them and to set Tyrants in their Place and then even those Tyrants are of God's setting up and are therefore to be owned as Supreme and obey'd as long as God pleases to continue them over us But here I am afresh assaulted with another Objection so hard it is to struggle through this difficult Case What! say you God is pleased to work by Means Miracles are now ceased and therefore if we ourselves put not to our Hands to pull down such Usurpers but fondly own them still to be Supreme and therefore not to be resisted we may long look before we be delivered and perhaps may offend God by slipping those Opportunities which may seem for that purpose to be put into our Hands But to this I answer That God who hath the Power of Life and Death is not so unprepar'd of Instruments of Death as for want of others to make allways use of one He hath a store house as I may say of Accidents and Diseases out of which he may chuse any one sufficient to put a Period to the days of the greatest Monarch he can kill a King as soon by a Fever as suffer a Rebel to kill him And therefore though David knew that Saul was to be unking'd nay and that he too was to succeed yet so far was he from being of Abishai's Opinion that then was the opportunity to kill him and that then God had delivered him into his hands when they found him asleep with the Spear at his Head so far I say was he from being of his Opinion and taking this opportunity that he would neither doe it himself nor suffer him to doe it but piously and prudently told Abishai that God had means of his own to doe it by and needed not to be beholden to them to doe it by such illegal Means and therefore they were to expect his leasure As the Lord liveth saith he the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descend into the Battel and perish The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against the Lord 's Anointed and therefore let no Rebel think that because God hath a mind to put down a King that yet he shall be the less guilty who stretcheth forth his Hand to doe it And now I have with what scrutiny I can discust these two Preliminary Queries In the answering the first of which there was little difficulty it being a generally receiv'd Maxim and Warrantable by the daily Practice of all sorts of People The main Difficulty lies in the Second which I think I have removed to my own if not to the satisfaction of others and have made it out both by Reasons and Examples and at the sametime remov'd all the Objections that might make against it that he is not King and Supreme who was once King but is depos'd but he is Supreme who is actually in Power and possest of the Throne And now let us take an estimate of our present Affairs by what hath been here said It is certain never Prince had juster Grounds of War than this Prince had First In respect of the true Religion which was groaning under the growing Tyranny of the Church of Rome We had a King so bigotted to Popery that for it's Propagation he question'd not to break all that was most binding all Promises of his own and the Laws of the Land which he swore to maintain so that he may very well be rank'd amongst those Kings whose saying is Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their Cords from us But let me not Reflect too much upon a Person who is yet upon several accounts to be respected by us let us rather admire the Goodness of God who hath sent this Prince as another Constantine to deliver us from these impending ruines for we may well say If the Lord had not sent us this Deliverer they had swallowed us up alive when they were so wrathfully displeased at us Secondly He had just Cause of War to defend his own Right which the adverse Party laboured to debar him of There was little good intended him when Strangers Papists and Jesuits his profest Enemies were set to manage Affairs and were acquainted with all the Intrigues of Court and yet neither he nor any for him were in the least concerned or taken any notice of And when their young Prince was to be born they did so industriously conceal all things from him that they might as well have sent him word that they intended to cheat him He had just Cause therefore to vindicate himself and his Right from the abuses of such insolent Court-Parasites and Impostors And though it is true he could claim no right by way of Succession as long as his Father liv'd yet as a Foreign Prince he might seek satisfaction for the Affront which was put upon him by such underhand and illegal Dealings Thirdly As the Cause of his War was just so the Success was thereunto answerable Never Prince was in an Undertaking more apparently favour'd by Heaven But it were needless for me to enlarge upon all the happy Occurences of this Expedition since the Learned Dr. Burnet who was an Eye-Witness of them all hath allready done it in his Sermon which is allmost in every man's hand and therefore I refer you to it This I will only say That never King came to a Crown with less Bloud-shed with greater Applause and Satisfaction of the People And therefore since as I have made it appear even those who come illegally to a Crown are yet when fully possest of it to be own'd as Supreme certainly King William whose Cause of War was so just and so miraculously victorious and whose Proclamation over the whole Kingdom was so joyous to all that in all Places where it was read it may very well be said The shout of a King was among them certainly I say he is Supreme he is of God's setting up And then it must needs follow that if he be Supreme the late King is not for there cannot be two Supremes And then it will follow again that the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy which we took to the other King is now quite out of doors all Supremacy which was the ground of these Oaths being now quite lost in the late King. And then lastly it will follow That since King William is Supreme we are in duty bound to pay him all that Honour and Service which is due to a Supreme and then since swearing of Allegiance hath allways been own'd as due to the Supreme Power from the Subject it is our Duty when put upon it to swear Allegiance to him too And therefore if I may be so bold to say so I look upon it as an Errour in any to say no worse of it who refuse to doe it As for my own part as I have allways been Obedient to my Supreme so I shall allways be Obedient to to King William and Queen Mary whose Supremacy over us I pray God long to continue FINIS
A DISCOURSE SHEWING That it is Lawfull and our Duty To swear OBEDIENCE to KING William Notwithstanding the Oath of ALLEGIANCE taken to the LATE KING By a Divine in the North. LONDON Printed for Joseph Hall Bookseller in Newcastle upon Tyne 1689. TO THE Renownedly Learned and Reverend GILBERT BVRNET D D. Lord BISHOP of SARVM Reverend Sir MY Zeal for this present Government the happiest Change that ever Nation was blest with and my Trouble to see some remaining Scruples which in despight of all God's manifestations to us seem yet to disturb our Israel have so far transported me beyond the bounds of Modesty and made me forget my own Weakness as to thrust upon you this unworthy Pamphlet My Forwardness for the Cause had wellnigh put me upon the printing of it without farther consultation but upon second thoughts I judg'd it safer in a matter of this weight to consult some of greater Learning And whilst my thoughts were roving to find out some proper persons of which upon several accounts there are but few in this quarter of our World attracted with the fame of Your Worth and Learning and the sense of Your great Actings in our happy Change it self they seemed to bend to You-wards And though a person of less Business and less Note might very well have served to examine so pitifull a Piece yet promising my self better usage from You whose Candour must be answerable to Your Greatness than perhaps I might meet with from some of lesser note I resolved however bold it might appear in me to take this way Accept therefore Reverend Sir this poor Piece which however rude it be if it be but sound I care not And though it was very fond of the journey to come and present it self to You yet it will upon the approach of so grave a Censure methinks begin to tremble And if I be prevented by any other who questionless may doe it better I am very well pleased with the Service which may be done â—o my Sovereigns by it and think my self sufficiently rewarded for my poor Endeavours that I had the Honour of expressing to You my readiness in them God preserve You Reverend Sir and enrich his Church more and more with such noble Patriots A DISCOURSE SHEWING That it is Lawfull and our Duty To swear OBEDIENCE to KING William Notwithstanding the Oath of ALLEGIANCE taken to the late King. AMong the many Scruples of Conscience which have risen from this turn of Times the greatest in my opinion and I hope the last is this Whether or no it be lawfull for those who have sworn Allegiance to the late King to take this new Oath of Allegiance to King William This is the great Scruple which I find cannot easily be shaken off by men even of greatest Learning and greatest Integrity and if men could but once clear themselves of this I hope there will remain no farther cause of Scruple And although I do not pretend to prescribe Rules to others who are wiser and better than my self yet what I here write for my own satisfaction may perhaps be somewhat satisfactory too to such whose want of leasure or other lets may hinder them from making enquiry into the thing themselves First then There are two preliminary Questions necessary to be considered in order to the resolving this present Scruple The first is Whether or no I can be any longer obliged to a man by Oath or otherwise when he himself is divested of that Power in consideration of which I was by Oath or otherwise obliged to him And it is certain I cannot The thing is so common and clear that it needs not much proving there being daily instances of the thing For though a man is obliged to a Lord of a Manour a Magistrate or Master so long as they are such yet when they once cease to be such and are superseded by Oaths my Obligation how strong soever doth then cease and I may a-new be obliged to the Succeeder The next Question is Who is to be owned as supreme He who was once our lawfull King or he who by Force or otherwise hath dethroned this King and is himself seated upon the Throne And in my opionion the last is supreme for the bearing of the Sword is so inseparable from the supreme Power that the very Life of Supremacy consists in it and it is as improper to call him King who wants Power as to call him a man who wants Reason A King is set over a People by God as his Vice-gerent and endued with Power sufficient to endourage and defend the righteous and punish the wicked but when God takes from him all Power so that he can neither doe the one nor the other How can he be called God's Vice-gerent and Supreme Is not he rather to be called so and to be look'd upon to be such upon whom God hath transferr'd this Power And as he who is lawfully ejected can no longer lay any Claim to that Estate out of which he is ejected but he is to be owned as Lord who is lawfully possest of it so when God who hath the sole Disposal of Crowns and may give them to whom he pleases doth dispossess a King of a Crown and puts another in his place we are then to acquiesce It 's true whilst the thing is in dispute it is the part of every honest man to stand up for his King as much as he can but when once the business is ended and actuall possession given which could never be without God's Fiat who himself is the Judg of Kings and putteth down one and setteth up another there is then no farther Appeal to be made or Writ of Errour brought unless we think we are higher than God and have a better Right to dispose of Crowns then he we are therefore to own him as supreme whom God hath set up and not obstinately to stand but for him who is actually dispossest Again Since the Tribute and Revenues of a Crown are the Stipend of God if I may call it so appropriated by God to the supreme Powers as his Ministers it being necessary for the support of their Grandeur and Carrying on of their Business and therefore St. Paul saith They are God's Ministers attending continually upon this very thing When then this Tribute is quite taken from one and given to another so that it is impossible for him from whom it is taken to appear any longer as the Minister of God and carry on his Business God then seems to me to have actually discharged such an one from his Service and to have pitcht upon the other to be his Minister to whom the Tribute is paid And therefore it seems clear to me that he is to be owned as Supreme and God's Minister who actually possesseth the Throne and the Appurtenances thereof and not he who was once King but is now dispossest As for that nice Distinction of a King de jure and a King de facto I
look upon it to be a mere Chimaera and no way practicable A man cannot serve two Masters as our Saviour saith We must suppose this King de jure to be a King and if he be a King he must be acknowledged for such and have all the Honour and Service paid him which is due to a King. Again The King de facto must be acknowledged too to be a King and being so must be honoured and served as a King now what can a man doe in this case If he serve the one he must neglect the other if he cleave to the one he must forsake the other he cannot serve them both they bothlaying Claim to the same Services Since then it is impossible to serve them both there can be no such thing in Nature as two Kings a King de jure and a King de facto for we know that Nature designs an End to all her Actions but there can be no such Action where the End is impossible The Query is then Since there must be but one King which of the two is he The King de jure or the King de facto It is certain the last is he My Argument is this Affairs cannot be managed by Fancy and Suppositions there must be acting in the case Now a King de jure is only an empty Title and cannot act the whole Power of Acting being in the King de facto and therefore unless you think you can live upon mere Notions you must of necessity have recourse to the King de facto and own him as Supreme since he is only in a capacity to act And whereas it is said That the Crown cannot be forfeited and that therefore a King whilst he lives can never cease to be King Once King and allways King. To this I answer Grant that it cannot legally be forfeited and that though the Law obliges the King yet it cannot punish him and that the Law hath so fenced about the Persons of Kings that it is impossible in the sense of the Law for a King upon any Trespass whatever to forfeit his Crown and that there is no Subject can offer any Violence or attempt any thing against the Prerogative or Person of the King but at the same time he becomes a Trespasser of the Law and by the Law is punishable grant all this I say that the Laws of the Land do as much as they can secure the Right of Dominion in the Person of a King and his Successors so that as far as they can make him he is King de jure yet jure they can never make him so absolute but that God hath still a Right above him and Power to depose him and whenever he doth it the Right and Power which were by Law deriv'd or secur'd to that King must then cease and be null And therefore in my opinion let such a King and his Abetters pretend to what they will and lay Claim to the Crown as much as they please by virtue of this and the other Constitution of Government yet such Claim is quite out of doors when there is another King de facto and the King de facto is King de jure and claims under a far greater Right for it is Jure divino that Kings reign but it is only Jure humano that they are hereditary or elective that there is this or the other sort of Government It is certain therefore that though it be granted that the Crown cannot legally be forfeited yet it may be otherwise lost and seized on God may make a Forfeiture of it and dispose of it to whom he pleases otherwise there can be no Conquerour in the World can have any Right to the Crown which he conquers But you will say A Conqueror is one thing and an Usurper is another you will own a Conquerour to be supreme even when the conquered King is living but you will not own an Usurper to be so And thus I know many will talk but if I may be so bold as to say so it 's just at random never knowing nor weighing what Reason there may be for the one more than the other But I am resolved with the little Wit I have to pause upon things better before I swallow them down so inconsiderately Let us then compare the Conquerour and Usurper together and see wherein the Excellency of the one lies above the other And first then Grant that some Conquerours have at first been on the defensive side and have had just Cause of War yet they were not so just to give over when they have got sufficient Reparations but being heartened with Success would admit of no Terms but went still on till they had ruin'd their nighbouring Prince This I am sure was neither just nor lawfull and yet being Conquerours their Supremacy is owned But where there is one who at first hath had just Cause of War there are many of them for this one who had not but invaded their Nighbours purely out of Ambition and a desire to enlarge their Dominions This surely was unjust and yet their Supremacy is owned I ask then What is the cause why we may lawfully own their Supremacy Is it the unlawfullness of their War No sure that cannot be it What can it be then Truly nothing else but because they prov'd victorious and possest themselves of the Throne Now then if a Conquerour is to be owned as Supreme because he is possest of the Throne though his War was illegal I ask Why an Usurper is not to be owned as Supreme when possest of the Throne though he too came illegally to it It 's true you may say you look not upon an illegal War to be so heinous as Rebellion I grant it but yet I look upon them both to be unlawfull Means of coming to a Crown The truth of it is though the Lord cannot be the Authour of the Evil of Sin yet he is the Authour of the Evil of Punishment Can there be evil in the City saith Amos and the Lord hath not done it And God in whose Power alone it is to punish Kings may punish them as well by the Hand of a Rebel as an Invader We have so many instances of this and those so clearly owned by God too that it is not to be questioned and he hath too as clearly owned these very men to be set up by him and to be his Kings who though they had no good design of their own in it were yet designed by him for the Punishment of those other Kings whom they dispossest And when they are thus set up surely they are Supreme and are to be owned as such unless we will prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fight against God. And therefore if we first have recourse to examples taken out of the Scriptures of the Old Testament we shall find that though Rebells for such they were when they did it without a special Commission from God did rise up and kill their Kings