either by Death or some Act of his own they have his sufficient Discharge All which hindrances of swearing Allegiance to one possessed of a Throne would vanish were there no supposed rightful King and Competitor still living nor any other Bar against turning to the Possessor but meerly his having been set up by unlawful means And therefore in turning Subjects to such unlawful Possâ—ssors these Difficulties would be no Difficulties of Conscience to them who have all the right of Power in themselves For when by their Submission they give up all this Power to the wrongful Possessor they give away only what is their own and do no Person any wrong Great Difficulty there may be indeed in giving up their own Rights but that is not a Difficulty of Conscience or from any Law of God whose Laws may all be equally kept whether they have a mind to keep their Civil Power or to part with it and come into a subject State but only a Difficulty in inclination and interest or of worldly hardship And this was the Case of the Senate and People of Rome when Julius and after him Augustus Caesar first usurped upon them till such time as by the Lex Regia the Empire was conferred upon him by their own Act and became a Legal Constitution And so it was also with other Nations particularly with the Jews when both King and People turned Tributaries and submitted themselves to an usurping and prevailing Prince as they did to the Egyptians and Babylonians their Kings themselves as Iehojakim and Coniah his Son as well as the People submitting to take their Crowns from and hold them under them and binding themselves as Ezechiel says Ezek. 17. 13. of Zedekiah by Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance to them And 't is the same Case with any Towns or Places taken from their lawful Prince by invading Neighbours a Case so much pressed by some in this Argument after once as it usually happens at the end of a War the Places at first seiz'd by Force are given up by the right Owner to the Possessor in Treaties For then the People are no longer obliged to his Right which he himself has given up but are all at Liberty to submit themselves In all which Submissions and turning Subjects to these Usurpers or Conquerors they denyed no other Person what was his Right for none else had any Right over them so there could be nothing Unâ—ighteous in this Submission Nor will they be Difficulties longer than the Prince who has Right over them lives The Woman that is bound to her Husband is bound only so long as her Husband liveth as St. Paul says Rom. 7 2. When a King's Person dyes his personal Rights dye with him And after that none of the aforesaid Difficulties so far as his personal Right made the Difficulty will be any hindrance to them in Conscience from turning subject to another that is possessed of his Throne And this was the Case of the Roman Subjects under all their bloody and numerous Revolutions and Usurpations The Conspirators that set up and succeeded against any of the Emperors still cut off their Masters and taking the right Emperor's Blood as well as his Power cut off his Right and the Peoples Allegiance together with his Life And either this or the aforesaid Submissions of the Subdued rightful Princes was â—he Case in the several Advancements and Erections of the Four Monarchies both as to the Kingdoms they Subdued and as to their Subduing one another particularly as to the Power of the Persian Kings which as the Babylonian had done before in the death of Belshazzar Dan. 5. 30 31. expired with Darius for besides that his Son who would have been the next Heir was in the Conqueror's Hands that Kingdom though they had a great reverence for the Royal Blood and it usually went from Father to Son yet was not legally tyed to lineal Descent and Succession by Blood as I think may appear In the choice of Darius Hystaspis who though of Royal Race as Justin lays yet had only his Lot for the Crown among the rest of the Princes on the overthrow of the Counterfeit Smerdis And in the Dispute about the Crown and the Decision thereof betwixt his Son Artemenes and Xâ—â—xes after his Death So that on the Death of Darius Codomannus all the Subjects of that Empire were at Liberty to submit themselves and bear Allegiance to the prevailing Macedâ—nians as they had done to the Persians before and did wrong to none therein no other having any just Right over them From this also I observe Where a Peoples Submissions are of Force to justify and carry a Translation of Allegiance viz. When they are their own Masters and free from any Third Persons rightful Power over them If they owe the Allegiance demanded of them to a rightful King they cannot give it away from him And if they pretend to do it it is still as truly his as it was before and all the aforementioned Difficulties press upon them 'T is not for one Man to give away what is anothers what is a Man 's own continues his own after all the Gifts that are made of it till he gives it away himself The Popes have been very Liberal in giving away Princes Rights And a People may be very Liberal also in giving away their Princes Rights when they give away their own Allegiance But if what they give away are really his Rights he loses no Right by either of their Gifts who had no Power to give But if there be no Prince in being that has any Right over them they may give up their own Rights to whom they please and their Submissions who are thus at their own Disposal are sufficient to bind themselves Having thus given a brief State of the Difficulties of Conscience in the way of the Refusers of the present Oath of Allegiance I proceed next to consider what are the ways proposed to take these Difficulties off The way of the Convention and Publick Acts is denying K. James now to have any Legal Right Such Right they own he had but they say he has parted with it by breaking the Fundamental Contract and by Abdicating the Government and the Throne thereby as they say becoming vacant Now if any will set themselves to prove this I grant that Proof will clear all these Difficulties For the Supposal of his Legal Right is the ground of all these Exceptions If he has no Right to any of the Realms they do him no wrong to pray That the right Owner may have his own and to help to put him whose the Right is into Possession If he is not their rightful King they owe him no Allegiance and Duty of Subjects And if there is an end of his Right there is an end of their Oaths The Oath of Allegiance recognizing his Right and promising all the forementioned Allegiance and Defence to him is only whilst he has a Right to be
of themselves those Nations gave like Right over them to the Romans as the Romans by their Consent and Submission gave to the Emperors And as to the Jews in particular the Romans had not only this human Right over them by their own Consent and Submission but in our Saviour's days this had stood for well on towards an Hundred Years which gives another Degree of human Right that at least is a good Strengthner of the former and that is Prescription So that Submission required to the Powers in the Apostles Days speaks nothing but Submission to a rightful King And these Considerations I judge may be sufficient to show that the Submission and Obedience call'd for by the Scripture Commands is an Obedience to rightful Powers But against this he Objects several Things 1. First he says The Powers which these Scripture Commands call for Obedience to are the present Powers without Distinction between rightful Kings and Usurpers But to make any Person the Power or Authority in being or the present Authority must imply Right He is not the present Authority unless at present he has it vested in him and it be his Authority and how can it be his but by some good Right or his having a Title to it So the present Power must be he who at present has the Right to the Power without a precedent Right to make it his no Person being capable to pretend to have any Authority which Subjects may either lawfully defend or are bound to obey which either God gives or the Command means and intends or calls for Obedience to as has been already shewed And this is enough for these Scriptures which in requiring Obedience to the present Powers require it only to the present lawful Powers And such the Powers were that were then Present or then in Being who are expressly meant therein as I proved before 2. He says We have no Example in Scripture of any People ever blamed for submitting to the present usurping Power Many Usurpations indeed the Scripture mentions particularly among the Israelitish Kings But the Scriptures not blaming Peoples Submission to such Usurpers is no Proof it was without Blame for the same Scriptures are Ordinarily content to relate and do not blame the usurping Kings themselves for making the Usurpation and yet I am sure this Reverend Person would blame them But it is not always blame-worthy to submit to Usurpers but only in them who at the same time are under Obligation to another's Right or to submit to an Usurper against a rightful Prince And these Scripture Submissions to Usurpers were not against any rightful Princes For against whose Right did the People submit or to whom else Were they under any contrary Obligation not to the former King for the Usurper had Murdered him to get into his Throne nor to any rightful Heir whom immediately on his Father's Death the Law made King For the Crown of Israel was not intailed by Law to lineal Descent and Proximity of Blood And the same may be said of other Scripture Submissions to the Egyptians Babylonians Persians or Romans or to any one else The People in Iury or elsewhere either submitted when they had no King nor any left that had Kingly Right over them or when the Kings themselves came together with the People into the Submission So these Submissions were against no other Person 's Right nor did any Third Person any Wrong And therefore the Scriptures might have no Cause to blame them and yet have Cause enough to blame others for turning subject to an Usurper whilst they have a rightful King of their own to whom they are under a contrary Obligation 3. Our Saviour's Argument he says relies wholly on Possession and the Image and Superscription of the Coyn if it be a good Reason for Submission will carry as much to an Usurper as to the most rightful King But when our Saviour shewed Caesar's Coyn to the Pharisees it was a good Reason in their Case When the Author produces it for Submission to an Usurper against a lawful Prince it is none in his The Reason is because they are two different Questions and what is a good Answer to one Question need not to be a good Answer to another The Question that puzzel'd and stuck with the Pharisees was not whether they ought to be subject to any other for no Body else had any pretence of Right over them nor could they have any exception to this Submission as being under a contrary Obligation to any Third Person But theirs was only whether they were subject to him not only whether his Heathen Power was the Power meant in the Commandment which is sufficiently decided by our Lord 's ordering the dues of Authority to be paid to it but whether it ought to be a Power over them as being an infringement of Jewish Freedom it was a Dispute between their own Liberty and his Authority whether they were Caesar's Subjects or their own Masters not betwixt Submission to him as I say and to any other more rightful Power Now in the Question whether they were their own Masters or Caesar's Subjects to show the Coyn is a good Reason for it shewed they were under his Subjection as a Token of their having receiv'd the Roman Yoke and submitted to their Power which gives a Right among Men and of this only our Lord was to give a Reason But as to the present Case of submitting to an Usurper against the Right of a Third Person or a rightful King that was not proposed to him 4. He says God Commands Submission to Usurpers and Condemns refusal thereof when he Commands the Jews by the Prophet Jeremiah to submit to the Babylonians This by Ieremiah he thinks was an Express Command from God to be subject to the King of Babylon If so I cannot understand what sort of Usurper the King of Babylon was for if God by a Prophet exspressly Commands that they shall be his Subjects he expressly Commands withall that he shall be their King And then he is King by Divine express Command which is the same as by Divine express Nomination which we both agree is the best Right and Title whereby any Prince can hold his Throne and so must absolutely exclude all charge of Usurpation Besides what sort of Usurper will he make Nebuchadnezzar before this Command Had not all both King and People before this submitted and given up themselves to him Nay even the King himself Zedekiah by name had accepted the Crown from him and had taken an Oath of Fealty and Allegiance to him and had broken that Oath in hopes of Succour from Egypt for which he is so severely threatned by God Ezek. 17. And this breach of Oath and Rebellion against his Leige Lord the King of Babylon was the very Thing that brought the Babylonian to beseige Ierusalem when Ieremiah came from God to bid the Jews under Zedekiah to submit to him Ier. 21.
you could suppose no Obedience due to God's Authority you may suppose no Obedience due to God himself for all the Obedience due to him is upon the Account of his Authority And therefore leave any Person vested in God's Authority and there is no need of any Thing more for Obedience is immediately his Due 3. From the Commands requiring Obedience which fix it to the Authority Honour thy Father be Subject to the Higher Powers Obey Magistrates He that has the Father's Authority is without more ado the Father And he that has the Higher Powers or Prince's Authority is the Prince for it is the Regal Authority that makes him King or Prince And make him once the Father or the Prince as the Authority immediately doth and these Precepts ask no more for the Obedience they require Accordingly in all Authorities this Obedience is kept on payable and due whether they are under the Exercise of the Authority or no. What Exercise doth a Wife or Family receive of an Husband 's or Father's or Master's Authority when he is beyond the Seas which will put a stop to actual Government and Communication as much between them I suppose as between a Prince and his Subjects And yet all these though they cannot obey their Relatives in the Exercise of their Authority whilst there is or can be no Exercise of it are still bound to keep under their Obedience and act in what they can for their Authority and Interests and would shew themselves very Undutiful and Disobedient to them should they in their absence act any Thing directly against their Authority Persons or Interests especially should they go to disclaim and cast off their Authority over them or go to transfer and fix that Authority in another though thought by them a more deserving Person But as to these Precepts he says He is sure the only direction of Scripture is to submit to those who are in the actual Administration of Government How is he sure of that One Scripture bids Honour the Father another Obey the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Authority or Higher Power and so in other Authorities And yet these Names of Father Higher Power Husband Master to whom they direct this Obedience speak only Authority not Exercise And Authority as I have shewn may reside and remain in them who for the present do not or cannot exercise it And I think he may be sure and according to Scripture too that the very Nature of Authority binds to Obedience and that God's Authority will challenge it without looking further to actual Exercise or to any Thing else And accordingly it has claimed a dutiful Regard to Persons in their worst Circumstances as to Saul when on Mount Gilboab fled from the Philistines and David when he left the Administration to save himself by Flight from Absalom as I observed above in case of the Amalakite's and Shimei's Carriage towards them Indeed all Authority is given to be Exercised and will be so if Men will suffer those that have it to exercise it and Obedience is due to that Exercise and to the Exercisers thereof And Obedience is called for in Scripture to such Exercise of Authority and to those that Exercise it particularly by St. Paul who design'd to make all Christians sensible not only in general of their Obligation to Authority but particularly to the then present Administration of Authority and to those who at that time Exercised it the Obeying of whom the Iudaizers question'd So that in Precepts about Authority 't is no wonder to find mention or reference to Exercise of Authority since all Authority is given to be Exercised and always is so when it will be allowed and is always to be Obeyed when 't is Exercised And the Publishers of these Precepts had not only a design to teach Obedience to future Authority but to those that then were and were actually Exercising it in the World But many times they bid them only to obey the Authority without any mention of Exercise and the Obedience to this Exercise is because 't is the Exercise of Authority So Authority is the Ground and Reason of the Obedience and then it will claim Obedience whether a Man has a free Liberty to Exercise it or is kept from it 4. From the Reason of the Dueness of Obedience to such Administration and Exercise Obedience is not due to it because it is Exercise of Government but because it is Exercise of Authority in him that Governs If he has no Authority though he may Exercise the Acts of Government yet he doth not exercise Authority for if a Man has not Authority he cannot Exercise it if a Man has not Authority he ought not to Exercise the Acts of Government but if he has got Possession of external Strength into his Hands he may Exercise the Acts of Government though for want of Authority to do it withal he ought not But in all those Acts being not possessed of Authority he must Act I think without Authority and cannot Exercise it before he have got it and when this Exercise of Government and Authority are thus separated What Obedience is due to it The Scriptures plainly bid us be Subject to Authority And all Conscience of Obedience must be in regard to God's Authority And Allegiance as the Author says is due only to God's Authority and therefore none can be due to him who has not that Authority as none is for that Reason as he observes to Thieves and Pyrates when they have got Power over any Persons So that let a Man assume the Place and Exercise the Acts of Government yet that claims no Obedience if he has no Authority to govern And whenever the Acts of Government are Obeyed 'ts because of his Authority that doth those Acts so that the Persons Authority is the true Ground of all Obedience And if it be only for the sake of Authority that any Thing else must be Obeyed it would be a Riddle indeed if there should be none due to Authority it self which would be to make that which gives all claim to Obedience to have no claim thereto 5. From the Obedience due to the Authority of Governours in unauthoritative Acts the Author I am sure will own that a King may retain his Authority even when he acts Illegally and that Subjects owe him Obedience even under such illegal Actings else there were no Passive Obedience due to King's breaking Laws But now to what Authority is this Obedience due to Authority in the Exercise or in these Acts of Government No in these actings against Law he doth not Exercise his Authority having no Commission to do thus or to tye up any Man's Conscience the effect of Authority to do what he Illegally injoyns him but acts without and against it To what Authority is it due then For all Obedience must be due to some Authority 'T is due to that Authority in his Person which he doth not Exercise by
Estate as well as the highest Authority and if you suppose the Right to this Estate to be in him doth not that make it his rightful Property Then to seek to hinder him of his Right to take it out of his hand or to keep it out of his hand would be very unrighteous To pray for it to wish or desire it would be a Breach of the Tenth Commandment an unjust and evil Covetousness To attempt it or any ways abet or act therein would be a Breach of the Eighth and pass among unjust Seisures And the Allegiance that tyes to pray for and to promote the Possession of K. W. Q. M. I think doth pretty evidently do all this against him 2. To be Dutiful and Obedient to him in point of Power Admit him to have the Legal Right and he will seem to be the Politick Father and still King and then by the Fâ—fâ—h Commandment Allegiance is unavoidably due to him Suppose him the Father there spoken of and that Commandment bids all to Reverence and keep Subjâ—ct to and Serve and Support him and transferring Allegiance runs directly contrary to all these Duties It is turning Subject to another against him not keeping Subject to him against all Men. There is an end of praying for him when they openly fast and pray against hâ—m They have done with supporting him when they fall to support another in his Throne They can be but one King's Subjects as having but one Allegiance which when they promise and pay to K. William and Q. Mary they must needs cast off to K. James And as the Supposal of his Legal Right makes them owe him as may seem all the Duty of the Fifth Commandment I think such transferring of Allegiance would manifestly be very bad Payment of it 3. To be true and faithful to their own Oaths and Promises The Third Commandment is Not to take God's Name in vain or as our Lâ—rd words it not to forswear our selves And that may be either in â—alsifying the former Oath by Non-performance or in falsiâ—ying again by swearing more than we can perform in the new Oath The former Oath to K. James was notwithstanding any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience to bear Faith and true Allâ—giance to His Majesty Now I suppose to transfer Allegiance from him doth not fulfil the Promise of continuing to hear Allegiance to him And to bear it to his Competitor is not to bear it to him for certainly he and his Competitor are not the same And to defend him and his Heirs to the uttermost of our Power against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity Now how Attempts have been made and how they are continued against his Person Crown and Dignity all Men must needs see And the calling for the present Allegiance is to back the Attempâ—ers therein And if you suppose his Legal Right to turn over to the Attempters will not verifie the Promise of Defending him and his Crown against all Attempts nor will aiding and praying for them when going against him be keeping his Crown on his Head to our utmost against them It is declared further That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever has Power to absolve us of this Oath nor of any part thereof And that notwithstanding any Absolution from this Obedience we will bear him this Faith and true Allegiance 'T is visible they that turn to bear it to another who is set upon his Throne bear it no longer to him They were bound thus fast to him therein before and some must have set them loose and by his Supposal that was not done by King James himself if as he puts the Case his Legal Right still remains And if they give this Faith and true Allegiance away to another when these Absolvers have loosed them how is that holding to bear it on to him notwithstanding any such Absolution Such Rubs lye in the way of transferring this Allegiance from the former Oath to King James And since in this new Oath true Allegiance is to be sworn again to K. William and Q Mary if they swear such Service and Support to them against K. James as 't is not lawful to perform as it seems visible they do if you suppose the former Bond is still remaining there would be a new Falsification To say and not to doe is to falsifie And to swear he will do what a Man ought not and will not do is to swear falsly And this every person doth that swears to do an unjust thing or to give away what is none of his own Such Oaths lay no Obligation nor procure Licence to perform the thing being as unjust after as it was before their Swearing No man must swear away any part of his Duty as the Author observes p. 32. because an Oath in which a Man so swears is false in the making assuring Men of what they are not like to find and deluding them by a Promise and Oath which must not be kept but broken As to the Persons concern'd in these Difficulties the Consciences of all the Subjects are concerned on some though not on all the forementioned Accounts The Eighth and Tenth Commandments of not being injurious to him in his rightful Properties would affect the Consciences of all Men in common Justice The Fifth Commandment of bearing Allegiance to him if true and legal King and paying him Honour and Obedience would bind the Consciences of all Subjects of these Dominions And the Third Commandment of not forswearing our selves but performing towards him our Oaths concerns only them that have been in Stations requiring the Oaths of Allegiance And to the foregoing Obligations which equally concern and are a fast Tye upon all others this superadds a new Bond or most solemn Obligation upon the Swearers themselves These in short I conceive are the great Difficulties against the new Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary whether called for upon Oath or without Outh Now of all these Difficulties I observe That they suppose a rightful Competitor in being to whom the Subjects are under a contrary Obligation The hindrance of Conscience is not from their own Rights which the Owners may give up if they please but from the Rights of a Third Person And the Refusal is only to do Right and to keep a clear Conscience towards him For as the Case is put it is K. James's supposed Right to these Realms as Proprietor that witholds them in regard to the Eighth and Tenth Commandments from that Allegiance which must joyn to drive or keep him out thereof and his supposed Right or Power and Authority over them that bars them in Conscience of the Fifth Commandment from casting off Obedience to him and turning Subjects to K. William and Q. Mary and the further Right he has to all this by their solemn Promises Oaths which keeps them fast to him in respect to the Third Commandment till
defended so that if he has given away his own Legal Right he has given back their Oaths too from which though no other person may absolve them yet he himself may But since this Question has fallen into private hands this Allegiance has been endeavoured to be set on other Grounds This Reverend Author is not for entring into the Dispute about the Legal Right which seems to him not fit to be disputed That therefore I leave as he doth to stand or fall according to its own Evidence But he adds That this Legal Right is unnecessary in this Dispute and has perplexed this Controversie And that Allegiance is due to K. William and Q. Mary as settled in the Possession of the Throne and both may and ought to be sworn to them though King James should happen to have the Legal Right still So the business of his Book is to lay down Principles that wil clear the Allegiance required to K. Willi 〈…〉 and Q. Mary though they he supposed to have no Legal Right Which Principles of Possession of the Crown without Legal Right thereto advanced first by many others but now carried higher and improved by him how fit they are to remove the foremention'd Difficulties I come next to examine CHAP. II. Of the nature of Authority and how convey'd from God AS to this Ground of Possession of the Crown carrying Allegiance though the Possessor has no Legal Right it has been a Plea very generally used and much set by among the Writers for the new Oath pressing the dueness of Allegiance to a King de Facto That Plea if I mistake not and those several Authors I have not now at hand has run upon Possession of Power and actual Administration leaving the other still to have the best Right making Allegiance only a Tribute for Protection and the Due of actual Administration whether by a Person right or wrong But this Reverend Author goes further to make Possession carry a better Right along with it viz. the Right of Providence which he says by God's Order is to take place of any Right by human Laws Both these Pleas viz. of De Facto or Possession leaving the other the best Right and of Providence giving the Possessor a better Right are made use of to carry the Allegiance in Debate from K. James supposing him to have the Legal Right And if the Plea of Providence should fail in giving the Possessor a better Right several things are said by this Author which are used by others to press Allegiance on score of Possession and actual Administration though the best Right should lye on the other side And I shall consider both these Pleas and examine how fit either of them is to remove the former Difficulties out of the way of the Rufusers First then as for the way of King de Facto or leaving the Dispossessed Prince the best Right According to that his Possession only is gone but he has still the best Right either as Proprietor of a great Estate or as King of the Realm and both the Property and Authority are allowed still of Right to belong to him And this leaving him to have the Right whosoever has the Possession of his Right I think would leave all the preceding Difficulties untouched For to bind themselves by an Oath of Allegiance to keep his Competitors in such his supposed Rightful Power and Property and to keep himself out of it seems 1. To carry all the Injustice to him as a Proprietor against the Eighth and Tenth Commandments Grant as the Plea doth that what Subjects ingage to keep him out of is his Right and it needs no more to make it very unrighteous 2. All the 〈◊〉 to him as a King and Father against the Fifth Commandment For if he be allowed to have Right to the Authority he will have Right to the Obedience Obedience is due to nothing else but the Authority and therefore can be due to none else but him that has the Authority and that is he who has the Right to the Authority For in all righteous Estimate the Authority is his whose of Right it is This Authority cannot go to both it can belong but to one Whose is it then his that has Right to it or his who has none Not his that has no Right for that is not to judge righteously or to do Right and to give every Man his own He that has Right to the Authority then must have the Authoâ—ity and indeed Authority as I shall note is a thing which must go by Right It is a Spiritual thing not subject to Violence Force cannot take it but Right must convey it and God's way of giving it is by giving any one a Right to it So that having the Right to the Authority by this Plea he would be adjudg'd to have the Authority And then ought he not to have the Duty and Obedience which God makes due to the Authority if thâ—y will give him his Due Having the Authority he woâ—ld be the Faâ—her spoâ—e of in the Precept to Whom all are required to pay Hâ—nour and Support and Obedience and to keep Subject all which are paid contrary when the Allegiance is transferr'd as I before noted 3. All the Breach of the solemn Promises and O 〈…〉 hs For those were sworn on the account of his having Right to the Crown and for Defence of it The Oath of Allegiance expresly recognizes his Legal Right and engages that Faith and Allegiance to defend him in that Right to the utmost So leave him still in that Right and you leave what it swears to defend and the Swearers for ought appears in this Plea to bring them off are still bound to defend him therein according as that Oath engaged The First of these viz. Injustice to him as Proprietor seems plainly left by this Hypothesis Grant him Right as it doth and to oppose Right is plainly unrighteous And the Third viz. Breach of the Oath seems as plainly left too For the thing recognized and sworn to be defended in that legal Oath being the legal Right Grant that legal Right still to continue as this Plea doth and that Oath will have it to defend still as it had the first day it was made And to transfer and turn Allegiance to oppose him in that Right I think is not to bear Allegiance to Defend him therein But as to the Second viz. Undutifulness to him as a King and Father allowing him still to have the Right several and this reverend Person among the rest will be apt to dispute that Not but that Obedience must follow the Authority but because as they fancy he may have the Authority that wants Right and on the other side he that has the Right may want the Authority Authority goes not by Right as he thinks but by Advancement to the Throne by whatever means So that he who has Right if dispossâ—ssed has not Godâ—s Authority or as he says p. 21. is out
of Authority and he that has Possession though against Right has God's Authority which is the Notion that runs through his whole Book To clear this therefore I shall here enquire into the Nature of Authority and into the way of coming by it which will shew the way of losing of it A right Understanding whereof will be of great use to clear up his most fundamental Mistakes as I conceive and answer the main of what he has alledged on this Subject I. First I shall say something to the Nature of Civil Authority or shew what it is that we may know what to seek for in one when we seek after Authority There is the more need of this because I sind Men are very apt to take External Might and Strength which they see in Persons of Authority for their Authority And to conclude When they see one possessed of this External Strength that he is possessed of Authority but if he loses this External Strength that he loses his Authority Civil Authority speaks a Right or Liberty in one to order or do a thing in Civil Matters laying an Obligation on others to follow or submit to him as particularly in a Prince to give Order and Commands for a Rule of Practice to judge and determine Disputes about Rights or Properties to use the Sword which God has allowed him alone the Liberty of for Defence or Punishment And all with an Obligation to these under him to obey or acquiesce in or submit to them The most Essential Property of this and of all other Authority is to lay Obligation or a Conscientious and Internal Bond on those who are subject to it And some Authority has no other Inforcement being furnish'd with no External Compulsory nor using Force over the Bodies of those who are subject thereto as the Ministerial Authority which yet is a good Authority and God's Authority as truly as Civil Authority it self is But since the generality make so little of this Internal Obligation and can so easily break it External Strength and Might is added to this Authority to be a tye upon the Bodies as the other is upon the Spirits of Men and to make them observant out of fear of Wrath as St. Paul says Rom. 13. 4 5. who would not otherwise be so out of the true Obligation of Authority that is the Bond of Conscience And this External Strength lyes in a Princes having the Command of Courts and Officers Prisons and Executions in being possessed of Armies Ordinances Magazines Navies Treasures and Strong-holds of a Nation and the like But now this External Force and Strength is not the Prince's Authority it self but a Means and Instrument to exercise to back and inforce his Authority The Authority as I noted lies in Rightor Licence of Ordering with effect of Obligation and all this is a Spiritual Thing as Right Licence and Obligation and other Moral Things are So that Authority is a Moral Quality but this External Strength is no Moral Quality but a bodily Thing The insâ—pâ—rable effect of Authority is to lay an Internal Obligation this an External that a Power of affecting the Conscience this only the Bodies of Subjects For what External Strength has Power over is only our Bodies bodily Force can take away bodily Things but mere External Force lays no such Internal Bond of Submission upon the Conscience If a Man falls into the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or in time of War if he and all he has in the Power of the Enemies their Ezternal Strength will give them Power over his Body but his Spirit is free And such Men for all they are under the Power of External Strength may refuse all they require with safety enough to their Consciences if they can with safety enough to their Persons There must be Authority as I say to bind the Conscience when this External Might that is only the means to exercise back and inforce Authority binds us in fear for External Interests And both these distinct Effects St. Paul distinctly Marks in the Higher Powers whose Authority which as being God's Authority binds the Conscience is backed with Strength for present Wrath upon the Bodies of Subjects Ye must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 135. Accordingly we find this External Stength separate from Authority and that shews plainly that External Strength is not Authority If a Man is in the Hands of Thieves or Pyrates or of Enemâ—es in time of War as I said he is the subject of External Strength but yet he is not there the subject of Authority For no Man pretends as this Author says p. 34. That Theives and Pyrates have God's Authority nay not although they proceed upon him in Form of Law and Judically as the High Court of Justice did upon the Blessed Martyr who for all in that Court he was the subject of External Strength yet I think no wise Man will say he was the subject of Authority And on the other hand we find Civil Authority separate from External Strength and yet for all that it is Authority As it was in Saul when on Mount Gilboa he fled before the Pursuers and Sought Death for the Anguish of his Wounds and that he might not fall alive into the Hands of his Enemies For all which Discomfiture and Desperate State David tells the Amalakite he ought still to have looked upon him as having the Inviolableness of God's Anointed And as it was in David when he fled out of the Land for fear of Absalom notwithstanding which Flight and Dispossession Shimei was still to have owned him as the Anointed of the Lord and was guilty of Treason against the Regal Authority in his Carriage towards him Thus also our Law owns this Authority in a Dispossessed King and under any Breach or Interruption of Possession Thus the Statute says of Q. Mary that for all the Interruption of her Possession by the Possession of Q. Jane the Crown with all Authorities thereunto belonging was all the time immediately from the Death of K Edward invested and by Law adjudged to be in her Royal Person And in Case of any of the Heirs of Henry VIII usurping the Crown before their time one taking Possession whilst another had the legal Right to the Throne every such Offence is made High Treason And the Dispossessed Heir I think has Authority if Treason can be committed against him King Charles the First was intirely Dispossessed of all the External Strength of the Nation when he stood Arraigned before the High Court of Justice but yet he was not Dispossessed of his Authority because all the Proceeding was Treason and is confessed by all so to be against his Authority And all the time of his Exile King Charles the Seond was under like Dispossession but yet he had the Regal Authority all that time else how came his Reign to commence immediately from his Fathers Death and all that was done against
Due of a Person not due to the Country or to the Order of Government but to the King And accordingly in Cobledikâ—'s Case the Judges rejected a Plea as my Lord Coke notes p. 9. in Calvin's Case for saying only the Ligeance of England but admitted it when they added and the Faith of the King And therefore the King himself is not capable to commit Treason because it is only a Breach of that Faith which is due to his own Person so that the Treason lyes where the Faith and Allegiance doth that is against the rightful King's Person As to what he says p. 52 53. about Cognizance which is the right King not lying before a private Subject I grant it would not if once a Court competent had judged of it But where is that Court that is of Authority competent to sentence and give away a lawful King 's Right It seems plain in the Eye of the Law That among us a Parliament called by a Possessor without Right cannot do it because after they have done what they can the Law says he has Right and will punish the private Subject as has been shewed notwithstanding the Warranty of their Judgment for acting against his Right So there is no way that I see but for every Subject to take the best Advice and Care he can to know which is the Right that he may not act against him for though he would have no Cognizance were it a Thing that lay before authorized Courts or that the Competitors had brought into Court and there decided as H. 6. and the Duke of York did in Parliament and though where there is no Court competent to judge he has no Cognizance to judge for others yet he has to judge the beâ—t he can and at his own Peril for himself as every Man muâ—â— do I think in this Case Allegiance hâ— must pay to him that has 〈◊〉 as I have proved and so must satisfy â—imself who has it to answer the Law of Goâ— And as for the Law of the Land to seeâ— Protection from the Judgment of Courtâ— which are not legal Couâ—ts but only Cour 〈…〉 de Facto or from legal Courts if they meddle with that which is not under th 〈…〉 Cognizance will fail those that trust to shelter themselves thereby as my Lordâ— Chief Justice Bridgman told Cookâ— when he pleaded that the High Court of Justice was a Court de Facto in defence of his Acting under it But as to all this Dispute about Law for Allegiance to the King in Fact against the King in Right p. 54. 65 he observes That the Non-swearers would noâ— abide by the Decision of the Laws Which may be true as to this particular of following a mere King in Fact against the legal Right because the Laws of God as well as of the Land are their hindran 〈…〉 in this Case But then says he Why do they insist upon-Lam They insist on it because they think it one good Argument and so they have reason to think it still for any Thing that I have yet seen offered from Law to the contrary But they do not abide by it or give up the Cause to stand or fall with it because it is not the only good Argument and other Hinderances from God's Laws they think are no less than that And this learned Person knows very well That any one Conscionable Hinderance is enough to keep a Man from doing a Thing and the Lawfulness in some respect whilst 't is Unlawful in others is not enough to warranâ— him in doing it Bonum says the Râ—le oritur ex integra Causa malum ex quoli 〈…〉 Dâ—fectu Though I think as to th 〈…〉 painful Search that has been made into the Point of Law for Allegiance to a King de Facto the Non-swearers did not begin it but were driven to it The Pleaders for the New Oath pretending the Law in this Case to be for a King in Faâ—t which upon Examination they find to be a Mistake and think the Plea from Law is on the other side And thus upon all Accounts both of Scripture and the Nature of Things and of our own Laws I think it may seem sufficiently manifest that as he that has the Right has the Authority so he that has the Authority by the Laws both of God and Man must have the Allegiance though he cannot actually Govern but is Forceibly kept out of his Throne And if the Dispossessed rightful King still keeps the Authority and the Obedience of the Fifth Commandment is still due to him because of that Authority the leaving any ejected Prince to have the Right and the Regnant or Providential King to be only King in Fact without Right would leave all that take a New Oath for transferring Allegiance under as evident a Breach of that Commandment as of the rest So upon the whole I conclude this Plea of mere Possession without Right leaves all the Non-swearers Difficulties against the Oaths untouched For suppose any Man to be still ones rightful King and then what will hinder but to bind our selves by a contrary Allegiance to oppose his Right must be Unrighteous towards him or to bind our selves thereby to act against his Authority must be Undutifulness and Rebellion and binding our selves to all this against what we had promised and assured by former Oaths must be to forswear our selves So that when at the last Day all that take such Oaths come to be tryed by these Laws how they have kept Just to the Rights and Obedient to the Authority and True to the Oaths they had made to a Dispossessed King If they have no Exception to his Right nor any Ground but this of de Facto to plead to me it seems there is great Danger lest all those Laws should condemn them And however they they think this Plea of Possession without Right may bear them out before God in paying this Allegiance I think 't is visible no Possessed King trusts thereto in demanding it either before God or before the World for we never yet had a Regnant King that set up upon that Title And in the present Revolution 't is well known to all what Declarations the publick Acts have made of King William's and Queen Mary's legal Right and Title to their Father's Throne CHAP. V. Of the Author's Right by providential Possession without other Title It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong I Come now in the Third place to that which is more particularly the Plea of this learned Man which is the Plea of Providencâ— to give or grant Right And this though it be not a legal Right but leaves that still to go as Law directs it yet he says is a better Right than that and such as in the fight both of God and Men ought to set the legal Right aside And this he makes to be the Right of every Regnant King or Possessor of a Throne Providence that gives Success and speeds him