Due of a Person not due to the Country or to the Order of Government but to the King And accordingly in Cobledikâ—'s Case the Judges rejected a Plea as my Lord Coke notes p. 9. in Calvin's Case for saying only the Ligeance of England but admitted it when they added and the Faith of the King And therefore the King himself is not capable to commit Treason because it is only a Breach of that Faith which is due to his own Person so that the Treason lyes where the Faith and Allegiance doth that is against the rightful King's Person As to what he says p. 52 53. about Cognizance which is the right King not lying before a private Subject I grant it would not if once a Court competent had judged of it But where is that Court that is of Authority competent to sentence and give away a lawful King 's Right It seems plain in the Eye of the Law That among us a Parliament called by a Possessor without Right cannot do it because after they have done what they can the Law says he has Right and will punish the private Subject as has been shewed notwithstanding the Warranty of their Judgment for acting against his Right So there is no way that I see but for every Subject to take the best Advice and Care he can to know which is the Right that he may not act against him for though he would have no Cognizance were it a Thing that lay before authorized Courts or that the Competitors had brought into Court and there decided as H. 6. and the Duke of York did in Parliament and though where there is no Court competent to judge he has no Cognizance to judge for others yet he has to judge the beâ—t he can and at his own Peril for himself as every Man muâ—â— do I think in this Case Allegiance hâ— must pay to him that has 〈◊〉 as I have proved and so must satisfy â—imself who has it to answer the Law of Goâ— And as for the Law of the Land to seeâ— Protection from the Judgment of Courtâ— which are not legal Couâ—ts but only Cour 〈…〉 de Facto or from legal Courts if they meddle with that which is not under th 〈…〉 Cognizance will fail those that trust to shelter themselves thereby as my Lordâ— Chief Justice Bridgman told Cookâ— when he pleaded that the High Court of Justice was a Court de Facto in defence of his Acting under it But as to all this Dispute about Law for Allegiance to the King in Fact against the King in Right p. 54. 65 he observes That the Non-swearers would noâ— abide by the Decision of the Laws Which may be true as to this particular of following a mere King in Fact against the legal Right because the Laws of God as well as of the Land are their hindran 〈…〉 in this Case But then says he Why do they insist upon-Lam They insist on it because they think it one good Argument and so they have reason to think it still for any Thing that I have yet seen offered from Law to the contrary But they do not abide by it or give up the Cause to stand or fall with it because it is not the only good Argument and other Hinderances from God's Laws they think are no less than that And this learned Person knows very well That any one Conscionable Hinderance is enough to keep a Man from doing a Thing and the Lawfulness in some respect whilst 't is Unlawful in others is not enough to warranâ— him in doing it Bonum says the Râ—le oritur ex integra Causa malum ex quoli 〈…〉 Dâ—fectu Though I think as to th 〈…〉 painful Search that has been made into the Point of Law for Allegiance to a King de Facto the Non-swearers did not begin it but were driven to it The Pleaders for the New Oath pretending the Law in this Case to be for a King in Faâ—t which upon Examination they find to be a Mistake and think the Plea from Law is on the other side And thus upon all Accounts both of Scripture and the Nature of Things and of our own Laws I think it may seem sufficiently manifest that as he that has the Right has the Authority so he that has the Authority by the Laws both of God and Man must have the Allegiance though he cannot actually Govern but is Forceibly kept out of his Throne And if the Dispossessed rightful King still keeps the Authority and the Obedience of the Fifth Commandment is still due to him because of that Authority the leaving any ejected Prince to have the Right and the Regnant or Providential King to be only King in Fact without Right would leave all that take a New Oath for transferring Allegiance under as evident a Breach of that Commandment as of the rest So upon the whole I conclude this Plea of mere Possession without Right leaves all the Non-swearers Difficulties against the Oaths untouched For suppose any Man to be still ones rightful King and then what will hinder but to bind our selves by a contrary Allegiance to oppose his Right must be Unrighteous towards him or to bind our selves thereby to act against his Authority must be Undutifulness and Rebellion and binding our selves to all this against what we had promised and assured by former Oaths must be to forswear our selves So that when at the last Day all that take such Oaths come to be tryed by these Laws how they have kept Just to the Rights and Obedient to the Authority and True to the Oaths they had made to a Dispossessed King If they have no Exception to his Right nor any Ground but this of de Facto to plead to me it seems there is great Danger lest all those Laws should condemn them And however they they think this Plea of Possession without Right may bear them out before God in paying this Allegiance I think 't is visible no Possessed King trusts thereto in demanding it either before God or before the World for we never yet had a Regnant King that set up upon that Title And in the present Revolution 't is well known to all what Declarations the publick Acts have made of King William's and Queen Mary's legal Right and Title to their Father's Throne CHAP. V. Of the Author's Right by providential Possession without other Title It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong I Come now in the Third place to that which is more particularly the Plea of this learned Man which is the Plea of Providencâ— to give or grant Right And this though it be not a legal Right but leaves that still to go as Law directs it yet he says is a better Right than that and such as in the fight both of God and Men ought to set the legal Right aside And this he makes to be the Right of every Regnant King or Possessor of a Throne Providence that gives Success and speeds him
in compassing it he thinks is God's Grant and gives him a Right to the Crown he has got into his Possession And whosoever is set up thus by God's Providence as every King is that is set up at all is God's King in his Notion or a King of God's making And so let who will have the legal Right must be owned by all Subjects that would receive him for their King whom God has made their King or be under one that he has authorized to rule over them And this in short I think is the Substance of his Notion Now as for this Plea though it doth not carry Allegiance by legal Right yet it is for carrying it by Right viz. by the Right of Providence which he thinks is a better Right and ought to take place of Right by Laws in as much as God's Prerogative carryed in Providence is above human Laws But this way the Possessor has the best Right and that I own would go far in taking off all the foresaid Difficulties which are all on supposition of the other's Right So this way to ingage in Oaths of Aâ—â—egiance to stand by the Possessor in keeping or getting that Estate and Property he has the best Right to would only be to do him Right which is not to be Unrighteous or to pay him Allegiance who has the most rightful Authority over us would only be to obey Authority which is no Undutifulness And as to point of former Oaths it would put an end to their Obligation as to all time coming for we cannot bind our selves by any Oaths not to obey God or not to obey those to whom he gives the best and most rightful Authority over us But some Doubt may be made whether it would not leave the Oath of Allegiance to have been a false Oath and Forswearing of our selves at the time of taking as Swearing to do what we were not to do nor ought to perform For that Oath recognizes and proceeds upon the legal Right and seems designed to bind Men to it against all Providential turns promising to defend it against all Attempts which such turns make as long as they are continued and that without any other limitation as may seem than whilst there shall be such legal Right to defend But as for this Plea of the Right of Providence or Success in seeking another's Crown giving the best Right to it I think it is not only a great Mistake but of such ill Consequence as would neither do the Cause of Authority and Allegiance noâ— any thing else any good I know the Consequences which I think chargeable upon this Principle the Piety of this Author will abhor as much as I do But admit the Principle and neither his Wit and Reason whereto the serious World stands so highly obliged nor any human Understanding I conceive can keep them off and guard against them and this Principle I come next to examine And if upon Examination it shall appear that this fancy'd Provinential Right is no Right or that it doth not set aside the legal Right Then 't is plain that all the first mentioned Difficulties against the new Oaths for transferring Allegiance on such Revolutions are still in full Force on the supposition he lays down viz. that the Dispossessed King's legal Right still remains And there will be no way left either to justify those that have or to satisfy those that have not Sworn but proving the legal Right of those they are required to swear Allegiance to upon which the publick Acts make the King and Queen and demand the Allegiance to them So that the Question Who has the legal Right must both come into this Dispute and determine it which sets aside the whole intent of this reverend Person 's Book One way there is of Providence giving Right viz. by giving a rightful Title to a Thing either before or after a Man has got it Whosoever comes by such Titles comes to have them by God's Providence which orders them to fall on particular Persons as it doth all other Things But the present Dispute is about Providence giving Right by mere Providential Possession without means of any rightful Titles Or whether Providence in giving one Man Possession of another Man 's Right as one Prince suppose of another's Crown gives the Possessor a Right to it Now mere Providence giving Possession or Success in compassing of a Crown doth not at all affect the Point of Right I conceive on one side or other it doth not make Right but suppose it otherwise mde and is not determined to the keeping but as open to the breaking of it If it be a Success in Possessing what is a Man 's own Right it is a Righteous Success and that not as giving Right but as getting what was so before If in getting Possession of another Man 's Right it is an Unrighteous Success as getting a Thing when a Man has no Right to it In short mere Providence giving Possession or Success shews not the Right but the Fact it doth not make Right but suppose it and its Business is only to accomplish Events not to justify or authorize them or the Actors in them To clear this Point of mere Success of Providence in giving Possession without other Title not giving any Man Right to another's Crown or to any other Thing which another has a legal or human Right to I shall first show that it gives no such Right And then answer those Scriptures and other Reasons which he has brought to shew it doth give Right 1. First I shall shâ—w it gives no Right nor alters any precedent Rights either by Divine or human Titles And moreover what its Part really is and what Providence doth about Events particularly about Unrighteous Successes 1. First I say mere Success of Providence in giving Possession without other Title gives no Right either to a Throne or other Thing It doth not give a Right to one that has otherwise no rightful Title nor take it away from another that has but leaves the Point of Right to rest with the Titles to it and lye at their Doors where it found it The Author thinks it doth give Right because this Possession being by Providence to be Possessed of a Throne is to be set up and placed there by God As to be Dispossessed or Thrust from a Throne iâ— to be removed by God And all who are so Placed in a Throne by God are rightful Kings yea Equally rightful with Respect to God viz. as equally having his Grant though one may have a legal Title and another may want it But now That such Right is not either got or set aside by such mere Providential Possession without other Title may appear I think on several accounts viz. from Consideration both of the Nature of Right and Wrong of Providence of our own Laws and other Authorities 1. I shall begin First with the Considerations of Right and Wrong And from them I think
THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS According to SCRIPTURE REASON AND THE Opinion of the Church In Answer To a late Book of Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK Master of the Temple ENTITULED The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers Stated and Resolved according to Scripture c. With a more particular Respect to the Oath lately injoyn'd London Printed in the Year 1691. THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS c. CHAP. I. Of the Difficulties in the way of the present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off Honoured Sir HAving now at length by the blessing of God found that leisure and convenience I spoke of in Dutiful Regard to the Ingagement you sent me I have set my self with the best attention I could to consider the Grounds and Reasonings in Dr. Sherlock's late Book viz. Of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers with a more particular Respect to the present Oath I Hope I have not miss'd his Sense I am sure I have not done it willingly nor been wanting in that Respect which I profess to have and think that all Lovers of Piety and good Reason have had great cause to bear for a Person who in his many learned Labours has so well deserved of both But I have examined his Opinions with the same freedom that he has proposed them and which the interest of Truth and Righteousness require as I conceive in this Case And this freedom I believe will not be Offensive to himself for if they will stand it will give him a further Opportunity to clear them But if they will not as I verily think they will not it will concern all and no Person more than himself to be showed the Falshood of them And that not only as being unsound and insufficient to justifie the Conscience in the present Allegiance But also as being very ill Principles and Destructive in my Judgment to that moral Honesty which should govern the Actions of Manking One Design of the Reverend Author in this Book and that a very charitable one was to endeavour the Satisfaction of those who are still dissatisfied about the Oaths And that we may the better judge how fit his Discourse is to reconcile their Consciences thereto I think iâ— not amiss to represent in short the Difficulties which Men conceive against the present Oath of Allegiance and then examine how successful his way is like to prove in taking them off And I think it will appear notwith â—anding all he has advanced in this new Hyp thesis That the Difficulties are as great as they were before and that there is like to be no way of removing them but by demonstrating K. James's Abdication and K. William and Q. Mary's Legal Right which the Convention and Publick Acts ground the Allegiance in debate upon As for the Difficulties in the way of the Refuâ—ers to my Apprehension thus the Case stands True Allegiance to K. W. and Q M. is to become their true Sâ—â—ject to sta 〈…〉 by and to support them against all pâ—rsons The Fifth Commandment which is Gâ—d's most ancient Law for Allegiance by Honour intends not only Râ—spâ—ct bâ—t Service and Support of Parents the Denial of whiâ—h as hoth our Saviour and St. Paul say is a Breach thereof The great end of Civil Society is for mutual Defence So when Civil Government is set up the first and most Fundamental Obligation to it is to Defend it and this Defence is by the Allegiance of the Subjects Allegiance is the Band which tyes not one Stranger to another who may look on with more Indifference as idle Spectators but the Members to the Head And the Duty of Members is to do all they can to keep the Head upon the Body and to be as ready to guard their Head as to guard themselves And if any person will take the pains to examine the constant and current meaning of true Allegiance in our Laws and in the Legal Professions thereof he will find nothing more clear I think than That true Allegeance speaks the Support of their Sâ—vereign against all Opposers and contrary Pretenders And being thus an Espousal of one against all others we can have but one true Allegiance or one King at a time to whom we owe and are to pay this true Allegiance as this Reverend Person truly notes p. 14 Prop. 6. In particular this true Allegiance to K. William c. both in the Sense of the State and in the Practice of the Subject is to support them against K. James If any that owes K. William and Q Mary Allegiance doth but correspond with K. James or give him any Assistâ—nce the Courts judge it a breach of this Allegiance And when K. William goes professedly against K. James or to reduce as the Acts and Declarations say the Rebels in Ireland i. e. all those Irish that adhere to K James all his Subjects are required in vertue of their Allegiance and Subjection to him to fast and pray for his Success which are the moâ—â— solâ—mn Assistances and with as much Solemnity to give Thanks for the same at his Return after he has prevailed againâ—t him All which they that profess and have promised All giance to K. W. Q. M. have accordingly done through the Kingdom Now King James was confessedly the Rightful King of these Realms to whom all the Subjects thereof ought this true Faith and Allegiance and to whom all in any publick Office or Trust had Sworn it either to him by Name in all the Oaths taken in his own Reign or which is the same thing to him under the Words Lawful Heirs and Successors he being undoubtedly the Lawful Heir and Successor to his Brother in the Oath to bear true Allegiance to the King and his Lawful Heirs and Successors taken in his Brother's Reign This true Allegiance is by the present Oath transferr'd to K. William and Q Mary and that as the Convention and publick Acts which order this Translation say because K. James now has no longer any Legal Right to the Throne but K. W. Q. M. are rightful King and Queen And this if cleared prevents all the Difficulties which are on Supposition of King James's continuing to have this Legal Right still But this learned Author to suit his Argument to those as he says in his Preface who are most strongly prejudiced against the Legality of the late Revolution reasons in this Book upon the Suppâ—sition of unjust Usurpation And supposing as he doth K. James to have a Legal Right to the Crown such as these in my Judgment are the Difficulties which will lye in the way of transferring Allegiance for his Book to take off viz. how such takâ—ng away their Allegiance from K. James supposed therein to have the Legal Right and turning over against him to another supposed to have no Legal Right can be thought 1. To be just to King James in point of Property A Crown is the greatest
Reason and good Conscience though there had been no Express Law against it but an Express Law for it yet would it have vacated that Law for can any human Law bind against good Conscience or authorize and bear Men out in unrighteous Actions And tâ—us this Statute would do if still owning another to have the Right it should authorize the Subjects to serve in War and assist the Possessor against him coming to get his Right But p. 65. doth not Law limit Right And may not a King limit his Right by his own Consent Yes and transfer it too if he will But if the Law has still left him the Right and he has not Consented in this Laâ— to part with his Right when dispossessed Which is the reality of the Case as p. 37. the learned Author whom he considered on this Point shewed and as it is supposed to be in this present Dispute which is for trying to give away Allegiance admitting him still to have the legal Right What then is to be said to a Statute authorizing Subjects to oppose him in seeking of his Right If the King himself as he supposes him to do in the Statute on good Considerations consents to this What Iniquity p. 65. says he is there in this Law Yes as it leaves such Dispossessed Prince still to have Right and bids Men oppose him in it there is Iniquity therein as there would be in any Law that should bid Men steal their Neighbour's Goods or slay the Innocent There is Iniquity in all Unrighteousness and this Law would this way bid Men oppose Right which is to be Unrighteous So that here God's Law says you shall not oppose any Man in seeking of his Right and this Law would say you shall do it And when any human Law bids us do that I think since God is above Men it must needs be enough as is shewed in the Doctor and Student to vacate that Law to say that God forbids it But if this Statute is meant only of the right King What need of Indemnifying None whilst the right is in Possession But that was made to cover them as far as he could against a turn of Times which it would be the more like to do especially in such Doubted and Controverted Titles because on all Sides in this Quarrel of the Two Houses they had Cause enough to be weary of the way of Mutual Attaindors Thus much I thought fit to say here upon this Statute which since this Plea has been started other Papers have more largely considered And though the Author whom he replies to in this Part of his Book had no need I think to suppose the King for the time being in that Statute to be a mere King in Fact Yet any one that will peruse what with great Labour and Skill he has laid together in that Book will see enough to shew him how far the Law is from carrying Allegiance to a mere King in Fact Now these Sayings of Council in Baggot's Case and the Statute of H. 7. being my Lord Coke's Grounds for taking Allegiance to be due to a King in Fact the effect of what he alledges from the Three Lord Chief Justices and Baggot's Case to prove this Point I think when duly weighed will only amount to this That my Lord Coke followed therein by Two eminent Lawyers upon the Authority of a Saying of Council and of some Words in a Statute about Allegiance not expresly mentioning a King in Fact but according to their common use in Law signifying one that has Right and not admitting what the Statute affirms of them to be true if meant of any other but the Right were of Opinion that Allegiance is due to a King in Fact Though for further abatement of these Authorities my Lord Coke says enough I think particularly in Calvin's Case to declare Allegiance inseperable from the Right whether Possessed or no. And I think my Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman who Sentenced Men for Treason against the Right after he was Dâ—spossessed and my Lord Chief Justice Hale who refused to sit on any under the late Usurpation that were to be tryed for their Adherence to the Dispossessed rightful King were plainly of the same Opinion And if 't is due to the Right when Dispossessed in their Opinion it is not as the Author thinks duâ— only to actual Government And if it is due to the Right out of Possession since as he says also we cannot have Two Kings or Two Allegiances there can be none due to the Wrong So this Opinion of these great Men seems not to have been their fix'd and settled Opinion for which a Saying of Council or such sound of some Words in a Statute as I have mentioned seems not to be the best Foundation But on the other side That Allegiance is all the time due by Law to the Right even when Dispossessed and broke by those that act against him in Adherence to the King in Fact yea by the King in Fact himself if he were a Subject before appears from Numerous both Acts of Parliament and judged Cases such as Calvin's Case and the Case of Union which make Allegiance to follâ—â— the King 's Natural Person and from the Iudgment on the Duke of Northumberland who gave this Plea of a King in Fact and for the Purposes it is now urged from the Statute of H. 7. for his Acting under Queen Iane against Queen Mary but was told by the Court That the Seal of an Usurping Queen was no good Warrant and the Judgment was afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament From the Iudgement on the Râ—gicides for what they acted against King Charles 1. in his State of Dispossession and the need of an Act of Oblivion for what was done against his Son whilst-kept out of the Administration From the Statute of 13 14 Car 2. before mentioned declaring Allegiance all that while due to him as another declared it due to Queen Mary and the Regal Authority to be vested in her Person during the time of Queen Iane's Usurpation And as other Statutes declared it to be due to Henry the Eighâ—h's right Heirs whilst others Usurped upon them And another Statute did to Richard the Second during Henry the Fourth's Usurping his Throne And as is declared in all the Statutes of Attaindor upon the Kings in Fact and their Adherents when the Kings in Right recovered their Thrones as has been observed in the Chap. 2. foregoing Discourse And as is declared lastly in the legal Oath of Allegiance which Recognizes the King 's Right and Swears to bear and pay Allegiance to the Right whilst he has Right to defend and pay it to And suppose the Statute of H. 7. had authorized Men to pay it to the Wrong and these Statutes of King James the First abâ—â—t the Oath of Allegiance make them Swear to pay it to the Right Which would be the Law in this Case If Two Statutes clash and
to the Stronger So his Power carrying Right throws all into a State of War as much I conceive as Mr. Hobbs's Power giving it and adds the grant of God to boot as if in this way of getting all by War and the Stronger taking from the Weaker they all the while kept to that course of Right which God has given them to walk by Nay if at last by breaking the Strength of rightful Opposers in this way of power they come peaceably to enjoy such Gettings yet is not that the Peace which God intends which is a Peace with Justice or for every Man peaceably to enjoy his own not for one Man to live at Peace in possessing another Man's Rights and Properties which God all the while calls upon him to restore to him to whom of Right they do belong To this effect of its destroying all Obligation of Right and Wrong among Kings I add 2. Secondly That this Notion of Providential Right would confirm and authorize all illegal Invasions of Kings upon their own Subjects The Reason is because when he invades either their Liberties or Properties and grasps at more Authority or Possessions among them than doth by Right and Law belong to him all the Success he has is by Providence And these unjust Attempts upon his own Subjects have like Scripture Declarations as other unjust Attempts on any Neighbour Kings Let the Evil of the City be Arbitrariness and Oppression shall there be any Evil in the City saith the Prophet and the Lord hath not done it Am. 36. Do the Israelites labour under the heaviest Servitude and Oppressions whilst Subject to the King of Egypt God turned their Hearts to hate his People and deal subtilly with his Servants says David Ps. 105. 25. Doth Rehobeam's Heart devise Tyranical Rigours and Oppressions and his rough Answer threaten the people to Chastise them with Scorpions The Scripture tells us the Cause was from the Lord 1 King 12. 13. 14. 15. Unrighteous Ravenous and Oppressive Kings whom God calls his Rod and Staff and Battle Ax and the like are as much so when turned upon their own Subjects as when upon foreign Princes And whatever are the Counsels of the King's heart whether against Subjects or Strangers the Scripture declares in general That the King's heart is in God's hand and that he turns it whithersoever he will Prov. 21. 1. So that in their Domestick Invasions Kings have as good Plea of Providence and as good Scripture Declarations of God's turning their Hearts and causing and doing and acting by them therein as in any others And in Reason methinks if they were to get Right by any Invasion of Rights it should be most especially in invading the Rights and Liberties of their own Subjects The Consideration of their being Subjects may give more pretence and embolden him to take greater Liberties and bind them to more patient Sufferance than when the like is done to other Kings that stand with him upon even Terms and are no ways Subject to him at all But now 't is plain Kings do not get Right by such mere unrighteous Invasions without other Title of Subjects Rights and Properties As Abab did not by unjustly possessing himself of Naboth's Vineyard Nor Iehojakim by having his eyes and heart only for shedding innocent Blood and Oppression and Violence and by building his House by Unrighteousness and his Chambers by Wrong whom God did not look upon as having any Right therein but denounces a Woe upon him Jer. 22. 13. 17. And if this must be the Consequence of this Right of Providence to give as good Authority and Confirmation to any Invasions our Kings shall make upon our Rights as to any that other Princes shall make upon theirs I think neither Prince nor Subjects have any great Cause to be fond thereof 3. Thirdly It confirms the unjust Possessions and Invasions one private Subject shall make upon the Properties of another If Robbers or Pyrates possess themselves of other Mens Money or Goods by this Principle they have a better Right thereto than the legal Owners For their Possession is by Providence that delivered the Sufferers into their hands And it is as much authorized as the other by Scripture Expressions The Lord hath taken away saith Iob when the Sabean and Chaldean Robbers had taken and carried away his Substance Iob 1. 21. And 't is what the Lord hath sent is the Reflection of all serious persons upon these Misfortunes So there is as much Providence and as much said of it in private as in publick Robberies Both then have equally the Right of Providence And that says he is better than any Right the Legal Owners had by human Laws So that as it ousts Kings of their Crowns it will oust private Persons of their Purses and make all private Robbers as well as publick Usurpers to hold their Purchase by the best and most rightful Titles To this he says p. 34. That the Dispute is not about human or legal Right in either Case 'T is not I grant whether either Usurpers or Robbers have a legal Right to what they have got which no Man that understands what he talks of will Dispute but 't is whether they have not another Right viz. Providential Right which shall set aside both the Dispossessed Prince's and Private Owner's legal Rights And if Providence and the foresaid Scripture Declarations made such Providential Right 't is plain they are as much on the side of a private Robber as of an Usurper and so would give that Right to both if they did to either But the Dispute adds he ibid. is about Authority and no Man will pretend that Thieves and Pyrates have God's Authority which the Persons robbed are bound to submit to But who puts the Objection so What the Thief pretends to is the Purse which is matter of Property and what the Usurper claims is the Crown which is matter of Authority And Right is necessary to both in their respective pretences if they would hold them righteously This can be no legal Right which rests still with the dispossessed Prince and private Sufferers But the Author has found a Providential Right better than the Legal to give the Usurper the best Right to the Authority And that will serve as well for the Thief or Pyrate and give him the best Right to the Property And if he can hold his stolen Goods by as good Right as Usurpers may their Usurped Crowns by this Principle in the Eyes of God he may all the time be very Righteous For God is no respecter of Persons and so when he justifies one he will not condemn the other when he can make the same Plea and acts upon the very same Grounds If this Right of Providence is the best Right it will be the best for every thing that is to go by Right and then it will be the best Title to Property as well as to Authority Yea Goods and Properties are expresly mentioned in those
And this Churches Authority he says Is a venerable Authority and thinks there is good Argument in it when p. 3. c. he seeks to confirm his own Opinion from Bishop Overal ' s Convocation Book But a great Prâ—judice he says p. 46. the received Sense and Censure of those Usurpations is to his Right of Providence And very well it may upon many Accounts For a King in his Notion p. 12. â—s removed and disauthorized by God when Providence thrusts him from the Throne and â—akes the Government that is actual Government out of his hand And another King or Commonwealth for the Case is the same under any Form is set up and cloathed with God's Authority when Providence advances them to his Throne and puts the actual Government into their hand Now when King Charles 〈◊〉 stood arraigned before the High Court of Justice Providence had thrust him out of his Throne and taken the actual Government out of his hand and put it in the hand of the Rump Parliament Then had he none of God's Authority nor any Allegiance due to him Then his Tryal was no Tryal of the real but only nominal King God having first removed that Authority and actual Government from him which made him King and Allegiance due to him Then were his Judges no Traytors and his Murder no Treason Which is quite against the received Opinion of Church of England Men. Again as to his Son King Charles II. after his Death when he came into England with an Army at Worcester Fight the Râ—mp Parliament were Providentially possessed of all the Power and Exercise of Government and had been for two years and an half which is a longer time than has passed hitherto for the Possession of the same or Settlement of the present Government If then God's Authority goes with such Exercise and Possession they had God's Authority here and he had it not Then if he came as an Englishman he could be nothing here but a Subject Then was his leading an Aâ—my through England and Attempts to raise one in it against the Rump Parliament a Rebellious Arming against God's Authority and Ordinance and he and all his Adherents were Rebels against the Common-Wealth And all that stir'd in his Cause afterwards were Guilty of the Scriptural Resisting of Authority or higher Powers and their Sufferings were just Executions They deserved to dye for it here and without Repentance were in danger to be eternally condemn'd for it hereafter All which are likewise very cross to the Church of England received Opinions yea and to the Opinion of this Reverend Person who is far enough from charging these things upon them And his Endeavour in this point is to exempt his Principle of Providential Right from authorizing the Usurpers of that time or aspersing the Loyal Adherents of the Legal Right with the foregoing Imputation There is Difference he says p. 46. betwixt these two Cases and he instances in many particulars The only Question is Whether any of the Points of Difference assigned make a Difference in the Possessors Authority and Subjects Allegiance If not theirs was God's Authority by his Providential Right for all the Differences And the King and all the Loyalists resisting God's Authority would therein have been rebellious as is before alledged For what is the Ground of all Conscionable Allegiance God's Authority as he rightly observes p. 15. 34. and nothing else And what makes any Person or Body of Men to be God's Authority or Ordinance Is it coming well by their Power without Villanies or Murder of preceding Sovereigns Or is it good use of those they have Providentially got under their Power especially of such of them as had bore Arms in the opposite Cause and stand still well affected to it Is it their keeping up Bishops and Episcopal Clerâ—y and Church Revenues Or retaining Fundamental Laws and Constitutions yea or even Monarchy it self or Legal Parliaments all which are the Particulars of Difference assigned by him in this point p. 46. 47. No none of these makes any to be God's Authority or Ordinance according to his Principles but being set up by Providence in Possession of Power and actâ—al Administration of Government This makes both the Change of Fâ—rm and Government or the new Degenerate Forms of Government as he tells us p. 4. 5. from the Convaeation Book to be God's Ordinance And therefore as such we must own them when actually administring whether they be Monarchy or Commonwealth whether all Estates or only Commons whether a full House or a few Persons And also the Change of Persons ib. p. 34. how villanously soever the Change was brought about whether by the Injustice of Ambitious Neighbours or by the Treason and Rebellion of Disloyal Subjects Then for all the Villanies of those Usurpers and the Murder of K. Charles and their barbarous usage of his Friends and pulling down Bishops and Bishops Lands and turning out malignant Clergy and changing Monarchy to Common-wealth and a full Representative of the Nation to a Rump Parliament For all these I say since Providence had put them into Possession and Administration of Government God had put them into his Authority by this Principle and they were as truly a Power of his making and his Ordinance by this Plea as the present Power or any other Providential Power and Possessor is And having thus got into God's Authority What can make them lose it Will continuance of the same villanous Practices against the murder'd King's legal Heir or his Friends or the Church and Bishops No but only like Dispossession again by Providence Whilst in this Possession then they were God's Ordinance And for what Cause may Subjects Arm against God's Ordinance May they do it for their pulling down the Church of England or the King's Friends out of an abhorrence they have of past or for the Oppressions they feel by present Villanies No For what then would become of the Dâ—ctrine of Non-resistance And if they could not with a good Conscience be resisted for these What is like to become of those Rising Or Who can bring them off from being as Damnable a Resistance as any other Rebellions But he adds p. 47. lastly That their Government was never settled being frequently changed and having no National Consent As to Settlement by these Principles I do not see that Settlement in Possession should first give Right or Authority but only that it should settle and continue them for Possession gives Authority by his Account p. 15. 23. 25. 32. 36. Possession of Government must needs give actual Government and actual Government gives Right to Allegiance as his Discourse still asserts p. 26 27. 32. Yea all the Scripture Texts for Obedience as he thinks p. 21. require it to be paid only to him that Exercises Government And claiming Allegiance it must imply and carry Authority since Allegiance is only due to Authority as he also says pag. 15. 34. He then who has got Possession
either to Swear Allegiance or undergo these hard things then they must suffer as Confessors for their Duty in this as other good Men have done for Duty in other Instances And the Duty of Confessing is never the less because there is so great a number of Confessors And if that Society be broken up by this means it is not too good to be parted with to keep Innocence and a good Conscience All Civil Society and the Benefits thereof being under the Restraint of the Rules of Righteousness and never to be sought or preserved by breaking any of God's Laws about Society or any others but only so far as they can be had by keeping of them Men must never purchase any Society by Sin and Sin is never the less sinful for being required of them on that Condition But p. 45. is not Obedience to Government it self for the Preservation of human Society Yes as all other Rules of Righteousness which are Social Virtues But they are for it not as discretionary means which Men may use or omit as they see it serves turns but as standing Rules and Laws of God which they are to keep without Exceptions They must rule us in all Cases and Pursuits either of Society or any thing else And a Liberty to transgress these when it may seem to serve present turns would leave neither security in nor benefit by any Societies But as for this Objection against an obstinate Allegiance it is not peculiar to it but will lye equally against an obstinate Picty or any other Virtues when they fall into the hands of such Persecutors as will allow no benefit of Society without breach thereof In the Dioclesian Persecution he knows the Christians were removed from the Emperor's Protection and from all Claim and Use of Laws and what benefit of Society then if they would not first Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods And the like may be under any Idolatrous or Heretical Prince who will tyranically make any other Instances of Idolatry or Heresy the Condition of living under him or of Civil Society Or such a Decree as Nebuebadnezzar did to destroy all People Nations and Languages that would not worship his Golden Image Dan. 3. 6. And so it may in any Church when they will tyranically impose any Sins or Errors as Conditions of their Communion to all that live under them or of Church Society Which yet all good Christians are bound to seek for the benefit of their Souls as much as Civil Society for the benefit of their Bodies and worldly Interests So that Obstinacy in any Truths or Duties will as much destroy Society as Obstinacy in Allegiance when they fall into such Princes or Persons hands who will let none live in their Country or have any Protection there if they do without renouncing them And yet these are Duties then notwithstanding and Men are then called to lay down not only the benefits of Society but their very Lives for them 6. His last Reason is p. 43. That these Principles of his answer all the ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects But First Do they answer all the ends of Justice and keeping the Commandments I think I have made it plain they do not do that because they do not give every Man his own but justifie unjust Possession and give Right to unrighteous Actions destroying the Obligations laid and the Securities given by Right and Wrong among Men. And Government and Civil Society are for having these things done and for being ruled in all things by them and the greatest Blessing that comes thereby is the Observance of them Then as to the Purposes of Princes his Principle indeed answers an Usurpur's Purpose which is to keep what he has unjustly got and it shews him he may very justly and conscionably do that and that he has the People as fast tyed and as far obliged to him for all he has no good Title as they would be if he had the best Title But yet all his Purposes it will not serve For he that is once possessed of a Crown would not have it lye at other Peoples Liberty if they can to take it from him but would be glad of some such Title and such an human Right would prove if once he came to acquire that as would make every one else afraid in Conscience if they make any Conscience of what they do to desire or attempt to wrest it out of his hands And this the Title of Providential Possession doth not do For as that way he holds it only by Strength any other that can make a greater Strength will start a better Title to it than he has And as for the Rightful King's Purpose I think it no way answers it For his Purpose and that a very reasonable and just one too would be to have his Right to hold it when he has it and to have it unlawful for any Man to disturb his Possession of it or to get it from him or when he has done so to keep it as his own and not restore it to him again Yea to have Right from his Subjects as well as from the Usurper That since it is his Right they should not help to hinder him of it and since he has Authority over them that they should keep under Obedience to him And as it is the constant Purpose of Authority to bind to such Obedience so it is the constant Purpose of Right to have these Effects not only in the King but in any other Person And lastly as for the Purpose of Subjects if they all purpose as they all should do in the first place to keep a good Conscience I think his Principles may appear from what I have said to be far from that since they would carry them to resist him that has Authority over them which would be Rebellious and to oppose Right and maintain Wrong which is very unrighteous And as to their Preservation and outward Security in this world though in making them more externally easie under the Possessor whilst he holds the Possession it would serve this end at that turn yet would it deserve it a great deal more as I before noted in destroying Right and Wrong the best Guard of their worldly Preservation and in multiplying such Changes and Revolutions all the Compassings whereof are the greatest Blow and Bane thereto And though I am sure this is no end either of Government or Governors who are not for serving but keeping out such Changes and Revolutions yet it seems a very natural and the most natural end of his Right of Providence And then as he p. 43. grants Princes themselves as well as Subjects have Cause enough to be jealous of it since whatever Servive it might do them at one turn it might do them as great Dissâ—â—vice at another For to give Authority to Revolutions and to justifie those that act in them I think are the great ways that any Principles can serve
as every one is bound to in his Station whilst a Prince is among them How will his way exempt them from paying the same when they have an obliging Opportunity whilst he is Dispossessed of his Throne This I think K. W. claim'd from the Irish Subjects requiring them to come in to him and to return to their due Obedience whilst his Errand was Restoring or getting Possession And this in virtue of their Natural Allegiance they having taken no Legal Oath to him And more particularly as to the Legal Oath the Maintenance and Defence Swore in that is with respect to the Legal Right as is plain in the Oath and as he himself observes p. 28. And here methinks it should be harder to get off from Maintaining and Defending if the legal Right be allowed to remain which they Swore to maintain and defend him in And the Maintenance Promised was against all Attempts whatsoever against his Person Crown and Dignity Now the Crown and Dignity is his who has the best Right to them Right making Property as I formerly observed So leaving the Legal Right to any Dispossessed Kings Person will leave him the Crown and Dignity And then all continuance of Attempts to deprive his Person of the Crown and Dignity will be Attempts against his Person Crown and Dignity I think And how will this making Attempts thereupon be Maintaining and Defending both his Dignity and him against them So no way will remain but the translation of Legal Right to take off this Maintenance and Defence in my Opinion He thinks also p. 30. That we are not bound to defend a King when he illegally Subverts the Laws or Legal Religion of a Kingdom 'T is enough in Conscience he fancies p. 27. pattently to bear such an one but a little too much for Subjects to venture all to keep him on the Throne to oppress them This I think makes Kings illegal Actings a Discharge of Subject's Allegiance and Legal Defence which agrees equally ill in my Opinion with the Oath of Allegiance and with Passive Obedience For that is to be so Passive as to make no Resistance and to be so Obedient as to pay all due Service and Allegiance even to such illegal Invaders of Religion and Laws Nor is this Duty taken off by the abuse they will make of the Subject's Performance in turning that Power upon them afterwards to persecute and oppress those who were its Dutyful Supporters for no Duty is taken off by the accidental abuse which others may make of our payment of it nor was this in particular thought to be taken off by the Primitive Christians They were not without plain appearances that if a Persecutor kept the Throne he would turn or continue his Power to persecute and oppress them But yet for all this they durst never be wanting in any Part or Duty of good Subjects in their several Stations to keep him thereon either against any Domestick Rebellion or Foreign Invasion The Subject's Duty in these Cases I think is as to the illegal ways never to act under him or serve him in the illegal Thing But yet for all that to be ready in their several Stations to defend his Person and the Cause of his Crown when either Subject or Foreigner shall rise against him And 't is their Acting in the illegal Thing that the Law punishes but no Law will punish them for Acting to support his Person and defend his Crown Though a Man may be a Traytor as he urges p. 30. For Acting for him against Law yet never for Defending him when Assaulted for that is according to Law So though they are not to defend such illegal Opposer in an illegal Thing yet are they bound to give him the due Defence of Allegiance and the Legal Oath notwithstanding it And thus I have considered both the Scriptures and Reasons he has offered for this Right of Providence And as the former Proofs I think shew Reason enough to overthrow it so he has brought no good Reason to support it And therefore mere Providential Possession of another's Crown without other Title is no Right much less such as should set aside the Legal Right So that the Legal Right will stand good notwithstanding it And if he that has the Legal Right has the best Right to the Crown though another be got into Possession The Supposal of a Legal Right in another will leave all the first mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance to the Possessor For in ingaging by such Allegiance to help him in keeping out the right Owner Subjects would be very Unrighteous and ingaging also thereby to resist the Authority of their rightful Prince they would be very Undutiful and Rebellious and therein moreover to break their former Promises and Oaths they would be very Perfidious and Perjurious All which I think are not to be taken off by the Supposal of Legal Right in the ejected Prince but only by proving he has parted from it and that the Possessor is vested with it which uses to be the Principle of the publick Acts on such Revolutions and particularly is so in our present Case and which as the Author has not at all medled with so neither shall I. And thus Honoured Sir I have considered what this Reverend and Learned Person has offered on this Argument Wherein I have endeavoured to take the Freedom which is fitting with his Opinion but to shew the Respect which I have and his many Excellent both Pious and Learned Labours have so long given the Serious and Wise part of Men cause to have for his Person I pray God to enlighten and thereby to awaken the Consciences of all concerned in this Question Some may be apt to take Offence at a free Discussion of these Grounds thinking it may touch too near on Reputation But as many as prefer Religion before themselves will be more careful to keep its Duties in Credit than to keep up their own Credit And I am sure all that have a serious Sense of Christianity and reverence for the Commandments of God must needs see that they have a much higher Concern than Reputation in this Dispute The Difficulties are of highest Importance in that Account we must all one Day make before the great Iudge of the World And if the Grounds several Men satisfie themselves upon at present will not take them off it nearly concerns them to see it in time whilst there may be ways of providing a more comfortable Answer against they come to be posed upon them God in his abundant Mercy grant us all the Grace to have and keep Minds raised above this World and both to see the Truth and follow it I remain Sir Your most Faithful and Affectionate Servant c. FINIS THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF the Difficulties in the way of the Present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off The Allegiance required Difficulties against it from several Commandments All suppose a rightful Competitor to