CONSIDERATIONS Humbly Offered for Taking the Oath of Allegiance TO KING WILLIAM AND Queen Mary Optima Regula qua nullae est verior aut firmior in Jure Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus LONDON Printed by J. Leake for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan at Amen-Corner MDCLXXXIX THE PREFACE ALthough I have insisted chiefly on the following Argument because it seems most fully to take off that scandal from the Genuine Members of the Church of England which others seem not so to have regarded as the importance of the matter doth require yet do I by no means condemn those Writings which plead for taking the imposed Oath upon such Grounds as do more fully justifie the Title of our present Governors which as I never will dispute so I conceive my self unable by reason of my want of Knowledge in the Law to pass an exact judgment in that matter But yet in matters which chiefly do relate to History it may not be improper for one of my Profession to produce what He by reading of our Historians hath observed When by the Greatest Councils of our Nation an Original compact or establishment betwixt the King and People was asserted few can be ignorant with what disdain the Notion was received and how 't was represented as an imaginary notion without foundation either in History or Law or with what earnestness an evidence or prospect of such a contract was demanded Now in order to the satisfaction of such Enquirers be it observed 1. That Florence of Worcester Simeon of Durham and R. Hoveden do with one voice assert That (a) Ubi Aldredus Archiepiscopus Walffunus Wigornensis Episcopus Clito Eadgarus comites Eadwinus Morcarus de Lundonia quique Nobiliores cum multis aliis ad eum venerunt datis obsidibus illi deditionem fecerunt fidelitatemque juraverunt cum quibus ipse soedus pepigit c. Flor Wigorn p. 635. Dunelm p. 195. R. Hoved. Par. Pr. p. 258. William called the Conqueror made a League or Compact with the Archbishop Bishops Earls and Nobles of the Land who met him at Beorcham To this it is indeed replied by Dr. Brady That there was no Election no Consent of the People no Bargain strucken or Covenant made to observe and keep the Laws which were bonae approbatae leges Regni the good and approved Laws of the Kingdom but on the contrary here is the Submission of the People the Behaviour of a Conqueror Hostages taken Towns burnt Rapine committed Answ to Arg. Antinorm p. 251. and He himself made King by the influence of an Army To which I Answer 1. That Gulielmus Gemiticensis and Walsingham expresly say That William the Conqueror was (b) Ab omnibus tam Normannorum quam Anglorum proceribus Rex est Electus Gul. Gemit de ducibus Norm l. 6. c. 37. Walsingh Hypod. Neuslriae p. 436. Elected King by all the Nobles of England and Normandy 2. Florence of Worcester Simeon of Durham R. Hoveden Daniel p. 36. and John Brompton declare That as the Bishops and Barons of the Realm swore Fealty to him so He reciprocally (c) Cum quibus ipse foedus pepigit nihilominus exercitui suo villas cremare rapinas agere permisit Appropinquante igitur Nativitatis festivitate cum omni exercitu Lundoniam ut ibi in Regem sublimaretur adiit ipsa Nativitatis die ab Aldredo Eboracensium Archiepiscopo in Westmonasterio consecratus est honorifice prius ut idem Archipraesul ab eo exigebat ante Altare Sancti Petri Apoftoli coram clero populo jurejurando promittens se velle Dei Sanctas Ecclesias ac Rectores illarum defendere hec non cunctum populum sibi subjectum juste Regali providential regere rectam legem statuere tenere rapinas injustaque judicia penitus interdicere Flor. Wigorn p. 634 635. Dunelm p. 195. Hov p. 258. Ipsum Regem W. ad jura Ecclesiae Anglicanae tuenda conservanda populumque suum recte regendum leges rectas statuendum facramento solenniter adstrinxit Chron. Job Brompt p. 962. being required thereto by the Archbishop of York made his Personal Oath before the Altar of St. Peter to defend the Holy Church of God and the Rectors of the same to govern the Universal People subject to him justly to establish equal Law or Laws and to see them duly executed And when new Commotions were made by the Nobility and Clergy upon their Submission and Oath of Allegiance re-taken Ibid. p. 37. He himself takes again his Personal Oath (d) Occurrerunt igitur Angli memorati ubi post multas deceptationes praesente Archiepiscopo Lanfranco Rex pro bono pacis juravit tactis Sacrosanctis Evangeliis bonas approbatas antiquas Regni leges quas Sancti ac pii Angliae Reges ejus Antecessores maxime Rex Edvardus statuit inviolabiliter obhservare sic pacificati ad propria laeti recesserunt M. Paris in Vit. 23. Mon. p. 30. before Archbishop Lanfranc and the Lords for the Good of Peace NB. to observe the Ancient Laws of the Realm established by his Noble Predecessors the Kings of England and especially of Edward the Confessor 3. R. Hagulstadensis S. Dunelmensis R. Hoveden M. Paris Henry of Knyghton and W. of Malmsbury inform us That (e) Legem R. Edvardi vobis reddo cum illis emendationibus quibus Pater meus eas emendavit consilio Baronum suorum R. Hagustald p. 311. Dunelm p. 225 226. Fioveden part 1. p. 268. Mat. Paris p. 38. Henr. de Knyght p. 2374. W. Malmsbur l. 5. p 88. Henry the First granted to all the People the Laws of Edward with the Emendations which his Father had made of them strengthening them with his own Oath and the Oath of all his Nobles that they might not be eluded And W. Lambara in his Book of the Ancient Laws of England cites this as one of the Laws of William the Conqueror (f) Hoc quoque praecipimus ut omnes habeant teneant legem Edwardi Regis in omnibus rebus adauctis hiis quas constituimus ad utilitatem Anglorum Apud Seld. Annot ad Eadmer p. 192. This also we Command That All men have and keep the Law of King Edward with the Additions we have made to them for the benefit of the English-men All which things plainly shew in opposition to the Assertion of Dr. Brady That there was an Election of William the Conqueror a bargain strucken between him and his Subjects and that He did consent covenant and swear to observe the good and approved Laws of the Realm and in particular those of King Edward And whereas the same Dr. Brady saith P. 25. These Laws of King Edward were mostly penal or else of small moment our Forefathers were far from having such a slight opinion of them For 1. The (g) Sed postea ad preces communitatis Anglorum Rex adquievit qui deprecati
sunt quatenus permitteret sibi leges proprias consuetudines Antiquas habere in quibus vixerant Patres eorum ipsi in eis nati nutriti sunt scilicet leges Sancti Edwardi Et ex illo die magna Authoritate veneratae per universum Regnum corroboratae conservatae sunt prae caeteris Regni legibus leges R. Edwardi Chron. Eccl. Lichsield apud Seld. ibid. p. 171. Chronicle of Lichfield doth informus That the whole Community of England sued to the Conqueror that he would permit them to have the proper Laws and ancient Customs in which their Fathers had lived and under which they were born and educated viz. the Laws of St. Edward and that the King consented to their Petition 2dly When they had fought for the Empress Maud against King Stephen and placed her upon the Throne they (h) Interpellata est a civibus Londinensibus ut liceret eis uti legibus Sancti Edwardi non legibus Patris sui H. quia graves erant sed illa non adquievit inde populus commotus illam capere Statuit Chron. Job Brompton p. 1031. Chron. Gervas p. 1355. Henr. de Knyght p. 2387. requested her to Grant to them the Laws of King Edward and upon her denial of that request they again thrust her from the Throne and forced her out of the Kingdom 3dly (i) Cum autem haec Charta perlecta Baronibus audientibus intellecta fuisset gavisi sunt gaudio magno valde juraverunt omnes in praesentia Archiepiscopi saepe dicti quod viso tempore congruo pro his libertatibus si necesse fuerit decertarent usque ad mortem M. Paris p. 167. When the Archbishop of Canterbury in the days of King John produced the Charter of Henry the First by which He granted the ancient Liberties of the Kingdom of England according to the Laws of King Edward with those Emendations which his Father by the Counsel of the Barons did ratifie this Charter being read before the Barons they much rejoiced and swore in the presence of the Archbishop That for those Liberties they would if need required spend their blood And 4thly They made this one part of the (k) Sequitur forma juramenti soliti consueti praeftari per leges Angliae in eorum Coronatione quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis ab iisdem Regibus Exigere recipere consuevit Concedis justas leges consuetudines esse tenendas promittis per te esse protegendas ad Honorem Dei corroborandas quas vulgus elegerit Resp Concedo promitto Vid. Book of Oaths H. de Knyght p. 2746. Coronation Oath of the Kings of England That they should consent to the observation of the just Laws and Customs which the Community of the Realm had chosen and especially of the Laws of King Edward And in the time of Richard the 2d it is declared That the usual and customary Oath which the Kings of England took at their Coronation and which the Archbishop of Canterbury was wont to exact of them and receive from them was That they should grant that the just Laws and Customs which the Community had chosen should be observed and confirmed by them All which things put together seem to conclude an Original compact or establishment of Laws by which the Kings of England were to Govern and the Kingdom to be Governed and the Continuance and the Renewal of that Original Establishment by our succeeding Kings Add to this that Rule of Grotius That * Successio non est titulus imperii qui imperio formam assignet sed veteris continuatio jus enim ab Electione coeptum familiae succedendo continuatur quare quantum prima Electio tribuit tantum defert successio De jure Bell. l. 1. c. 3. §. 10. Succession is not a Title of Empire which gives the form to it but is only a continuation of the old Title the Right begun by the Election of the Family being continued by Succession and thence with him we reasonably may inferr That Succession only brings down to Kings what the first Election gave and makes them only Kings according to the Compact and with the Conditions agreed on at the first admission of their Progenitors to the exercise of the Royal Authority To this Historical Account of the present subject I add these words in the preamble of the Statute made 25. of H. 8. to forbid Impositions paid to the See of Rome Cap. 21. Your Grace's Realm recognising no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from Subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and obtain'd within the Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same not as to the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the customed and ancient Laws of this Realm Originally Established as the Laws of the same by the said Sufferance Consent and Cisstom and none otherwise In which words 1. There seems to be a plain distinction between ancient and accustomed Laws of this Realm which the People enjoy by Susferance of our Kings or were induced into it by the said Sufferance Consent and Custom and Laws made devised and obtained within this Realm for the wealth of the same these latter being Statute-Laws Leges istae vocatae sunt leges Sancti Edvardi non quia ipsas primo invenerat sed quia quasi sub modio positae in oblivione derelictae a tempore R. Edgari avi sui qui primo manum suam misit ad ipsas inveniendas statuendas Henr. de Knyght de Event Ang'l l. 1. c. 15. Chron. Lichfield ubi supra Sir Robert Atkyns Enq. into the Disp Power p. 9. the other being Laws Originally Establish'd and Ancient Customs of the Realm which the People of this Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used among them and our Kings finding thus established suffer'd them to enjoy And these the Histories and Records I have cited tell us were the Laws of St. Edward or rather of King Edgar renewed and confirmed by St. Edward which the Community of England desired of King William and his Successors that they might enjoy by his and their sufferance or permission and which accordingly He and they consented that they should enjoy as their proper Laws and ancient Customs swearing also at their Coronation to maintain protect and to corroborate them and which the Archbishop of Canter bury at his Coronation of them always exacted to be granted to the People To which may be added the Laws contained in Magna Charta which though they run in the stile of a Grant from the King
181. viz. It is worthy the Note that we find no execution of blood except in open battel in all these combustions nor any Nobleman to die on a Scaffold either in this King's Reign or any other since William the First which is now almost Three hundred years SECT III. NOW as the strength of this Argument seems to me greater than is that of many others which are produced in this Cause so are there many singular advantages which it hath above them For instance First Whereas 't is said n. 1. That we cannot take this Oath upon the Grounds which commonly are offered to move us so to do without condemning the Doctrine of Non-resistance allowing Subjects in some cases a Power to Depose their Prince asserting that our Allegiance to him may cease even whilst he doth continue to Govern or to sway the Sceptre and so we cannot upon those Motives comply with the Act enjoining us to take it without condemning our ancient and avowed Doctrines our Subscriptions to our Homilies and Canons if not the Doctrine of the Ancient Church and that which once was counted the Glory of the Church of England and consequently we cannot do it on those Principles without the scandal of Hypocrisie and Mutability and so of being Ecclesiastical Weathercocks that turn with every wind that blows and Men of such flexible Consciences as will permit us to swear backwards and forwards or any ways for our interest which scandal would cause ur Persons to be despised and our Doctrine not to be regarded Whereas I say some of the other Grounds of taking the Oath of Fealty and Allegiance to King William seem to subject us to these and many other inconveniencies this way entirely avoids them all For 1. We may still honestly declare as do our Statutes n. 2. 3. Jam. 1. c. 1. Can. 36.60 Can. 1. 1640. our Canons and our Convocations That the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Dominions and Countries That the Kingly Authority within his Dominions and Countries is immediately and after God Chief and Supreme and that all Subjects by divine Law stand bound to yield all Faith and Obedience to it above all Earthly Power whatsoever For this Doctrine doth not in the least diminish any Privileges or meddle with any Prerogatives of our Sovereign Lord the King but only tells us who for the time being is that Sovereign Lord to whom these Prerogatives belong 2. n. 3. We may still honestly declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King Stat. Car. 2 A. 14. cap. 2.12 Car. 2. cap. 10. And that by the undoubted fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament nor the People collectively or representatively nor any other persons whatsoever had have hath or ought to have any coercive Power over the Kings of this Realm And with our Convocation still assert A. D. 1640. Can. 1. That for Subjects to bear Arms against their King offensive or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever is at the least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God. We may still subscribe these Doctrines of our Homilies as wholsome and godly Doctrines and Doctrines to be embraced by all men 2d Par. of the Serm. of Obed. p. 72. That it is not lawful for Subjects and Inferiors in any case to resist and stand against Superior Powers that Christ hath taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them Although they do abuse their Power That if they would command us to do any thing contrary to God's Commandments in that case we may not in any wise withstand them violently P. 74 75. or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise Against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God. Hem. of Rebel Par. 2. p. 301. And that though Multitudes not only of the Rude and Rascal Commons but sometimes also Men of great Wit Nobility and Authority have moved Rebellions against their lawful Princes whereas true Nobility should most abhor such villanies though they should pretend sundry Causes as the Redress of the Common-wealth which Rebellion of all other mischiefs doth most destroy or Reformation of Religion whereas Rebellion is most of all against true Religion yet were the multitude of the Rebels never so great the Captains never so noble politick and witty the pretences feigned to be never so good and holy yet the speedy overthrow of all Rebels of what number state or condition soever they were or what colour and cause soever they pretend is and ever hath been such that God thereby doth shew that He alloweth neither the dignity of any person nor the multitude of any people nor the weight of any cause as sufficient for the which Subjects may move Rebellion against their Prince For this Doctrine only adds to these Particulars this That the King Regnant in possession is the King whom we may not resist in any case 3. We are not obliged for the justification of our selves n. 4. and of our Doctrine to appeal from the Homilies themselves to those who composed or subscribed them to prove their Actions towards others and the Sayings of one or two of them elsewhere were inconsistent with the plain import of the words which they subscribed and taught as good and wholsome Doctrine when it served to defend the Protestants against the Insurrections of the Romanists the chief Adversaries of that Doctrine which England knew of in those times or to insinuate to their disparagement that they held this to be good Doctrine when it was useful to secure them against the Romanists but that the Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Resistance was as good when it was useful to preserve the Protestants in England or beyond the Seas against the Romanists But can fairly account for that assistance which they gave to their oppressed Brethren from the difference betwixt the constitution of their Government and ours this being one of the chief Laws by which the liberty of the Netherlands was long maintained and justified If any Prince hath disturbed the State of the Republick either by violence wrong dealing or treachery Oration of the Lawfulness of the Netherlandish War p. 14. then all the States and Burghers may deny him Obedience and shall be free and discharged of their Oaths they shall appoint a Chief in his place until he be reduced to a better Mind and more easie Government From the Observation of Dr. Hammond out of Bodinus L. 2. de Rep. c. 5. That in France Spain England and Scotland Reges sine
in the word Concessimus for the honour of the King yet were they saith Sir Edward Coke the Common Laws and Rights of the People before 3dly It plainly is asserted That the whole Realm is subject to these Laws and to be Governed by them and no otherwise And agreeable to this Statute is that excellent Resolution of King James when his Subjects desired to know of him Whether he would Rule according to the Ancient form of this State and the Laws of this Kingdom or if he had an intention not to limit himself within these bounds but to alter the same when He thought convenient by the absolute Power of a King. Fourth Speech at White-hall A. 1609. p. 530 531. He Answers That the King was Lex loquens after a sort binding himself by a double Oath to the observation of the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom tacitly as by being a King and so bound to protect as well the People as the Laws of his Kingdom and expresly by his Oath at his Coronation So as every just King in a setled Kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereunto And therefore a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as He leaves off to Rule according to his Laws therefore all Kings that are not Tyrants or perjured will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their Laws and they that perswade them to the contrary are Vipers and Pests both against them and the Common-wealth CONSIDERATIONS Humbly offered for Taking the Dath of Allegiance TO King WILLIAM and Queen MARY SECT I. BEFORE I produce the particular Arguments which may be urged for taking of this Oath it may be useful to lay down some general Considerations relating to this matter viz. 1st That through the whole Series of our Kings it hath often happened that Ground sufficient hath been given to question the Right of their Succession and in the Cases of Edward the Second and Richard the Second the lawfulness of their Deposition and yet no scruple ever hath been made till now of taking an Oath of Allegiance to the King who had Possession of the Government That ever the Bishop of Carlisle refused the Oath of Allegiance I do not remember 2dly That all the Interests of the Protestant Religion plead for the taking of the Oath if lawfully it can be done it being reasonable to conceive that from the present King we may expect the Preservation of that Religion and the Defence of it to the utmost of his Power not only here but in the Neighbouring Nations against the Malice of the French King against it He being chosen the Head of the Protestant League for that effect whereas we cannot reasonably expect King James should by French Interests return to sway the Scepter without the outmost hazard of the Interest of Protestants in this and all the Neighbouring Nations 3dly If we comply with those who take this Oath we shall prevent that Division of the Church of England which may if it be not prevented give great Advantage to her Enemies we shall strengthen the Hands of King William and of the Kingdom against the Adversaries of Church and State we shall contribute to the Peace of the Nation which all good Men are bound to pray for and seek by all means lawful If we refuse compliance we shall accidentally at least give Advantage to Dissenters who generally comply against the Church we by our Example shall cause others to refuse compliance and so shall strengthen the Hands of the Papal Party and Minister to those Divisions which may cause our Ruine 4thly By refusing to take this Oath we shall deprive our selves of our Subsistence and of the ordinary means of providing for our Family which without absolute necessity we cannot do 1 Tim. v. 8. for saith the Apostle If any provide not for his own and especially for those of his own house he hath denied the faith and is worse than an Infidel We shall deprive our selves of the capacity of exercising our ministerial Function which without like necessity we cannot justifie 5thly We seem not well able to Answer the Question What it is we would have or what we would be at for if we be asked whether we would have King James return a Conqueror or whether we would have him put in statu quo we must in Conscience Answer No unless we would have Popery and Slavery entailed upon us And that he should return any otherwise as matters now stand is next to impossible Since then we cannot be willing that we should be reduced to a capacity of yielding him ctual Allegiance upon those sad terms we seem upon the matter to have renounced the Allegiance we swore to him which was 1st That we were then willing and inclined to yield him true Allegiance and 2dly That we hereafter would act suitably to that Inclination 6thly We all conceive it reasonable that we should live peaceably and quietly under the Government of King William that we should never be active to introduce King James or to disturb the Possession of King William and that whilst we enjoy his Protection we should pay him the Taxes imposed on us Now this is all that many of those who write for taking of the Oath and many of those who take it for taking of the oath and many of those who take it think is meant by swearing Faith and true Allegiance to King William and therefore according to the ordinary Sence imposed upon the Oath by many Wise Judicious Persons we our selves think it reasonable to take it and surely then there concerns of the Protestant Religion at Home and Abroad our love to the Church of England to the Peace of the Nation to our selves to those Souls to whom we minister must weigh much with us to engage us to do that which in the ordinary import put upon the words by many Wise and Judicious Persons we own we cannot rationally refuse to do SECT II. HAving premised these general Considerations I now proceed to those Arguments which seem to prove it lawful in our Circumstances to take the Oath imposed by the said Act. And First This seems to be self-evident That a legal Oath n. 1. or an Oath imposed by Law ought to be understood in a sence reconcilable to the Law and consequently no Man by virtue of a legal Oath can be obliged first to transgress the Laws and then to suffer for so doing It is also evident from the nature of the thing Cowel verbo ligeance and the determination of our ablest Lawyers that Ligeance or Allegiance is such a kind of duty as no Man may owe to more than one Lord. It is that duty which no man owes or by the Law should pay but to his Sovereign who in one Imperial Kingdom can be but one and it is agreeable unto our Saviour's
continuance there during life for he cannot cease while he lives to be descended of the Blood-Royal of the Realm which immediately constitutes him in his natural Capacity nor to be King by Birth-right inherent he therefore only in such cases ceaseth to be King and our Allegiance to him only ceaseth to be due because he hath separated from himself that politick Capacity which was before apropriated to his natural Person by the Law Ibid. by virtue of the Lineal descent of that Person from the Blood-Royal whereupon Succession doth attend 2dly Ibid. It is agreed on all hands that we cannot have two Kings at once and therefore either the King Regnant in possession only or the King de jure out of possession only can be our legal King or he who is in the eye of our Law our Sovereign Lord the King and the only Supreme Governour of this Realm 3dly It appeareth by what hath been already said and by the determination of the Judges in Calvin's Case P. 438. P. 439. That Ligeance is due only to the King that the Ligeance or Faith of the Subject is proprium quarto modo tot the King omni soli semper it is due therefore to every one who is Seignior le Roy and so to a King Regnant in possession though he be only King de facto if the Law make him Seignior le Roy. It is due soli to him alone if he alone for the time being be our Sovereign Lord the King. It is due unto him semper as long as he continues the King Regnant in possession upon the same account 4thly A. 9. Edw. 4. Term. Pasch Observe that in Bagot's Case it is determined that le Roy Hen. fuist Roy en possession il covient qu' le Royalme eit un Roy South qu' les leges seront tenus maintein doque per c ' qu' il ne fuist eins forsque per usurpation unc ' chescun act judicial fait per luy qu' touche jurisdiction Royal sera bon licra le Roy de droit quand il fait regress King Henry the Sixth was King in possession and it is necessary that the Kingdom should have a King under whom the Laws should be held and maintained therefore be it that he was only in by usurpation yet every judicial Act done by him which toucheth the Royal jurisdiction shall be good and shall bind the rightful King when he returns And it is there added that le dit Roy H. ne fuit merement comme usurper car le corone fuist taile a luy per. Parliament The said King Henry was not meerly as an Vsurper because the Crown was entailed upon him by Act of Parliament as now it is upon King William If then il covient qu' le Royalme eit un Roy The Realm must always have a King under whom the Laws shall be held and maintained the King Regnant in possession being he alone under whom for the time being they can be held and maintained he only can be our Sovereign Lord the King for the time being If every Judicial act done by him which concerns the Royal Jurisdiction shall be good though it be always done under the Title and Authority of our Sovereign Lord the King then must he be our Sovereign Lord the King to all intents and purposes of Law for the time being then must the Laws made by him be good also though they run in the stile of our Sovereign Lord the King or our Lord the King. And if all this be true of a King Regnant or in possession though it should be granted that he held the Kingdom meerly by usurpation it must more certainly be true of one on whom the Kingdom is entailed by Act of Parliament as in our case it is and who is therefore not to be looked on as a meer Vsurper 5thly P. 434. Observe that in Calvin's Case it is determined that Protectio trahit subjectionem subjectio protectionem Protection requires Subjection and Subjection Protection Quia sicut subditus Regi tenetur ad Obedientiam ita Rex subdiot tenetur ad Protectionem P. 436 437. For as the Subject oweth to the King his true and faithful Ligeance and Obedience so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects that Power and Protection draweth Ligeance and that the Ligeance of the Subject is of as great extent and latitude as the Royal Power and Protection of the King that though the King in his natural Person is subject to Death P. 438. Infirmity c. yet in his politick Capacity he is esteem'd to be Immortal not subject to Death Infirmity c. Now I would not hence inferr with others that I owe a King no Subjection or Allegiance any longer than he doth actually protect me or that if he neglect his duty in protecting me in my Goods or Body or of protecting the Laws according to these wordds of Foretescue Rex ad tutelam legis Cap. 13. corporum bonorum erectus est I may neglect my duty of Allegiance to him But yet I think it reasonable hence to inferr affirmatively From the King Regnant in possession I for the time being do receive Protection therefore to him for the time being I do not owe Subjection Protection draws Allegiance therefore Protection from him draws Allegiance to him The Ligeanceof the Subject is of as great extent and latitude as is the Royal Power and Protection of the King therefore it must extend it self unto all times and places in which and where this Royal Power is exerted and this Protection is afforded to me Rom. xiij 1 4. St. Paul doth found the reason of our Subjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the present Powers on this ground That they are unto us the Ministers of God for good or in the words of Christ that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Benefactors Luk. xxij 25. to whom we therefore own Subjection on the score of gratitude as far as we with justice can afford it Since therefore saith the Reverend Bishop Sanderson De legum Oblig lec 5. §. 18. we owe it to the Supreme Powers even when they are usurped that we enjoy what is our own that we live safe from slaughter and from rapine yea that we live at all since without them we neither could have remedy or safe-guard against the Lusts the Furies or the Injuries of wicked Men 't is the most equitable thing and that which the Old Law of giving and receiving mutually doth require that for so many and great benefits we should make some return unto that Power which affords them And what is that Return he doth sufficiently explain in the ensuing words Profecto perfecto perversissimae mentis est 'T is certainly an indication of a most perverse mind to desire to live under the Patronage of his Government whom you will not obey and to refuse to be governed by him
Axion That no man can serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two Supreme Lords Matth. vi 24. Now by the Laws of this Land I owe and am bound to yield Allegiance to him who is in Possession of the Kingdom n. 2. whether he have rightful Possession or not and am excusable and free from punishment by the Law if I afford it for so the Law runs The King our Sovereign Lord 11 H. 7. c. 1. calling to his remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the defence of him and the Land against Every Rebellion Power and Might reared against HIm and with Him to enter and abide in service in Battle if case so require and that for the same Service what Fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land sometime past hath been seen it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in Person or being in other places within this Land or without by His Commandment any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance It be therefore ordained enacted and established by the King our Sovereign Lord by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by Authority of the same that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this Land for the time being in his Person and do Him true and faithful Service of Allegiance he or they be in no wise convice or attaint of High Treason ne of other Offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chattels or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any Vexation Trouble or Loss Where Note 1st That this Service and Allegiance mentioned in this Statute is faithful Service and true Allegiance once and again and it is declared to be the duty of all Subjects 2dly That it is to be yielded to the King for the time being without enquiry whether he be the rightful King or no for it was agreeable to reason fo Estate saith the Lord Bacon History of the Reign of H. 7. p. 144. That the Subject should not enquire of the justness of the King's Title or Quarrel and it was agreeable to good Conscience That whatsoever the fortune of the War were the Subject should not suffer for his Obedience 3dly That this Service and Allegiance is to be yielded to the King for the time being against every Power and Might reared against Him. 4thly That through the whole Body of the Act he is called the Sovereign Lord of the Land their Sovereign Lord and so it seems we need not scruple the use of the said Title in our Prayers it being only that which the Law of the Land gives to every one that is King for the time being 5thly That this Statute hath continued unrepealed about Two hundred years and therefore hath been so long approved by the whole Nation and judged well consistent with the duty of Allegiance owing to their lawful Sovereign they therefore judged it not repugnant to their Oaths of Allegiance to their rightful Sovereign to bear true Allegiance and to do true and faithful Service of Allegiance to any other King for the time being who had got quiet possession of the Throne which is all that this Oath requireth of us Moreover all High Treason committed by a Native of the Land is an offence against his natural Allegiance n. 3. Cook 's Reports Par. 7. Calvin's Case p. 435. which appears from the Indictments of Treason which saith the Lord Cook are of all other things most curiously and certainly indited and penned for they run for committing this Crime contra debitum fidei ligeantiae suae quod praefato Domino Regi naturaliter de jure impendere debuit Against the duty of Faith and Allegiance which he naturally and of right ought to yield to his Lord the King or for committing this fact contra Dominum Regem supremum naturalem Dominum suum Against our Lord the King his supreme and natural Lord or contra naturalem ligeantiam Domino Regi debitam Against the natural Allegiance due to our Lord the King. Now the same Lord Chief Justice Cook in his descant on these words of the 25th of Edward the Third Instit Par. 3. ch 1. p. 7. Seignior le Roy used in that Statute concerning High Treason saith That this Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in possession althopugh he be Rex de facto non de jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the purvien of this Statute and the other that hath right and is out of possession is not within this Act. Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and afterwards the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon by a King de jure that is not also King Pleas of the Crown p. 11. de facto is void The Lord Chief Justice Hales doth also say That a King de facto and not de jure is a King within this Act and a Treason against Him is punishable though the right Heir get the Crown And sitably to these declarations of these great Men I find in Bagot's Case Pasc 9. Ed. 4. argued in the Ninth year of Edward the Fourth that it is said That the King shall have the advantage of any Forfeiture made to Henry the Sixth c. and of Trespasses made in his time the Brief shall be contra pacem H. 6. nuper de facto non de jure against the peace of Henry the Sixth late King in Possession though not of Right c. and a Man shall be arraigned of Treason done to the said King Henry in compassing his Death and it is there added Qu' si cesty qu' est ore Roy in temps le Roy Henry ust fait Charter de Pardon c ' sera void a ore car chescun qu' ferra Charter de Pardon covient estre Roy en fait That if he who is now King had given a Charter of Pardon in the time of King Henry that Charter shall be void at present because it is necessary that every one who makes a Charter of Pardon should be actually King. Now hence 1. I inferr that we cannot reasonably except
Duty of Allegiance promised and sworn doth differ from it before those Engagements The Substance and Effect thereof is due by the Law of Nature the Form and Addition of the Oath is of humane Provision So that legal Allegiance contains the Natural and adds the confirmation of an Oath unto it Where then the legal Obedience is suspended and ceaseth for a time the natural Obedience must much more cease to be exerted Again the Allegiance which all Subjects owe unto their Sovereign is natural or that which is required of them by the Law of Nature whether they live under an absolute or mix'd Monarchy under a Government which in no case allows them to resist to take up Arms against the Sovereign or under such Governments as that of Poland that of the King of the Romans See Bodin 1.2 de Republ c. 5. Grot. de jure belli annot ad l. 1. c. 4. Sect. 14. Sleid. Comment l. 8. p. 195. See Sect. 3. Numb 4. and of Arragon and that of the Emperor over the Princes of the Empire where if they violated their Oaths if they did not preserve their Laws and Liberties their very Contract was Their Promise of Allegiance should go sor nothing the Inhabitants of the Kingdom should not be bound to shew them any Obedience but they should be impowered to resist them sine Rebellionis aut infidelitatis crimine without the guilt of Rebellion or breach of Faith. Whence it is plainly evident that all natural Allegiance is not immutable and indispensable Thirdly To this Objection I answer by Explanation n. 11. and Distinction of a natural Right or a Right grounded on the Law of Nature and by Application of these things to the present Subject 1. The Law of Nature is that which the Dictate of Reason from Principles known and approved from their own evidence obligeth me to judge sit to be done or lest undone by reason of that Moral honesty or turpitude which is apparent in the Action 2. Nature may be esteemed to dictate any thing either directively as a thing consentaneous to the Laws of Reason sit and agreeable to natural Principles as perhaps Kingly Government in opposition to Aristocracy or Democracy or else Preceptively as necessary to be done or be omitted by virtue of some evidence which clearly shews the Equity or Turpitude of the performance or omission of it 3. Of these Laws of Nature some are Principles and those either general as that what is good is to be chosen what evil is to be avoided that I am to do or avoid any thing out of respect unto some good or evil to my Soul or Body That which I judge to be fit due and meet by the Laws of Humanity and Justice to be done to me in the like cases I must do to others that the publick Good is to be preferr'd before my private Good of the same kind Or secondly relating to Particulars viz. That I ought to do good to all as far as I can do it without Spiritual or great Temporal damage to my self 2dly That I am to do no hurt or damage to any innocent person if I can avoid it 3dly That I am to be true to my Word and faithful to my Promise especially when I have for the more assurance of another confirmed it with an Oath 4thly That I ought to do my best endeavour that he who hath deserved well of me should receive well from me And against these Laws of Nature God himself cannot dispense i. e. he cannot grant liberty to any one to act against the Tenor of these Laws even in those circumstances in which they would have otherwise been obliging and therefore they are truly called immutable and are the same in all who are endowed with the exercise of Common Reason Some are Conclusions resulting from these Principles and they do only bind as we may clearly see the natural connexion of them with these Principles and when no Laws of a more strict connexion with them intervene to hinder their obliging force 4. Some Laws of Nature continually do oblige under all circumstances and so their Obligation never ceaseth as the Laws forbidding the hatred of God and Idolatry Others oblige only under such circumstances as Thou shalt not kill viz. except when it is necessary for thy own preservation and desence Thou shalt not take away what is thy Brothers viz. unless extream necessity compel thee to it In these latter there must be a comparison of Duties and of Circumstances that we may know the better when they are to us Laws of Nature and when not Now to apply these things It seemeth hard to say n. 12. that by any dictate of Common Reason clear by its own native Light or any first Principle of Nature we in these circumstances are still obliged to yield natural Allegiance to King James and cannot without violating these Common Principles of clearest Reason afford it to King William and Queen Mary for then that great Assembly of the Nation those Reverend Bishops and that numerous Clergy which believe they may and therefore actually have done the contrary and either have obliged or exhorted others so to do must sin against the clearest light of Common Reason which sure we cannot charitably think or say then must this Law of Henry the Seventh which hath so long obtained and all those Judgments which have been made so solemnly by the great Sages of the Law have been Laws made and Judgments given and Sentences pronounced against the clearest light of Nature Then thirdly all persons of other Nations who in like cases have done the like in Swedeland Portugal and Germany and other places and all those learned Persons who in their Writings have expresly or by just consequence allow'd the transferring of our Allegiance in these circumstances must both have acted themselves and authorized others to act in contradiction to the plain light of humane Reason which yet seems a plain contradiction to that property of a true Law of Nature that it is the same in all who are endowed with the exercise of Common Reason 2dly n. 13. When it is said that Allegiance from the Subject is due by the Law of Nature to his Soverign this is none of those Laws of Nature which oblige under all Circumstances For when I am subdued by the Power of another who hath conquered me and hath my life at his mercy no Man doubts but that I may engage for preservation of my life that I will not be active against him that gives it That is that I will no further bear Allegiance to my former Sovereign When a Nation or part of it is subdued by a Conqueror without visible hopes of recovering Freedom they may swear Allegiance to the Conqueror Upon Frontiers saith the Seasonable Discourse P. 47. all Men are most strictly obliged to the destruction one of another according to their several Allegiances yet it happeneth daily that by Sieges and other
Allegiance which I have promised by Oath to him cease though he hath the same right to it 2dly When we say a King out of Possession hath righ tto the Allegiance of his Subjects we mean not an immediate right but mediate i. e. our meaning is That first he hath right to Possession and actual Government and by that to Allegiance he therefore must be first in Possession before we can exert the Allegiance due to him Accordingly though Edward the Fourth is by Act of Parliament in the First Year of his eign declared to have been in Right See Bagot's Case 9 H. 4. Term Trin. from the Death of the Right Noble Prince Richard Duke of York very just King of the Realm of England yet because he only took upon him to use his Right and Title to the said Realm of England on the Fourth of March A. D. 1460. and entered only then into the Exercise of the Royal Estate Dignity Preheminence and Power of the same Crown and to the Governance of the said Realm of England by the amotion of Henry the Sixth till then King in Deed though not of Right therefore is he said by the Act of Parliament to have been only on the Fourth day of March in the lawful Possession of the same Realm with the Royal Power Preheminence Estate and Dignity belonging to the Crown thereof and then only to be lawfully seized and possessed of the Crown of England in his said Right and Title and of all Prerogatives belonging to it Now what is only thus of Right may be both promised and performed to another whilst this other is in Possession though he be not de jure so provided he be so according to the Course of Law or the accustomed Rights of giving and receiving Possession as is apparent in the Case of a Lord of a Manor who is thus in Possession of what is the Right of another who is by Fraud or corrupt Verdict or Judgment outed of his Right for the Homage due of Right to the true owner is here by Law as occasion offers it self to be sworn to the unjust Possessor Nay we read of divers Acts of Parliament continuing the Name and Honour of a King to him who by their own Confession had not the just Title and only proclaiming him who had the right Title Heir apparent to the Crown as in the very Case of * In ipsa autem vigilia capta fuit conclusio differentiae hujusmodi viz. Quod Dux Filii sui Edvardus Comes Marchiae ac Edmundus Comes Rutlandiae qui ambo discretionis annos attigerant jurarent ipsi Regi fidelitatem quodque ipsum recognoscerent eorum Regem quamdiu ageret in humanis id enim Parliamentum ipsum jam decreverat addendo de ipsius Regis consensu quod quamprimum Rex ille in fata discesserit licebit dicto Duci suisque Haeredibus coronam Angliae vendicare possidere Hist Croyl Ed. Oxon. p. 550. Richard Duke of York and Henry the Sixth and in the Case of †Theobaldus Cantuariensis Utrosque demum ad concordiam emollivit in tantum quod Rex Juvenem Ducem in filium susceperit adoptivum juramenti attestatione Regni sui constituit Haeredem Regi tamen honorem debitum fidemque dum viveret Dux ipse promiserat se conservaturum Ibid p. 451. Vide Dunelm continuat p. 282. King Stephen and Henry Duke of Normandy Not to mention the Treaty of Peace made afterwards for the avoiding the shedding of Christian Blood ‖ Daniel 's Hist pag. 91. That Henry the First being invested with the Crown by the Act of the Kingdom should enjoy the same during his Life though the just Title was in Robert. This Assertion n. 17. Obj. 3. That actual Possession makes a Sovereign Lord the King for the time being destroys all Hereditary Successions in which the Heir is the power in being without farther Act done by him or passed by the People or others and without actual Possession Since it is certain that no person can now claim by a Paternal Authority uninterrupted from the beginning Answ 't is certain that all Kingdoms are now Hereditary by virtue of their own Consent and Compact or by their own Establishment that the Crown shall be continued in such a Line it therefore is Hereditary because they have consented and agreed it should be so If then all Parties concerned have consented also to a Law that a King in quiet Possession of this Government shall be looked upon for th etime being as the Heir that is shall be to all intents and purposes as much our Sovereign Lord the King as if he were so Cook 's Instit par 3. c. 1. p. 7. This Law can bear no Contradiction to such an Hereditary Succession but only be a wise Provision that in the interruptions of the Regular Succession Justice should never fail there being by the Law always a King in whose name the Laws are to be maintained and executed and therefore they who have the least acquaintance with our History must know that tho' our Kings de facto were more numerous before the Union of the two Houses than those de jure yet are they equally placed in the Catalogue of the Hereditary Kings of England and Allegiance was sworn to them by their subjects without any Scruple as well as to the Kings de jure 2dly That the Heir is of Right the Power without farther Act done by him than claiming of the Crown may be granted but that he is actually the Power in Being whilst he is uncapable by being out of Possession to exercise any Act belonging to the Supreme Power is denied For we find throughout the whole History of the Kings of England Vide Knighton Chron. l. 2 c. 5 8. That they who had the Right by Proximity of Blood but wanted Possession See the whole Pedegree of them in Bagot's Case 9 Ed. 4. Term. Trin. were never owned as Kings and Queens of England as is visible in the Case of Robert the Eldest Son of the Conqueror of Maud the Empress of Germany Prince Arthur and Elenor his Sister and of all the Issue of Lionel Duke of Clarence who by the Judgment of the High Court of Parliament in the Eighth of Richard the Second were declared Heirs Apparent to the Crown in case King Richard should die without Issue as he did On the other hand they who were Kings de facto and not of Right as unquestionably were King Stephen and King John Ed 4. 1º c. 1. and as Henry IV V and VI. by Act of Parliament were declared to be were always reckoned as true Kings of England and Allegiance was sworn and paid to them as such An Inferior Magistrate is not to be obeyed or owned as our Superior in opposition to a Superior Magistrate's Command n. 18. Obj. 4. because in such things he hath no lawful Call Warrant or Commission and for the same
reason a King de facto is not to be owned or obeyed as our Superior in opposition to a King de jure because he cannot be supposed to have a lawful Call or Warrant to Exercise the Kingly Government If an Inferior Magistrate hath a Law to warrant his Commands Answ he is to obeyed even against the verbal commands of his Superior without law Now a King de facto in quiet Possession hath a Law to warrant his Acting as our Sovereign Lord the King and requiring our Faith and true Allegiance ot him for the time being he therefore is to be owned and obeyed as having a legal Call to the Government for the time being Secondly To give a satisfactory Answer to this and many Objections of the like nature it will be proper to consider what a Call or a Commission to be the Governor of any Nation doth import and for the Resolution of this Enquiry let it be noted 1. That God doth not now as in the Case of Saul and David by himself appoint and nominate the Person who shall sway the Sceptre in any Nation of the World. We see by plain Experience God doth not interpose in this extraordinary manner in the Election or Constitution of Superiors The Roman Emperors had no such Appointment but were Elected by the roman Armies or chosen and confirmed by the Senate whence it must follow That an immediate Appointment or Designation of the Person by God cannot be necessary to render any Prince God's Ordinance 2. By virtue of God's general Appointment or Ordinance that all Nations shall have some Government placed over them no Individual Person can claim a Right to be the Higher Power in any Nation moe than Others nor are the People tied to yield Subjection by it to this Man rather than to that As then the former Designation was more so this is less than reasonably can be required to make a Man the Individual Person who is God's Civil Ordinance in reference to such a Nation 3. It cannot be said of any Person or Family at present in the World That he or it claimeth or holdeth the Throne in any Nation by a Right of Fatherhood or Primogeniture derived from Adam I know no Prince on Earth who thus pretendeth to derive his Pedigree and am perswaded that if any hath the Vanity to make such an Extravagant pretence he cannot thus make out his Title It remains therefore 4. That Government be conveyed to this or that Individual Person or Family by Compact or Consent and Choice of the Persons governed that such a Person or Family shall Exercise the Government over such a Nation it therefore must be that Choice Consent or Contract of the Persons to be governed which renders any person the Ordinance of God to such a Nation that is it must be granted that all the present Governors of any Nation become God's Ordinance to them by the Consent of the Community Where therefore any person is invested with the Supemacy by them to whom God hath committed the Choice of a Superior or by their consent to have such Persons for their Superiors there is the Ordinance of God. And if they do admit that person to the Government who by Constitutions and antecedent Compacts hath a right to be so he is to them the Ordinance of God de jure If in this Choice they deviate substantially from these Constitutions he only is the Ordinance of God de facto but yet he truly is the Ordinance of God because he is so by the only means which God hath left for the Investing any Individual Person with that Office. Hence do we find throughout the History of our Kings that the Election of or else a Compact with the People hath generally been looked upon as a thing proper either to satisfie the People or to strengthen their Title to the Crown thus v. g. Of the Conqueror Dunelm p. 195. Hoved. par 1. p. 258. Simeon Dunelmensis and Hoveden inform us That Foedus pepigit he made a Covenant with his People and at his Coronation took an Oath to defend the Holy Church f God and the Rectors of the same to govern the Vniversal People Subject to him justly to establish equal Laws and see them duly executed Daniel p. 36. William the Second held the Possession of the Crown of England by the Will of the Kingdom Ibid. p. 52. the Succession in Right of Primogeniture being none of his * Dan. p. 61. Rich. Hugust p. 310. Henry the First was invested in the Crown by the Act of the Kingdom concilio Communi Baronum Regni Angliae saith the King. King Stephen declares himself to be chosen King †Assensu populi Cleri in Regem electum Malmesb. Hist Nov. l. 1. f. 101. b. Rich. Hugust p. 314. by the consent of the People and the clergy as he had good reason to do having no title at all saith Daniel but as one of the Blood by meer Election advanced to the Crown p. 69. King John received the Crown by way of Election as being chosen by the States saith Daniel The Succession of Edward the Second saith 1 Pag. 127. Non tam jure haereditario quam unanimi assensu procerum Magnatum Ed. Franc. 1602. P 95. Walsingham was not so much by Right of Inheritance as by the unanimous Assent of the peers and Great Men. Edward the Third was Elected 2 Dan. p. 217. Cui electioni consensit populus universus id p. 126. with the Vniversal consent of the People upon his Fathers Resignation Edward the Fourth on his entrance on the Government makes a solemn declaration 3 TRussel p. 179. of his Right to the Crown of England challenging it to belong to him by a double Right The first as Son and Heir to Richard Duke of York the Rightful Heir of the same The second as Elected by Authority of Parliament upon King Henry 's forfeit thereof And Henry the Seventh to all his other Titles by 4 Lord Bac. Hist of H. 7. p. 12. Marriage Conquest and from the House of Lancaster adds that of the Authority of Parliament This Principle makes Authority and Supreme Power inseparable from Actual Regency n. 19. Obj. 5. or Command investing him with the Supreme Power who hath it for the time being and making him incapable of being the Higher Power who is out of Possession whilst he so continues which seems clear contrary to the decision of the Holy Scriptures for though all Israel chose Absalom to be their King 2 Sam. xix 10. and anointed him over them though he had for the time the Kingdom in possession and David fled out of the Land leaving no Governor behind him yet the Power was in David he was even then the Supreme Governor and Higher Power to whom Subjection was due 2 Sam. xx 2. 2 Chr. xxij 12. So he was also when all Israel followed Sheba And though Athaliah possessed the
and threaten and much less to resist their Persecutors but only to commit their Cause to him that judgeth Righteously Now if after all these Declarations they indeed allowed all Christians to resist and take up Arms against their Governors when they conceived them guilty of Tyrannical abuse of Power when they became a terror to good Works and not to Evil only when they did not act according to Justice or established Laws or for the Good and Welfare of the Kingdom but the contrary surely they cannot be excused from a semblance of Deceit and of imposing on the Heathen World. 3. It plainly seems to make them guilty of the Murther of those many Christians who when they declared themselves * Vide Tertull. Ap. c. 37. ad Scap. c. 5. Cypr. Ep. ad Deme. r. Buseb l. 8. c. 1 4. Aust de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 6. sufficient both for strength and number to resist and overcome their Persecutors at the same time declared they durst not do it because it was forbidden by the Christian Laws And whereas against our Interpretation of the words it may be objected n. 7. First Obj. 1 That it makes wicked Magistrates the Ministers of God to us for good the Powers ordained of God yea that according to it even Vsurpers if they can once obtain quiet Possession and the consent of the Nobility and of the Commons must also be the Ordinance of God for the time being This I confess is true Answ but then it seemeth to be only that which Scripture which Antiquity which Reason and the Law of this our Nation doth allow and justifie For of those wicked Enperors forementioned it is that St. Paul saith They are the Ministers of God to thee for good to them it is St. Peter doth require Subjection 1 Pet. ij 14. as to men sent for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well And even of the Power of Pilate to condemn our Saviour Christ doth himself confess That it was given him from above Joh. xix 11. And Reason saith the same for even under wicked Magistrates Justice is executed Offenders against the Lives and Lively-hoods of others punished and Peace preserved and from their Government it is that we are kept from the Insolencies of Thieves and Robbers from barbarous Assassinations and all the miseries of Anarchy For take away the Higher Powers saith St. Chrysostom and all goes to wreck Chrys in Rom. Hom 23. Tom. 3. p. 191. neither will City nor Country nor Family nor Assembly nor ought else stand the stronger will devour the weaker and all things will be turned upside down So that we do in some measure receive that good from the most wicked and depraved Governors which without Government we could not have Accordingly the ancient Christians say in General of those Kings who were not very good at least many of them in their times That they are the Ordinance of God That by his command Kings are Ordained Theoph. ad Autol. l. 1. p. 76. That they were appointed by God That they received their Government from above That the Emperor derives his Government from him from whom he doth receive his breath Iren. l. 5. c. 24. Tertull. Apol. c. 30 33. ad Scap. c. 2. That he is the Man whom God chuseth and therefore must be loved by Christians who know he is appointed by God and that he makes them Governors over the Nations Legat. pro Christianis Apud Eus H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. Apud Athanas Ep. ad Solit. Vit. agentes Athenagoras saith of Aurelius and Commodus You have received the Kingdom from above Dionysius of Alexandria of Valerianus and Gallienus God hath committed the Kingdom to you Hosius of Constantius who laboured might and main to introduce the Arian Heresie into the Church against those Imperial Laws which had established the Nicence Faith That God had given to him the Empire Paulinus of Trier Lucifer of Calaris Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Millain That God gave to him the Kingdom Athanasius Apol. ad Constant De Civ Dei l. 5. c. 21. That God by his Word had given the Kingdom to his Servant Constantius He that gave the Government to Marius saith St. Austin gave it to Caesar he who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero he who gave it to the Vespasians most sweet Emperors gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and he who gave it to that most Christian Prince Cnstantine gave it to Julian the Apostate Tho he be wicked abominably wicked though he commit Ten thousand Evils and do the worst of mischiefs to us saith St. Chrysostom yet he is a King a Governor one to whom the Government is committed and therefore to be reverenced and not to be despised for his wickedness but revered for his Dignity But yet it may be said n. 8. How true soever this may be of an evil King who hath a lawful Title to his Government it seems strange and incongruous to assert That he who is only King de facto and so can only Exercise that Government which doth of Right belong unto another should be the Ordinance of God and it is liable to these great Objections and Absurdities 1st That which renders a man an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right can never render him the Ordinance of God to which I owe Subjection and Allegiance but that which makes him only King de facto in opposition to a King de jure makes him an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right 2dly The Precept Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers cannot agree to him who is only King de facto in opposition to him that is King de jure for this Subjection doth not only signifie a Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance but an active Execution and Observation of all his lawful Commands the Contribution of Taxes to his Support and Maintenance our Assistance and Endeavours to keep him in his Station by our Arms Purse our Counsel and our Prayers our Love Reverence and Honour of him In a word our Fidelity and Allegiance to him against all others Now can all this be due to a King de facto in opposition to him whose Right it is 3dly It is Damnation to resist the Power ordained of God in favour of any other person but can it be Damnation to resist him who is only King de facto in Favour of a King de jure to whom assistance must be due de jure If so then what just War can he made for the Recovery of his Right or why did Jehoiada not only Depose but cause Athaliah to be Murthered for the sake of Joash 4thly The Power is the Minister of God or one Commissionated and Deputed by him for the same Dependance that a Subordinate Magistrate hath
saith That no person or persons shall take any benefit or advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance So can they from our Doctrine have no advantage so to do Lastly Our Principles do not concern themselves either with the supposed Title of the Prince of Wales or the supposed defect of Title in King William for do but grant what is plain matter of Fact that neither King James nor the Prince of Wales are in Possession of the Crown of England and that King William and Queen Mary are in Possession of it by the consent and approbation of the Parliament and Faith and true Allegiance for the time being must by our Principles be due unto the latter whatsoever Right or Title may being unto the former FINIS ERRATA PAge 18. line 16. for displeased read displaced p. 31. l. 32. dele of p. 46. l. 5. add resist Books lately Printed for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan at Amen-Corner THE Late Lord Russel's Case with Observations upon it Written by the Right Honourable Henry Lord De la Mere. fol. An Historical Account of Making the Penal Laws by the Papists against the Protestants and by the Protestants against the Papists Wherein the true Ground and Reason of Making the Laws is given the Papists most barbarous Usage of the Protestants here in England under a Colour of Law set forth and the Reformation Vindicated from the Imputation of being Cruel and Bloody unjustly cast upon it by those of the Romish Communion By Samuel Blackerby Barrister of Grays-Inn fol. Obedience Due to the Present King notwithstanding our Oaths to the Former Written by a Divine of the Church of England 4º A modest Enquiry Whether St. Peter were ever at Rome and Bishop of that Church wherein I. The Arguments of Cardinal Bellarmine and others for the Affirmative are considered II. Some Considerations taken Notice of that render the Negative higstly Probable 4º The Spirit of France and the Politick Maxims of Lewis XIV laid open to the World. 4º Memorials of the Method and Manner of Proceedings in Parliament in Passing Bills Together with several Rules and Customs which by long and constant Practice have obtained the Name of Orders of the House Gathered by Observation and out of the Journal Books from the time of Edward VI. 8º Dr. Burnet's Tracts in Two Volumes Vol. I. Containing 1. His Travels into Switzerland Italy and Germany with an Appendix 2. Animadversions on the Reflections upon the Travels 3. Three Letters of the Quietists Inquisuion and State of Italy Vol. II. 4. His Translations of Lactantius of the Death of Persecutors 5. His Answers to Mr. Varillas In Three Parts 12º A Collection of Texts of Scripture with short Notes upon them And some other Observations against the Principal Popish Errors 12º The Fallibility of the Roman Church Demonstrated from the manifest Error of the Second Nicene and Trent Councils which Assert That the Veneration and Honorary Worship of Images is a Tradition Primitive and Apostolical 4º A Demonstration that the Church of Rome and her Councils have Erred by shewing That the Councils of Constance Basil and Trent have in all their Decrees touching Communion in one Kind contradicted the Received Doctrine of the Church of Christ with an Appendix in Answer to the XXI Chapter of the Author of A Papist Misrepresented and Represented 4º A Treatise of Traditions Part I. Wherein it is proved That we have Evidence sufficient from Tradition 1. That the Scriptures are the Word of God. 2. That the Church of England owns the true Canon of the Books of the Old Testament 3. That the Copies of the Scripture have not been corrupted 4. That the Romanists have no such Evidence for their Traditions 5. That the Testimony of the present Church of Rome can be no sure Evidence of Apostolical Tradition 6. What Traditions may securely be relied upon and what not 4º A Treatise of Traditions Part II. Shewing the Novelty of the pretended traditions of the Church of Rome as being 1. Not mentioned by the Ancients of their Discourses of Traditions Apostolical truly so called or so esteemed by them Nor 2. In their Avowed Rule or Symbol of Faith. Nor 3. In the Instructions given to the Clergy concerning all those things they were to teach the People Nor 4. In the Examination of a Bishop at his Ordination Nor 5. In the Ancient Treatises designed to instruct Christians in all the Articles of their Faith. 6. From the Confessions of Romish Doctor with an Answer to the Arguments of Mr. Mumford for Traditions and a Demonstration That the Heathens made the same Plea from Tradition as the Romanists do and that the Answer of the Fathers to it doth fully justifie the Protestants 4º All these four Books Written by the Reverend D. Whitby D.D. An Exhortation to Charity and a Word of Comfort to the Irish Protestants Being a Sermon Preached at Steeple in Dorsetshire upon occasion of the Collection for Relief of the Poor Protestants in this Kingdom lately fled from Ireland By Samuel Bold Rector of Steeple 4º THE END