lawful or not If it be lawful to testify it one way why not another If in paying Tribute why not in solemn promising to pay it If in promising why not in swearing i. e. in calling God to witness that I do it Thus far then we may go we may swear to pay Tribute But on what account Is it not as a Token of Allegiance i. e. of a Duty owing on the account of Protection Then we have gained one step farther viz. that we may swear to perform some parts of Allegiance But why then may we not do so as to all that such an Oath implies If it respects no more than the Duty which we owe with respect to the Publick And that is certainly the meaning of an Oath when all Declarations of Right are left out and only those of Duty expressed as it is in our present Case As to the dreadful Charge of Perjury and Apostacy which some of much greater Heat than Judgment have made use of against those who hold it lawful to take the Oaths If what I have said be true it is little less than ridiculous And it would have had more appearance of Reason if the Pharisees had urged it against our Saviour's Resolution of the Case about Tribute-Mony For had not God by his own Law settled the Government among them And was it not a Fundamental Article of that Law that none should rule over them but one of their Brethren Was the Roman Emperor or Pontius Pilate such Have not all the ancient Zealots of the Law opposed any such Foreign Power What can it be then less than Perjury and Apostacy to give any Countenance to such an open Violation of this Law and to incourage Men to renounce it when they find such Liberties allowed by such a Teacher But I forbear To conclude then I have at your earnest Desire taken this Matter into serious Consideration and have impartially weighed the most pressing Difficulties I have met with I cannot promise to give you Satisfaction but I have satisfied my self and have endeavoured to do the same for you I am heartily sorry for any Breaches among us at this time and it is easy to foresee who will be the Gainers by them But I am glad to understand that the chiefest of those who scruple the Oaths have declared themselves against the Attempts of such an unseasonable Separation and I hope others will be so wise as to follow their Example I am Sir Yours Octob. 15. 1689. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell THE Case of Allegiance in our present Circumstances considered in a Letter from a Minister in the City to a Minister in the Country 40. A Breviate of the State of Scotland in its Government Supream Courts Officers of State Inferiour Officers Offices and Inferiour Courts Districts Jurisdictions Burroughs Royal and Free Corporations Fol. Some Considerations touching Succession and Allegiance 4to Reflections upon the late Great Revolution Written by a Lay-Hand in the Country for the satisfaction of some Neighbours The History of the Desertion or an Account of all the publick Affairs in England from the beginning of September 1688 to the Twelfth of February following With an Answer to a Piece called The Desertion Discussed in a Letter to a Country-Gentleman By a Person of Quality K. William and K. Lewis Wherein is set forth the inevitable necessity these Nations lie under of submitting wholly to one or other of these Kings And that the matter in Controversy is not now between K. William and K. Iames but between K. William and K. Lewis of France for the Government of these Nations A Sermon preached at Fulham in the Chappel of the Palace upon Easter-Day 1689. at the Consecration of the Right Reverend Father in God Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum By Anthony Horneck D. D. The Judgments of God upon the Roman Catholick Church from its first rigid Laws for universal Conformity to it unto its last End. With a prospect of these near approaching Revolutions viz. The Revival of the Protestant Profession in an eminent Kingdom where it was totally suppressed The last End of all Turkish Hostilities The general Mortification of the Power of the Roman Church in all parts of its Dominions In Explication of the Trumpets and Vials of the Apocalypse upon Principles generally acknowledged by Protestant Interpreters By Drue Cressener D. D. A Discourse concerning the Worship of Images preached before the University of Oxford By George Tully Sub-Dean of York for which he was suspended Two Sermons one against Murmuring the other against Censuring By Symon Patrick D. D. now Lord Bishop of Chichester An Account of the Reasons which induced Charles the Second King of England to declare War against the States General of the United Provinces in 1672. And of the Private League which he entred into at the same Time with the French King to carry it on and to establish Popery in England Scotland and Ireland as they are set down in the History of the Dutch War printed in French at Paris with the Priviledg of the French King 1682. Which Book he caused to be immediately suppress'd at the Instance of the English Ambassador Fol. An Account of the Private League betwixt the late King Iames the Second and the French King. Fol. Dr. Wake 's Sermon before the King and Queen at Hampton-Court Dr. Tennison's Sermon against Self-love before the House of Commons Iune 5. 1689. Mr. Tully's Sermon of Moderation before the Lord-Mayor May. 12. 1689. An Examination of the Scruples of those who refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance By a Divine of the Church of England A Dialogue betwixt two Friends a Iacobite and a Williamite occasioned by the late Revolution of Affairs and the Oath of Allegiance The Case of Oaths stated 4to A Letter from a French Lawyer to an English Gentleman upon the Present Revolution 4to The Advantages of the present Settlement and the great danger of a Relapse The Interest of England in the Preservation of Ireland The Answer of a Protestant Gentleman in Ireland to a late Popish Letter of N. N. upon a Discourse between them concerning the present Posture of that Country and the Part fit for those concern'd there to act in it 4to An Apology for the Protestants of Ireland in a brief Narrative of the late Revolutions in that Kingdom and an Account of the present State thereof By a Gentleman of Quality 4to A true Representation to the King and People of England how Matters were carried on all a long in Ireland by the late K. Iames in favour of the Irish Papists there from his Accession to the Crown to the 10th of April 1689. The Mantle thrown off or the Irish-Man dissected 4to Reflections upon the Opinions of some Modern Divines concerning the Nature of Government in general and that of England in particular With an Appendix relating to this Matter containing 1. The Seventy fifth Canon of the Council of Toledo 2. The Original Articles in
A DISCOURSE Concerning the UNREASONABLENESS OF A New Separation On account of the OATHS WITH An ANSWER to the HISTORY of PASSIVE OBEDIENCE So far as relates to THEM LICENS'D October the 25th 1689. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIX THE CONTENTS SOme general Reflections upon the New Separation on account of the Oaths p. 1 c. Of Oaths in general p. 3. Whether the Obligation of the former Oaths continues ibid. The general Good the Measure of Obligation p. 5 Of the State of Slavery p. 6 No such thing as absolute Power in Nature p. 7 Of a State of Vsurpation p. 8 Allegiance to be measured by the Laws ibid. No Apostasie from the Church of England by taking the present Oaths The History of Passive Obedience considered and the Force of the whole resolved into three Points viz. p. 9. 1. That the present Oath is to the Prejudice of a third Person 2. That it is contradictory to our former Oaths p. 11 3. That the Person who had the Right hath given no release p. 12 Dr. Hammond's Arguments considered ibid. Our Constitution considered and that it is a Branch of it for the three Estates to limit the Succession and determine the Oaths of Allegiance p. 13 So it was under the British and Saxon Government ibid. England a true successive Monarchy and yet Reason of State and the publick Good was wont to overrule p. 19 And it was lawful to transfer Allegiance accordingly ibid. Of the Norman Line p. 20 The Case of Maud and Stephen ibid. of York and Lancaster p. 23 The Agreement of Richard Duke of York and Hen. vi ibid. An Oath of Allegiance declarative of Right or Submissive p. 25 Of a King in Possession according to our Constitution and the difference between a King de Jure de Facto and an Vsurper p. 28 29 30 Of the Rise and Reason of that Difference de facto de jure p. 32 The Case of the Lady Jane p. 31 The Case of K. John and Lewis The Homilies considered p. 32 The Case of Tiberius p. 34 and of the Jews under him p. 36 ERRATA PAge 8. line 21. read of England P. 10. l. 24. r. to preserve the Right of c. P. 18. l. 8. r. tied P. 27. l. 28. But it may be said Our P. 36. l. ult after place r. P. 37. l. 1. r. as at that and after state r. P. 38. l. ult for can r. such Marg. l. 6. r. confestim A DISCOURSE Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation On account of the OATHS SIR YOur former Letter gave me an Account of Your own and others Dissatisfaction about the Oaths but your second carries the Point a great deal farther for therein you tell me Those who are unsatisfied think themselves bound to separate from the Communion of those who have taken them and that if Ease be not given to the Scrupulous new Congregations will be immediately formed and therefore you beg my Assistance in clearing these Points in order to the preventing a New Separation I was not a little surprized at the reading these Passages and I soon apprehended the mischievous Consequence of a new Schism especially among the Members of the Church of England But I can hardly think it possible that those who have expressed so great a Sense of the Mischief of it in others should be so ready to fall into it themselves and that upon the meer Account of Scruples when the Difference is only about the Resolution of a Case of Conscience wherein Wise and Good Men may easily differ But it cannot be a Mark either of Wisdom or Goodness to separate from those who do so Some think the Oaths lawful and therefore take them others do not and therefore forbear But is taking the Oaths made a Condition of Communion with us Is it required of all who joyn in our Worship at least to declare That they think the taking of them to be lawful If not what Colour can there be for breaking Communion on the Account of the Oaths Suppose those who take the Oaths are to blame If they act according to their Consciences therein what Ground can there be of Separation from them for so doing unless it be lawful to separate from all such who follow the Dictate of an Erroneous Conscience And so there can be no End of Separations till all Men's Consciences judge alike for a Man's Conscience in his practical Judgment concerning Moral Actions and there are so many Circumstances which vary the Nature of such Moral Actions as Oaths that I do not wonder to see Men differ about them but I should wonder and lament to see them separate from each other for the sake of such a Difference But there is a great deal of Difference between a Tenderness and a Sowreness of Conscience There is a natural Tenderness in the Eye which makes it apt to be offended with Mores and in that Case it is to be gently dealt with But when an ill Humour falls into it there seems to be greater Tenderness but from a worse Cause and then the best way of Cure is to sweeten or remove the bad Humor which caused it I cannot imagine why because some Men's Consciences are so tender in the Point of Loyalty that they cannot take the Oaths that they must be so tender too as not to joyn in Communion with those who do it This seems to come from another Cause and not from the Original Scruple Are they afraid of joyning with others not so tender as themselves This is the Scruple about mixt Communion which hath been so long exploded among us What then Have we hereby changed the Standard of our Communion or are there in this Case imposed any new Terms of Communion with us How then comes a Scruple about the Oaths to lead men to think of a Separation How come they to make so much Conscience of one and so little of the other Is a Separation from our Church become a Duty with those who so lately looked on it as so great a Fault in others But I perceive a tender Conscience is like a tender Constitution it is soon put out of Order So much greater Care then ought those to have who forsake any worldly Advantages for the sake of their Consciences lest that which begun with a Scruple at last end in Humour and Faction and the Ruine of that Church which they have alwaies pretended to value But to leave these general Reflections I shall now apply my self to the main Point Whether there be any Reason for these Scruples about the Oaths for if there be not it will be granted that there can be no Reason for a Separation on the Account of them If there be any Reason it must arise either from the continuing Obligation of the former Oaths or from the Nature of the present Oaths And therefore I shall enquire into two things First The Nature
Feudatary to the same he could not challenge Allegiance as due to him but to the Pope as Lord Paramount And it was pleaded against him That although he could not dispose of his Crown without Consent of his Barons yet he might demise it And upon his Resignation he ceased to be King and so the Throne was vacant And by that means there was a devolution of Right to the BARONS to fill up the Vacancy who made choice of LEWIS by the Right of his Wife who was Heir to King John. If after all this an Oath of Allegiance to him was lawful then I say an Oath to a King de facto is so for King Iohn was no more 2. As to the Barons calling in Lewis and forsaking K. Iohn it is necessary to observe on what Reason it is that our Homilies condemn it For the whole design of that Homily is to shew the Popes Vsurpations over Princes and their stirring up Subjects to Rebellion against them by discharging them from their Oaths and for those the Instance of King John is produced As appears by the words just before Now had English-men at that time known their Duty to their Prince set forth in God's Word would a great many Nobles and other English-men natural Subjects for this foreign and unnatural Vsurper his vain Curse of the King and for his feigned discharging them of their Oath and Fidelity to their Natural Lord upon so slender or no Ground at all have rebelled against their Sovereign Lord the King Would English Subjects have taken part against the King of England and against English Men with the French King and French Men being incensed against this Realm by the Bishop of Rome 3. This doth not concern the present Case For Men may condemn those English Men who sent for Lewis and yet may lawfully take the present Oaths By which Men are not bound to justify such Proceedings but to promise Faith and Allegiance to such as are in actual Possession of the Throne Which the Oaths taken to K. Iohn will justify Thus I have considered the greatest Difficulties I have yet met with about taking the Oaths and have not dissembled the strength of any of them There is only one thing remains and that is the Answer given to the Case of Tiberius who was an Vsurper and yet our Saviour said Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's The Answer is That although it were a forcible Vsurpation in Julius Cesar yet before that time the Matter was accorded between the Senate and the Emperors and they reigned unquestioned without any competition from the Senate So that it was not lawful to swear Allegiance to Iulius Cesar who had the full Possession of the Power but it was to Tiberius And why so Where was the Right of Government in the time of Iulius Cesar In the Senate and People And so it continued all Iulius Cesar's time But how came the Senate and People to lose their Right in the time of Tiberius 1. Had they given it up by any solemn Act of theirs as many say they did by the Lex Regia which Iustinian confidently affirms Then all the Right which the Emperor had was by Devolution from the People and so they acted by virtue of that Power which the People gave them Populus comprehends both Senate and Community And then the Emperors had their Rights of Soveraignty from the People and not from God. For here was no other Act but that of the People giving up their Right And then the Case of Obedience to the Roman Emperors will be found very different from that of the Northern Kingdoms where the People never gave up their Rights in such a manner but in Cases of Difficulty concerning Succession the three Estates did look on themselves as particularly concerned as might be easily proved if it were needful in all the Northern Kingdoms 2. But suppose they did not formally give up their Right but were partly wheedled and partly forced out of it Doth this give a good Title Suppose Augustus had by his Acts procured the Consent of the People as to his own Government What was this to Tiberius Did they give him a Power to make whom he pleased his Successor Something may be said from Dion and Strabo as to the former but there is no Pretence as to the latter For it was a meer Arbitrary Act in Augustus to nominate Tiberius and all the Title he had at first was from the Praetorian Band and Legions Afterwards the Consuls and Senate and Souldiers and People did swear Allegiance to him as the Historians tell us Now here I desire to know whether Tiberius were any more than Emperor de facto when they did thus swear to him For all the Right he had was from their voluntary Submission to him at Rome As to the Roman Provinces Tacitus saith They were content with the present change of Government because they suffered by the Factions and Avarice of the great Men which made them weary of the Government by the Senate and People But this only shews they were willing to change their Masters hoping they might mend their Condition but signifies little to the matter of Right Since after they were made Provinces they owned their Subjection to the Roman Government by paying Tribute and receiving Magistrates from it however that Government was managed whether by Senate or People or by one who had the Imperial Power whatever Name he were called by But as to the Province of Iudea in particular there are several Conditions of it to be considered 1. While it was tributary to the Kings of Persia and Syria Jaddus the High Priest told Alexander that they had taken an Oath of Fidelity to Darius and therefore could not bear Arms against him while he lived But was Darius King de jure or de facto over the Iews He was not King over them by a lineal Succession from their own Princes nor by the Fundamental Constitution of their Government which owned no legal King that was not of their Brethren I do not say they were not to submit to but not to chuse any other But what Right had Darius over the Iews any more than succeeding in the Persian Monarchy gave a Right to the Chaldean Conquests I grant the Iews did act under the Persian Monarchs as Nehemiah was Governour under Artaxerxes and that they did swear to them appears by Iaddus but the Question is On what Right that Oath was founded and whether upon Alexander's Conquest they could not as well take a new Oath to him For why should not present actual Dominion give as much Right as succeeding into anothers Right of Dominion which was at first gained by Conquest If Possession gives Right in one case why not in the other since there is more Reason for Allegiance where there is a Power of Protection than where there is none And so we find Iaddus and the Iews did submit to Alexander