute and a direct Law ; then it is plain, that Subjects might by Law Fight for the King in Pofleffion, and their Allegiance would oblige them to it. No, he fays, it will remain to be confidered, whether the Statute can be looked upon as valid and obligatory ; and he thinks it is not. 1 . Becaufe it was made by an Ufuryer, and by an Ufurpers Par- liament. This is a bold ftroke to call Hen. VII. an Ufurper, who had fo many Titles, and no Title f«t up againft him ; and to queftion the Authority of a Parliament, called by the Writ of a King in Polleflion ; and to deny the validity of Acts of Parliament made by Ufurpers, when our Statute Books are full of them, and they are owned good and vahd Laws. So 64 The Cafe of the Allegiance. So that I will not difpute with him, whether fubfeefuent lawful P«*g i°- Kj n g s g a ve their content to this Law or not, it is diffident, they have not repealed it ; but what he urges, that it has been in ef- fect declared null and t void i I doubt will not pafs among our Law- yers to be equivalent to a repeal ; for I never yet heard, that an Act of Parliament could be repealed by confequence ; but let us hear, how Jubfeyuent Kings and Parliaments have in effect declar- ed it null and void ; and he has thought of two ways for this. 1 . By their proceeding exprefly contrary to the letter of this Law ; 'viz,, in the Attainder of the Duke of Northumberland in Queen Marys time, who was fent with an Army againft £>. Mary by order of Council and a Warrant under the Great Seal in behalf of Queen Jane. 2. Their laying a contrary obligation on the Conferences of Subjects ; which he proves by the Acts concerning the Succeflton made by Hen. VIII. and the Oath of Allegiance. Now I am apt to think he is miftakon in this matter, becaufe after all this was done, my Lord Coke, and other great Judges and Lawyers, have taken this for a very good Law, and therefore did not think, that it was in effect declared null and void. As for the condemnation of the Duke of ' Northumberland t it was either reconcileable with this Law, or it was not ; if it were, I fuppofe it did not in effetf de- clare it null and void\ if it were not, it was a Sentence againft Law ; and I never heard, that an Illegal Sentence did either Re- peal a Law, or declare it void. As for the Acts of Succeflion made by Hen. VIII. and the Oath of Allegiance, tho fome Men, if they pleafe, may expound them fb as to contradict the Statute of 1 1 Hen. VII. yet they being fubfequent Laws, made without re- pealing that former Statute, it feems moft reafbnable to me, that their Senfe and Interpretation mould be limited by that former unrepealed Statute; for ifthofe King? and Parliaments had in- tended to lay any obligation upon Subjects, contrary to any thing enacted by that Law, they would have repealed it ; for a former and unrepealed Law muft limit the Interpretation of fubfequent Laws, unlefs we will allow the Laws to contradict each other. This is all in our Author, that ftrictly concerns Law ; for in what follows he proceeds to difpute againft the Law, frOm Prin- ciples of Reafon and Religion, and to prove, that it is to be look- Pag. 36. ed upon m %t f elf null and void in refpeft of the matter of it 3 tho it were granted, that this Statute was made by a Legal Authority, and has due to Sovereign Towers, &c. 6y hat flood ever fince unrepealed. Now this is what I at firfl: fufpe- c"led, that they would not ftand to the determination of the Law in this matter, and then why do they trouble themfelves and the World about Law , if nothing mall pafs for a good Law, which they don't like? If out Author carefully confider what I have already difcou:- fed, I hope he will find a fatisfa&ory answer to all his follow- ing obje&ions ; or at leaft fuch Principles, as will enable a Man of a great deal lefs skill than he has to anfwer them all. But tho I am in great haft to conclude, I mall flop a little to examine the two Reafbns he gives to prove rjhat Statute u. Hen. VII. which indemnifies Subjects for Fighting for a King in Pofleflion to be a void Law with refped to the Matter, though the Authority that made it be allowed good, viz,. For it either di- wefts the Lawful King of his Right to the Crown, and gives it to *?8- 37- the Ufurper, or it ftill referves his Right to him, hut yet notivith- ftanding, orders the SubjeBs to obey and ft and by the King in YoJU'ef- fion : Now a very fhort anfwer will ferve for this. For, 1 . The Law does not deny his Legal Right to the Crown, but vet may reafonably deny nim to be King, when he is out of Pofleflion. For a King is he, who actually adminiflers the Go- vernment with a Regal Authority ; not he, who has right to do it, but is kept from his Right, fuch a Prince may retain the Ti- tle of King, but he has nothing elfe. 2. When fuch a Cafe happens, it is not fb unjuft or unreafon- able, as to make it a void Law, to order Subjeffs to obey and ft and by the King in Fojfeffion : For the King has no Right but by Law, and then the Law may determine how far his Right mall ex- tend ; and if the King himfelf by the advice, confent, and au- r thority of the Eftates ot the Realm (confidering how often fuch cafes happen, that a Prince who has no legal Right gets Poflef- fion of the Throne, and whatdefolations the difputes of Princes occafion, and how impoflible it is for Subjects to avoid Fighting for the King in Pofleflion mould think fit, for the fecunty of the Government and Publick Peace, to bind the Allegiance of Subjects to the Pofleflion of the Throne, what iniquity is there in this Law ? why may not a legal Right be bounded and limi- ted by Laws ? Why may not the Supreme Authority of the Na- tion make the beft Provifion they can to preferve the Govern- ment, tafecure the Lives and Fortunes, and to cafe the Con- K fciences 66 The Cafe of the Allegiance. fciences of Subjects, in fuch revolutions as no Right and no Laws can prevent ? Since humane Governments will not always proceed in regular Methods, provifional Laws, which are exce- ptions from the Constitution, but neceflary in fuch junctures, leem to me to be highly realbnable. Thus I have fairly reprefentcd what my thoughts are about this matter, and have taken all due care, neither to impofe upon my felf nor others by fbme little fallacies, nor to provoke iny fort of Men with hard words : If what I have faid, do not make other Men of my mind ; yet I hope it may (atisfie them, that I have fomething to fay for my felf, and that it is poffible, I may be an honeft Man ftill, tho they mty think me miftaken. THE END. -. BOOKS BOOKS Publiftied by the Reverend T>r.Sherlocf^ and Printed for JV. ^Rogers. AN Anfwer to a Difcourfe EntituIed,P<*/>(/?j Protejling againfi Proteftant Popery : Being a Vindication of Papilts not Mifreprelented by Prote- ftants,and containing a Particular Examination of Monfieur de Meaux late Bifliop of CWo», his Expofition of the Dodtrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, occasioned by that Difcourfe, 4 2d Edition. An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Pgprefenter and the Anfwerer, 4 . A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benjamin Calamy D. D. and late Minifter of St Lawrence Jury London, Jan. 7. 168 j, 4 . A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church Unity and Catho- lick Communion, from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome : In Anfwer to a late Pamphlet Entituled, An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the Concertation of fome of Her Sons j with their Brethren the Diffenters, 4 2d Edition. A Pr efervative againft P$pery : Being fome plain Directions to unlearned Proteftants how to Difpute with Romiih Priefts, Firft Part, 4 jth Edition. A Second Part of the Preservative againji Popery, (hewing how contrary Popery is to the true Ends of the Chriftian Religion, fitted for the Inftrutti- ons of unlearned Proteftants, 4 Second Edition. A Vindication of both Parts of the Prefervative tgainft Popery >, in Anfwer to the Cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jeluit, 4 . A Difcourfe concerning the Nature, Unity and Communion of the Catholick. Church, wherein moft of the Controver lies relating to the Church, are briefly and plainly Stated, Firft Part, 4?. A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London at Guild- Hall Chappel, on Sunday Novem- ber the 4th, itf88, 4°. A PraBical Difcourfe concerning Death, Fourth Edition, 8\ A Vindication of the Doftrme of the Holy and ever Bleffed Trinity at;.: ■ Incarnation of the Son of God, occasioned by the brief Notes on the Creed of St. Athanafius and the brief Hiftory of the Unitarians 0: Secinians, and con- taining an Anfwer to both, 4 . '