is neither my design nor pertinent to the business in hand to begin a Discourse of the difference between Vows and Oaths Suppose the Oath were made to God which in propriety of Speech is a Vow how does that weaken or invalidate the force of the Argument It matters not whether it be a Vow to God or an Oath to Man so long as the matter of it is so express and declarative of the King's Duty and the Peoples Rights and Priviledges Jac. The taking the Coronation Oath was the Conquerors Condescention a compliance with the Customs usual at the Inauguration of former Kings and has no tendency to a Compact or Bargain with the People Will. You may stile it what you please but 't was such a Condescention or Compliance without which unless he had first won it by an absolute Conquest he had never possessed the Crown of England And the Ancient Rites of the Coronation it self had some footsteps of this Contract viz. The Presenting the King on the day of his Coronation to the People upon every corner of the Scaffold and asking them if they would have him for their King I do not suppose the People had power to refuse or reject the Person thus exhibited that would have render'd the Kingdom Elective but the Custom being an ancient Ceremony and commonly used till Edward the Sixth's Coronation is in my Judgment a more than plausible Argument of a Contract between the Supreme Power and the Subjects Jac. How can that be the King of England is Invested with all the Rights and Prerogatives of Royalty before he is Crown'd Will. Right The King is before his Coronation as absolute a Monarch as after This the Case of Watson and Clark who Conspir'd against King James before his Coronation and were condemn'd of High Treason puts beyond all Controversie and the Reason of this is clear the Paction and Agreement between King and People is an inseperable Concomitant to the Crown devolves with it to the next Successor and is the tacite Condition and Terms upon which he accepts the Government So that 't is no more necessary or expedient for every Heir as to the Esse of his being King to Declare the Conditions immediately upon his coming to the Crown than 't was requisite for every successive Generation when the Court of Wards was in force to declare he held his Lands by Knights Service the ancient Tenure of the Estate sufficiently evinc'd the former and the very Descent of the Crown to the next of Blood brings with it a tacite implication of all the Immunities and Liberties of the Subjects in as full and ample a manner as if they had been repeated a thousand times over Jac. The Court of Wards is as signal a Badge of a Conquest as undoubted a Character of Vassalage and Slavery as any we can possibly instance in Will. The Court of Wards has so little relation to Slavery that the Law terms it only a Service and all Servants are not Slaves though all Slaves may be called Servants in the most strict sense 't is only a Token of Subjection and comparatively an Ensign of Freedom a lasting Monument of Stipulation and Agreement between the Royal Authority and the People When at such an easie rate as attending the Wars in extraordinary and emergent Occasions a Man has an intire Propriety in so large an Estate so ample an Inheritance And the very Antiquity of these Courts doth sufficiently evidence the nulity of a Conquest These being in force in the Reign of King Alfred and surviv'd your Conquest many Generations Jac. A Paction between the King and the People is a strange Assertion and to say that the People can make a King is very little less than a contradiction Will. Pray explain your self and shew for what Reasons Jac. Because the Royal Authority has a power lodged in it which the Subjects have neither Right or Pretence to confer For Example The power of Life and Death are in the hand of the Supreme Magistrate which 't is impossible he could receive from the People because no Man has power of his own Life much less has he Right or Authority to put it into another Mans disposal Will. Here we must distinguish between Absolute and Conditional No Man has an absolute Power over his own Life so as to lay violent hands upon himself or oblige another to shed his Blood yet every Man hath hath a conditional Power upon this account that is he is capable as he is a Member of the Body Politick to Covenant and agree with the Head and the other Members that conditionally he violate those Laws the Transgression of which the whole Society have by Statute Law Ordain'd to be punished with Death he will submit to the Punishment So that the King has not an Absolute Power of Life and Death the latter is only a Penalty conditionally we break such Established Laws And this Power is rather in the Laws than the Supreme Magistrate for the King himself without manifest Violence and Injustice has no power to put any Man to death contrary to Law or upon a particular Humor Jac. Suppose we grant somewhat of Agreement or Paction between the Conqueror and the English Nobility what Advantage is that to us Did the People indeed and in reality Elect the King as their Governour when once the Act was done and Allegiance sworn the People have no more Reason or Pretence to revoke or annul that Election than a Wife who has chosen a Husband promised him her Obedience join'd her self to him in Marriage has to put away her Husband and to say that the People may Depose their King if there be a Bargain or Contract between them is to affirm the Wife may Divorce the Husband because she chose him Will. If all this be granted you here contend for I cannot imagine how it would weaken or prejudice our present Cause The Wife after Marriage may not put away her Husband that lives with her as an Husband Nay though a very ill Husband turn Nonthirft spend his Estate abuse her Person prove unnatural to her Children notwithstanding all this she is obliged to an entire Obedience But if her Husband prove Tyrannically cruel so far prosecute the wicked Counsels and Designs of her Enemies as to give signal and evident Demonstrations that he intends her Ruine Destruction and Death If he be in himself insufficient as in the Case of the Countess of Essex by her Husband Devereux the Laws allow relief to such a Distressed Wife And can we suppose there is greater care taken for a particular Member than for the whole Body In short though the Wife cannot put away the Husband because she chose him yet the Cruelties Injustice Violence and Irregularities of the Husband may be such as may give just cause of Divorcement Jac. But were it not Grand Impiety by violence to seize upon the Estate or Goods of a private Man and dispose of it to others
What Sacriledge then must it be to Invade the Dignities Royal and dispose of the Crown and Scepter Will. Causelesly to make forcible entry upon any Mans Goods or Estate and by violence to keep Possession is plain and open Robbery yet a Man may be Guilty of such Illegal Actions such indiscret and undue Behaviour as may cause a seizure of both his Moveables and Possessions without any manifest Wrong or Injury to the once Right owner And the Laws allow a particular Man for Just and Reasonable Causes to Disinherit his eldest Son and Entail the Estate upon others of his Posterity only for the preservation of a private Family and I would fain hear a solid Argument why such an Advantageous Priviledge in extream Necessity should be denyed the Publick Jac. The Reason is clear and obvious the Rights and Properties of Subjects or private Men are confirm'd by the Laws of the Land made theirs by Agreement But the Prerogatives of the Crown are a Divine Right the Imperial Diadem setled upon the Royal Head by the Almighties own appointment Will. If this were but proved the business were done But alas this Doctrine is both groundless and absurd for whatever Monarch holds his Scepter jure Divino must either be invested by an immediate Divine Designation viz. a special and extraordinary Commission from Divine Providence as that of Saul David Solomon Jehu or else Successively by a Legitimate Descent from Persons thus Designed as that of Rehoboam Asa Jehosophat to the former of these the Monarchs of England have no Pretence and if the latter invest them with it 't is derived either from the Ancient Saxons or from the Norman Line That the first had no such Divine designation is clear from the Story of Hengist and Horsa And that no such pretence can be made from King William stiled the Conqueror will be more than evident from his Ambitious Designs his illegal Attempts his hostile and unnatural Proceedings and his Barbarous in Actions wading through Torrents of Blood riding in Triumph over heaps of slaughtered Innocents to ascend a Throne and grasp at a Scepter to which he had no more right than the Great Mogul And if the Norman Duke first entred by force of Arms and after a Battel compounded for the Crown 't is vain and ridiculous to urge Prescription to make a Divine Right be cause what in the beginning was not Divine Process of time can never impress with a Divine Character Jac. But Solomon affirms Eccles. 8. 14. Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou Will. Right the words of Kings are Powerful and no Man ought to dispute their Commands But the Reason of it is grounded upon that Confidence we put in the Supreme Authority that his Mandates will be always Lawful But this Place of Scripture has a peculiar relation to the Kings of Israel a People whom God chose to enter into Covenant with and over whom he Exercised such a special Providence that 't was usual with him to set up one and pull down another and cause to Govern whom he pleased Thus when he had granted an extraordinary Commission to his Prophets and they had Anointed the designed Person King over that People his Word was powerful and to be obeyed because so immediately constituted God's Vicegerent But this Command is not adapted to our Circumstances neither does it add to our Duty of Allegiance and we may as rationally evince the Levitical Laws obligatory in England as evidence the British Monarchy Iure Divino from this place of Scripture Besides if this Doctrine were applicable to the Monarchs we live under 't would be destructive to our Established Government and repugnant to the Apostolick Doctrine If a King decease whilst his Heir is an Infant by this Argument the whole Realm must be subject to his fond and childish Commands and when he is arrived to those years in which Passions are more vigorous and youthful Lusts strongly importune to ascend the Stage and act their Scene even in the violent prosecutions of those leud Debauches a Grave and Reverend Bishop dares not advise him to a Reformation of Manners to live soberly and become religious for fear he transgress his Precept of saying unto him what doest thou But what 's infinitely worse may happen the Heir to the Crown may be born a Fool or Ideot or by accident be a Lunatick or labour under a grievous Disease of Madness and yet no man must gain say or contradict him if this Argument be valid Jac. A Child incapacitated to govern by tender years ought to be put under Protectors and Tutors during his Childhood but in his Adult State his mature Age may challenge this Authority A Fool or Ideot can never be brought sensible what Government is and a Lunatick or Mad-man is more incapable of Government than either So that not only Reason but Nature's Instinct of Self preservation commands us to fence these from the Crown and Scepter Will. An Infant is as much a Monarch in his Minority as in his mature and riper Years and if he ought to be under Tutors and Governours they must have power to say unto him what doest thou Or we may reasonably infer he will be very ill Tutor'd A Fool or an Ideot though in all his Actions innocent must be obliterated from the Line of Succession and a Lunatick or Mad-man who never acted against or endeavour'd the destruction of Church or State must lose his Right because incapacitated by his Disease Why then by parity of Reason may not a Papist be excluded who hath already so vehemently shook the Foundations of Government both Ecclesiastical and Civil and for the future stands bound by all the Sacred Obligations of Oaths and Vows obliged under the penalty of forfeiting his Diadem and Scepter in this World and his precious and immortal Soul in that to come to extirpate our Religion subvert our Laws and reduce us to the Subjection and Vassallage of the Roman Yoak Jac. This Argument I confess does a little stagger my Judgment but when I remember those other express and positive places of Scripture so pertinent to this present Controversie I am radicated as firm as before Prov. 8. 15. By me Kings reign and Princes decree judgment 1 Sam. 26. 9. Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord's anointed and be guiltless What can be more clear or obvious what more positively evinced than Monarchy Iure Divino from these Texts Will. 'T is true the places of Scripture do sufficiently evidence the Divine Right of the Kings of Israel but they prove nothing for the Kings of England And indeed not only these but all other places of Sacred Writ in the Old Testament that evidence Regal Authority to be founded by Divine Providence have such a proper Aspect such a peculiar Relation to the Jewish Government that they can be expounded of no other Constitution unless there be
the publick Footsteps of an extraordinary Divine Designation as in all Changes was apparently visible in that Government where commonly the Almighty chose the Prophets consecrated and the People obeyed But in opposition to this the Government of England is a Paction and Contract between the Supream Authority and the People the former to govern according to those Rules the Laws prescribe and the latter quietly without Resistance to submit to be governed by the Laws Established and to support with their Lives and Fortunes the Regal Power And this Agreement with the Subjects does not lessen or depress the Authority of the Supream Magistrate but rather advanceth it for 't is the Honour of a King not to be capable of doing wrong and 't is the Safety and Happiness of the People to be under such a Magistrate â—s only commands lawful things which capacitates the Subject to obey with safety sub clipeo legis nemo decipitun Whilst the Execution of illegal Commands is dangerous to the People that being an high Offence to the Publick and by Consequence no small Transgression against the Supream Magistrate For the King being a principal part of the Body Politick must necessarily have a principal share in that grand Affront And this is the Reason of that Maxim The King can do no wrong all his lawful Injunctions being Just and Righteous and his illegal Mandates must not be obeyed So that would Court Earwigs leave off to flatter and be exact and impartially honest in their Duty both to King and People the first would be renown'd great and glorious and the second being free from oppression and violence would be loving loyal and dutiful Subjects Jac. But the Doctrine of the Gospel is so positive and express ' in commanding Obedience to Superiors that if all other Arguments were away this is sufficient to turn the scale against all that can be said to the contrary Will. You mistake the very End and Design of my Intentions I purpose not to annihilate or destroy our Obedience but to reduce it to its due proportion assign'd it both by God and Man cause it calmly to run down within the Banks of its own Channel By which we shall be fitly capacitated to follow our Saviour's Advice viz. to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's The Evangelical Precepts confine us to no particular Platform of Civil Government in general it provides for the preservation of Honesty Justice and Peace frequently inculcates our Duty of Obedience pressing it by many cogent and rational Arguments and exhorts us patiently to bear all Calamities or Oppressures we have no lawful way to avoid but it does not oblige us to be Vassals and Slaves to an Arbitrary Power This is evident from pregnant Examples in the New Testament especially from the Epistles of the Two Famous and Renowned Apostles Peter and Paul and particularly the last part of the 12th Chapter to the Romans and the beginning of the 13th were penn'd wholly upon this account Jac. The Scriptures you mention are so Diametrically opposite to the Doctrine you teach that 't is impossible to find a more cogent Argument or positive Command for Absolute Obedience than those are The Texts are largely insisted upon by our Divines and from thence they rationally evince an unlimited Duty of Obedience Will. For the more clear Explication and better understanding of the particular Scripture above mention'd we must enquire what was the End and Design of that Epistle and especially this place formerly quoted And the Reasons of that together with the knowledge of the Persons for whom 't was written their Estate Condition and Circumstance will give us a very great light towards a Right Apprehension of it The grand End and Design of this Epistle was not to plant the Gospel at Rome or prescribe all the Doctrines requisite to the Foundation of Christianity but rather to refute those false Doctrines that Hereticks had super-induced and to condemn and reform those wicked and revengeful Practices that tho Christians upon some mistakes were highly guilty of The Persons for whose sake and instruction this Epistle was written were chiefly Jews proselyted to the Christian Religion but yet still strongly tinctur'd with their former Leaven John 8. 33. that they were Abraham's Seed and by that Foederal Pact between God and him were so immediately under the Government of Divine Providence that no Heathen Potentate could have Authority or Lordship over them further than urgent Necessity or meer Compulsion forced them And being at that time subjugated by force of Arms to the Yoak of the Roman Empire and by reason of Traffick Commerce and other occasions necessitated to inhabit at Rome where the very Exercise of their Religion was an high Transgression of the Imperial Laws which together with their refusal to pay the accustomed Tribute and to render some respect of Honour the Laws conferr'd upon the Heathens the Imperial Officers frequently dealt very severely with those Christian proselytes and the Christians upon the aforesaid Principle used all opportunities as severely to revenge themselves which rendered the Christian Religion very odious at Rome and was a great block to the propagation of the Gospel So that the Christians resisting those imperial positive Laws and their opposition to the Execution of them was the only Reason the alone Cause that moved the Apostle to write this Portion of Scripture to them as appears from Chap. 12. v. 17. Recompence no man evil for evil v. 19. Dearly beloved avenge not your selves but rather give place to wrath That is rather suffer the punishment of the Law and the Injuries that those who inflict it offer to you than resist Because as he assures them Chap. 13. Obedience to the Established Laws is a Christian Duty though it be to the Laws of a Heathen Prince And when these Laws are opposite or repugnant to the Divine Precepts quietly to submit and patiently to suffer the punishment of Transgressors verily believing that God will cause all such afflictions and calamities to work for the benefit and advantage of his People Jac. What 's this but Passive Obedience you so much condemn'd in the beginning of this Discourse Will. 'T is so far from Obedience that 't is suffering for righteousness sake And indeed 't is the only suffering that has a Promise annexed to it in Sacred Scripture for those lively Oracles authorize us not to cut our own Throats in Obedience to the Supream Magistrate if he enjoyn it nor to sit still whilst others illegally act such violence The Gospel does not destroy the grand Principle of Nature viz. Self-preservation but cherishes and encourages it But in respect of the Publick if Wrongs be personal or Injuries peculiar to particular Men such as portend not destruction or grand detriment to the whole Body Politick such must be patiently submitted to rather than by resisting disturb the publick Peace or Tranquility of the Nation
the Law and the Soul of Government 't is not only highly reasonable but absolutely necessary for the Publick Advantage and Behoof to fence and defend this Supream Magistrate against Forrein Enemies and secure him from private Insurrections at home And to the end that Rebellion might prove abortive in the very Conception and that Cockatrice Egg be crushed ere it became a Serpent the sacred Tie of the Oath of Allegiance was judged the most effectual means to prevent all Civil Wars repel all open Hostility and secure the whole Society of the intire Affections of every particular Member And the King being the Person to whom was committed the weighty and important Affairs of the Nation and in whose Management and Conduct the Happiness or Misery of the Publick does very much consist This Oath of Fidelity was personally made to the Supream Magistrate as Head though really designed for the Advancement and Promotion of the Peace Happiness and Safety of the whole Society And for the Truth of this Assertion I appeal to the Capacity of the meanest Reader whether he can suppose the Great Council of the Nation Assembled in Parliament who composed this Oath of Fidelity and enjoyn'd it to be given to the Prince whether I say they design'd it only for the Preservation and Safety of the King Especially when by his own Option and Choice he should place his personal Interest and Safety in opposition to that of the Publick Weal From hence 't is evident That in all ordinary and common Circumstances that is when the Interest of the Royal Authority and the People which always ought to be are in Conjunction the Oath of Allegiance binds all Subjects both with Life and Fortune to assist and defend the Supream Magistrate against all Stratagems and Hostilities whether publick or private And the Reason of this is because the Prince is so nearly allied to the Publick and so much a part of it that the Safety and Happiness of the latter is in a very high measure involved in the Prosperity and Welfare of the former But in great Exigencies and Extraordinary Junctures of Affairs in which the Ruine and Destruction of the Publick is inevitably involved especially if that National Calamities be favoured advanced and promoted by that Person whose particular Safety is design'd in the Oath the promise of Fidelity in such Circumstances bind only in the latter and more general Intention for Kings were made for the People not the People for Kings And it is plain Madness to imagine any Obligation can bind us to hasten the Accomplishment not only of our own but the Publick Destruction because such Actions are Diametrically opposite of all Laws both Natural and Civil and Divine And that Extraordinary Contingencies are not to be regulated but by Extraordinary Methods is plain and obvious from several Topicks In Common and Ordinary Circumstances the Laws secure every man in his Liberty and Property Thus the breaking a private man's House forcibly seizing a man's Goods or violently restraining his Person are Actions very unjust and highly punishable But in Extraordinary Cases these are no Rules but Necessity has her Laws As in time of a Raging Famine Propriety of Goods may be forced Corn may by Violence be taken from private men and sold for the publick Relief In a Noysome Plague and Infectious Pestilence for the Common Preservation Men may be restrained from Commerce and confined to their Houses and in an apparent apprehension of an Invasion from abroad encouraged by a Party at home Men may be seized or imprisoned or restrained to their Habitations Thus Divine Providence Constituted the General Law of Nature to regulate the Ordinary Course of things but beside these Miracles have been often effected which the aforesaid Law could never regulate and yet these supernatural and stupendious Works were always design'd for wholesome and excellent Ends. Thus Nature her self for her own preservation in vacuums c. causes Natural things to act contrary to their Natural Motions forcibly attracting heavy Bodies upward and as impetuously compelling the light to descend And the express and positive Laws of the Decalogue notwithstanding the Solemnity of their Promulgation together with the Evangelical Commands of the New Testament though back'd with stupendious Miracles to attest their Divinity are null and void when by extraordinary Circumstances they are placed in opposition to the Works of Mercy Charity or Necessity Our Saviour confirming this Doctrine Matth. 12. 11. saith Which of you shall have one sheep and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day will he not lay hold on it and pluck it out Notwithstanding the strict Precept for the Sanctification of that Day And our strictest Casuists in case of Necessity allow Apothecaries to Compound Medicines Mariners to follow their daily Labours and Midwives to do their Office upon the Lord's Day and all this for the preservation of particular Persons So that the Natural Consequence from hence is That if the preservation of a few Individuals be more acceptable to God than the strictest Litteral Observance of his Laws and the Deliverance of the Publick from Ruine and Destruction a Matter of such grand Importance such absolute Necessity as can consecrate the Violation of positive Laws both Humane and Divine Then our present Obligation viz. the Oath of Allegiance Not to take up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever can be obligatory only in the Literal Sense when the Interest of the Supream Magistrate is in Conjunction with Publick Safety and Happiness and has no Relation to his particular Intreagues or Personal Humours And if the Royal Authority as in our late Circumstances be so deeply infatuated by the wicked Counsels of Impious and Self-ended Men as to sever his Peace Prosperity and Quiet from that of the whole Nation and illegally to prosecute that Advice so far as to place his own Safety Happiness and Tranquility in Opposition to the Safety Welfare and Security of all his People the Oath of Allegiance is then loose as to him and obligatory only in the latter and more Excellent Sense Jac. But all Oaths when once taken if imposed by a Lawful Authority and Legal Oaths do so far invest the Persons sworn to with a Right to the thing sworn that the Person swearing has no Power of himself without the other's Consent to retrieve that promise unless by Violence and manifest Injustice Now the Oath of Allegiance being a Lawful Oath imposed by a Competent Authority my taking this Oath invested the King with a Right to my Fidelity and Obedience That without the Approbation of his Royal Person 't is not only unjust but even impossible to divest him of it and confer it upon another Will. Right The former part of your Assertion is true the Oath of Allegiance is a Lawful Oath and imposed by a sufficient Authority yet His Majesty before you took this Oath was invested with as undoubted Right to your Obedience and in as