Religion of the Nation Or doth any Man call a Conquer'd Nation or a City taken Storm or a Routed Army perjured because they accept of their Lives upon condition of promising upon Oath allegiance to their Conqueror 2dly The General condition of all Oaths is That I will perform them so long and so far as it is lawful so to do Now can any Man think it lawful to be active to the apparent Ruine of himself the Laws Religion and Community of which he is a Member If not he cannot think himself obliged by his Oath or Promise to those things which will in humane probability have these sad Effects 3dly The Oath of Allegiance is a legal Oath imposed by the Representatives and Guardians of the Community Now can it reasonably be thought that they intended to bind the whole Community and in them themselves to ruine both their Laws Religion and their private Interests If not no Man can rationally think himself obliged by such an Oath to do that which apparently doth tend to such an End. Again the immediate Law of all Societies is the publick Good. Now Allegiance saith Bishop Sanderson Case of the Engag p. 109. is a Duty that every Subject owes to his Country that is the Publick and consequently to the Supreme And hence it seems demonstratively to follow that he cannot owe it to the Supreme Power when the performance of it tends plainly and directly to the ruine of the publick Good and therefore cannot owe it to him when it tends to the destruction of that Community of which he is a Member The Allegiance which is confirmed by Oath is stronger than is natural Allegiance and yet the Casuists do generally teach that when the Observation of a promissory Oath is plainly destructive of the publick Good it is not Obligatory because the matter of it then becomes unlawful For 1. That which we cannot lawfully promise we cannot swear to do but we cannot lawfully Promise to be actively Obedient to the Commands of our Superior to the ruine of the Publick we cannot therefore swear to be so 2. An Oath can only bind us to do that which we can be obliged to do but no Member of a Community can be obliged to do what is destructive of the Good of the Community he being Jer. xxix 7. by virtue of his Relation to it to seek the Peace and Welfare of it and to pray unto the Lord for it and therefore cannot be obliged to act in contradiction to his Duty and his Prayers 3dly To this Effect may be urged that saying of our Lord The Sabbath was made for Man Mar. ij 27. that is for his behoof not Man for the Sabbath whence he concludes That the Rest commanded on that Day and in which the Observation of it did consist may be violated for the preservation of Man. Accordingly Kings were made for the publick Good the Welfare and Safety of the Government and Allegiance saith St. Paul is therefore due to them because they are the Ministers of God to us for good The Community or Publick was not made for them and consequently the humane Laws concerning them and the Allegiance we owe to them may be violated when it is necessary to do so for the preservation of the Publick When therefore Subjects are under a necessity either to Hazard or Ruine the Publick or to transferr their Allegiance for the time being to the King Regnant they may do the latter Moreover it may very probably be argued That when a King being wrongfully outed repairs to a foreign Power by which to conquer his own Kingdom I am not bound by my Allegiance tamely to give up my self without resistance to be enslaved to that power as I must be if in such cases I may not resist it being not in the King's Power how much soever it may be in his Will to Rule or to Command these Conquerors and therefore not to hinder our enslavement to them Yea when he visibly attempteth to dissolve those Laws on the Preservation of which the Good of the Community consists or by such evil Methods to subject it to Popery and Slavery i. e. to Temporal and Eternal Ruine my Duty of Allegiance cannot oblige me to be obedient to him in prosecution of those ends Had I sworn to stay a Prisoner in such a House that Oath would bind me to stay in it though I found it smoaky and wanting Accommodations for my Health but not when it is on Fire or ready to fall down upon my Head because the Observation of it to my own immediate Destruction is against the Law of Nature Much less can may Oath of Allegiance bind me to the Subversion of the Publick that being more against the same Law and the very End of Societies When therefore a King hath put his Conscience under such Guides as render it morally impossible for him to desist from the Subversion of the Established Religion and his Power and Person under such Hands that it is morally impossible he should return to his Government without enslaving the Community and subverting her Laws and Liberties I know not what natural Allegiance or Principles of meer natural Reason can tie me to hazard my own safety by refusing to promise Allegiance for the time being to another who will preserve both In cases of such unhappy Contests between the good of the Governor and the Governed it seems most natural to think it better ut pereat unus potius quam unitas For the present Governor in such a struggle may suffer much and yet the Government may not suffer but be as well preserved in another Person But when a Kingdom and a Church is thus subverted and enslaved the Government then suffers without prospect of Recovery and the Effects of these things reach unto Posterity Witness the woeful Spectacle of France According to the supposition of the Statute of Henry the Seventh and the Cases cited Obj. 2 the King out of Possession is de jure King and so we must be his Subjects de jure these being essential Relatives which mutually inferr one of the other If we be of right his Subjects we must owe him Allegiance of right and then How can we promise and swear to give away his right to another To this Objection I have given a sufficient Answer in what I have Discoursed on the Fourth Foundation of Allegiance n. 16. the Law of Justice To which things I add Answ 1st That as a King de jure hath right to the Allegiance of his Subjects so have they also the same right to Government and Protection by him and he is by his Coronation Oath obliged to afford it If then whilst he is out of Possession the exercise of his Government and Protection ceaseth though I have a right to it and he is not to be esteemed a violater of his Oath because he doth not then protect us or execute Justice for us Why may not the Exercise of that
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
the Law of Man may determine who shall be esteemed that Sovereign and what is that Allegiance I stand bound to yield him and were this otherwise all those Laws forementioned of Poland n. 10 Arragon and the Imperial Princes must be contrary to the Law of Nature and to the natural Allegiance due to their Soverigns 3dly There can be no prejudice to the Right of the King de jure in these matters in which he doth or ought to be presumed willing to recede from that Right Ibid. Sect. 21. Now saith the Bishop it is to be presumed that Allegiance should be so far paid to the Invader as it serves for the good of the Community the safety of which is far more the interest of the right Heir than of him who hath the Possession without Right and so this Father of the Country cannot but have that affection for it that rather than it should be destroyed and his Subjects ruined they should modestly accommodate themselves to the present affairs than by their unseasonable resistance add or refusal of Allegiance they should bring upon themselves certain destruction 5thly The true foundation of Allegiance is that of the Law of Gratitude which saith That from whom I receive Protection and all the other benefits of Government to him in gratitude I owe Subjection and Obedience and upon this Subjection is founded by St. Paul declaring That we must needs be subject because he is the Minister of God for good Now this makes plainly for Subjection to that King from whom for the time being we receive Protection and all the benefits of Government This is the ground of that Obedience which Children owe unto their Parents and Servants to their Masters and therefore where these cease we may much more suppose that the Allegiance of Subjects to their Prince should cease Now Though no Man can have the same relation to me as my Father has or do that Action which gave him that Relation yet do the Roman Laws conclude That even Fathers may forfeit this right so far as that their Childrens obligation to Obedience to them may cease Vide Sharock de officiis secundum naturae jus c. 5. n. 7. p. 352. The Law of the Twelve Tables saith That if the Father sell his Son thrice or his Daughter once they shall be freed from obligation of Obedience to him the Roman and Imperial Laws That if the Parents will not nourish but expose their Children they shall have no power to recover them to their Obedience though by that Action they cannot cease to be their natural Parents That if Parents seek to poison or otherwise to attempt the life of their Children or neglect to take care of them then shall they have no benefit of their Obedience And as for Servants their Law provided thus Ibid. p. 353. That if sick Servants were neglected by their Masters if in that state they cast them out of their Houses neither providing for them themselves nor committing them to the care of others they were to enjoy their liberty Now if our Case should be determined by the equity of these Rules and I can see no reason why it may not be so I mean if we do only take our measures of it from the Law of Nature abstracting from our Oaths and the decision of the Holy Scriptures that Father of the Country who hath deserted us cast off all care of us exposed us to the pleasure of another that Master who hath left us when sick and distemper'd neither taking care of us himself nor committing the care of us to any other must have lost his Title to our Subjection and Obedience Lastly I answer n. 15. That in matters of this nature there must be place for a comparison of natural Obligations and when they seem to clash those which are more immediate and nearest to first Principles those which are most obliging under all circumstances those which are most immutable and indispensable must prevail against all others which have less of these great Characters of the Law of Nature instamped upon them Let us then bring this matter to these Rules as Men supposed to be left purely to the Law of Nature for the decision of this case as the Objection doth suppose and then it seems to be fairly argued 1. That the first and most immediate Law of Nature is Self-love and Preservation as that imports the love and preservation of my Soul and Body of my Soul absolutely and of my Body by all lawful means or by such means as are not prejudicial to the higher interests of my Soul. This is so certainly the fundamental Ground of Action that I can have no Motive to do any thing and so no Motive to yield Obedience to any Sovereign which may not be resolved into these Principles and when these Principles combine and equally affect the whole Society 't is their most strong and most immediate bond of Action according to that known Rule salus populi est suprema Lex When then the safety and preservation of the Community depends upon their promise of Allegiance to the Supreme Governor for the time being as it must do when they are in his Power and cannot have the benefit of his Protection and his Government without it it must prevail above all Obligations of Allegiance to him who being out of Possession can no more Protect or Govern them If it be said that the acting Obj. even in this case contrary to their Promise and Allegiance rendring them guilty of falshood and perjury must be more prejudicial to their Souls than their refusal of Allegiance to the King Regnant can be to their Bodies and so it must be acting contrary to the true Principle of Preservation and Self-love I answer by Concession That if thus acting were indeed acting contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Oath of Allegiance and it were lawful thus to bind our selves by Oath and Promise we by thus acting should act against Self-love and the true import of Self-preservation but if Men will examine either their own Actions or the general Conditions of an Oath they will find reason to believe that in so doing they do not indeed act against the true intent and meaning of their Oath or Promise For 1. This Oath of Allegiance say these Objectors doth oblige us to spend the last drop of our Blood and to hazard our Lives and Fortunes in the King's Service against all Men whatsoever and yet did any of this Nation besides Roman Catholicks conceive themselves obliged thus to act for King James against the Prince of Orange when they saw they could not do it without being active towards the Ruine of themselves their Liberties and their Religion 'T is therefore evident That by their Actions they declared they judged themselves exempted so far from that Oath as it did lay upon them a necessity of being instrumental to promote the Ruine of themselves the Laws and the