Support of Authority it being sufficiently evident from the Reason of the thing For First every Subject receives Security and Protection from the King and therefore ought to protect his legal Protector For as all Persons receive the common Benefits of Government so they ought to joyn in a common Defence of it Secondly all Persons are born equally Subjects from whence it follows That the essential Duties of Subjection of which Defence of the King is one chief Branch must necessarily extend to them all Thirdly all Persons are obliged to venture their Lives for the publick Safety and to appear against the Enemies of their Country But the direction of this Affair belongs solely to his Management who is vested with the Power of the Sword and has the Prerogative of making Peace and War Those whom he declares the publick Enemies are to be accounted such and no others To him only it belongs to judge of the bigness of the Danger to proportion the Preparation for War to appoint the time and place for Battel By vertue of which Privilege all his Subjects are bound to comply with his Appointment and to bring their Persons into the Field upon demand If we look into the Laws of our own Country we shall find them clear and decisive against the Doctor In the famous Case of the Post nati argued before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber 4 Iac. 1. all the Judges agreed that Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is beyond the Circuit of the Laws That is the Subjects are bound to defend the King in what place soever he resides whether in his Dominions or elsewhere For as these Reverend Judges go on Every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this i. e. Defence being a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects Now if the Defence of the King's Person and Kingdoms is a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects or necessarily implied in the Notion of Subjection then every Man is obliged to be a Soldier whenever his Prince shall think fit to employ him in that manner This is no more than the Resolution of all the Judges in Calvin's Case who declare That every Subject is by his natural Ligeance bound to obey and serve his Sovereign And since this Obligation of the Subject is thus general and comprehensive it must certainly hold in Cases of greatest Necessity and Importance The Duty of an English Subject is more particularly described in the old Oath of Ligeance mentioned by Britton which as Sir Edward Coke adds is yet commonly in use to this day in every Leet and in our Books The Tenour of it runs thus You shall swear That from this Day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and Truth and Faith shall bear of Life and Member and terrene Honour c. This Oath as Sir Edward Coke observes elsewhere is to be taken of all above twelve Years of Age. The Oath of Allegiance made 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. takes in the same Compass of Duty For there the Subject swears To bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs c and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever This if it were duly performed were enough in all Conscience and as much as can be expected from any Soldier unless the being listed obliges a Man to Impossibilities Now this Oath every Person of the Age of Eighteen years is bound to take if required by Authority Lastly That the extent of Allegiance reaches to the assisting the King in the Feild we may learn from 11 H. 7. c. 1. where we are told that The King calling to mind the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince in his Wars against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him c. This Statute we may observe does not found the Subjects Duty of asserting their Prince in his Wars upon their Military Oath and Possession but upon their Allegiance and therefore since all Subjects owe a Natural Allegiance to their King they ought to defend him in the Feild when and where he shall command their Service And thus if the Judges and Laws may be allowed to determine the Case the Doctors fine speculations about Non-assistance must come to nothing His distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance into the Natural Duty of Subjects and an Obligation superinduced by Law is both ill founded and misapplyed First This distinction has no Foundation either in Reason or Law Our Oath of Allegiance does not extend our Obedience as Bishop Sanderson well observes and make us more Subjects than we were before It only gives a new Security by the Solemnity of the Action for the performance of that to which we were antecedently obliged The Oath finds us Subjects otherwise we might refuse it it does not make us such And therefore those who have not Sworn such an Allegiance are bound to all the Duties of Subjection contained in it This Sworn Obedience is enjoyned by Authority only as a Recognition of our Natural Duty to which it adds nothing but the Enforcement of a Religious Circumstance Which is agreeable to the Judges Resolution in the forementioned Case of the Post nati That Allegiance was before Laws And in Calvin's Case it 's averred That a True and Faithful Ligeance and Obedience which is all we are sworn to is an incident inseparable to every Subject as soon as he is Born Secondly As the Doctors distinction is Chimerical so the Application of it is Mistaken and Unreasonable He says Natural Allegiance is due only to him who has the actual Administration of the Government Natural Allegiance under Favour can be due to none but him who is our our Natural Prince no more than Filial Obedience can be challenged by any excepting our Natural Parents But Possession abstracted from Right does not make any Man our Natural Prince no not in the Doctor 's Opinion For he elsewhere tells us That the Kings of Egypt and Babylon never had a Legal and Natural Right to govern Israel By which Words it's plain he makes a Legal and Natural Right to be the same But bare Possession does not give a legal Right and by consequence not a Natural one Thirdly Natural Allegiance is due to him who is King by the Laws of Nature but he who can prove his Title by nothing but the Administration of Government is no King by the Laws of Nature For Nature i. e. right Reason does not found Dominion in Power nor gives any Countenance to Injustice And if an Usurper has no Prerogatives of Royalty from the Laws of Nature then Natural Allegiance cannot be challenged upon this Score For a Principle which gives a Man no Right to govern can't lay an Obligation
upon any Persons to obey him The Laws of Nature enjoyn us Obedience to our Kings But they don't tell us That every powerful Pretender ought to be acknowledged as such But refer us to the Constitution for Satisfaction For Authority and Iurisdiction is as much a Property as Land and therefore the Measure of it ought only to be taken from the Laws of each respective Countrey which brings me to the Doctor 's Application of legal Allegiance which he affirms is Sworn only to a King in Possession And by his reasoning he lets us plainly understand that this Allegiance is due no longer than the Possession continues To this I conceive the Doctor 's Arguments will afford a sufficient ground for a Reply For he explains Legal Allegiance by Maintenance or Defence and says it signifies no more than to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne as having a legal Right to it If it signifies thus much its sufficient For if we are sworn to maintain and defend the King in the Possession of the Throne because he has a Legal Right to it we ought to defend him as long as this Legal Right continues For as long as the Grounds of Allegiance remain in full Force the Consequent Duties ought to be performed Now the Doctor grants a Prince's Legal Right remains after his Dispossession and that he may insist upon his Claim when he finds his opportunity He argues farther That we can legally take this Oath only to a King in Possession because it must be Administred by his Authority To this I Answer First That from hence it follows that whenever a lawful Prince has been possessed of the Government those who Swore to him during his Possession are bound to perform the Contents of their Oath for then by the Doctor 's Argument it was lawfully Administred Secondly To put the Matter beyond Dispute we are to observe That the King's Authority continues after Dispossession This waving other Authorities I shall prove from the Two other famous Cases of the Post nati above mentioned reported by Sir Francis Moore and Sir Edward Coke in both which we have the Resolution and Concurrence of all the Judges In the First among other Things it 's affirmed as unquestionable Law That Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King not the Politick For Instance Si le Roy soit expulse per Force auter Usurpe uncore le Allegiance nest toll comment que le Ley soit toll That is If the King is by Force driven out of his Kingdom and another Usurps notwithstanding this the Allegiance of the Subject does not cease though the Law does Secondly Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is sometimes beyond the circuit of the Laws For every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this being a Thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects without respect to the extent of the Laws of that Nation where they were born whereby it manifestly appears that Allegiance follows the Natural Person of the King From this Resolution of the Reverend Judges these Inferences necessarily follow 1. Since Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King it must be due to him as long as his natural Person is in being i. e. as long as he lives So that Possession or Dispossession does not alter the Case 'T is true they make a change in the King's Fortune but the Allegiance of the Subject remains the same 2. When the Prince is ejected by force the Laws are said to cease or expire From whence it follows that the Usurper has no Authority to execute Justice or administer any part of the Government which overthrows all the Pretences for a K. de Facto 3. Allegiance extends as far as Defence and does not as the Judges observe depend upon the Formalities of Law but is founded in natural Subjection And as a King may command his Subjects of one Kingdom to defend him elsewhere though they are obliged by no express Provisions to travel with or transport their Allegiance into another Country so by Parity of Reason all Subjects in vertue of their general Allegiance are bound to defend their Prince in their own Country thô there should be no particular Laws assigned to bring them upon Duty which is more than the Doctor will allow 4. If Allegiance reaches as far as Defence then without question it ought to be paid to the King when dispossessed for then it is he has the greatest need of his Subjects Assistance 5. If Allegiance follows the natural Person of the King and is due to him out of Possession then it cannot be due to an Usurper in Possession For this would oblige us to two opposite Allegiances which as the Doctor observes is absurd and impossible 6. If Allegiance follows the King's natural Person his Royal Authority must do so too For an Obligation to obey always supposes a Right to command and if the Sovereign Authority always attends upon the Person of the King then a Commission granted by a King out of Possession must be a valid Commission And thus the Doctor 's great Question which he was not Lawyer enough to decide is answered against him Calvin's Case is full to the same purpose which because I have already mentioned I shall cite the less of it now In this solemn and deliberate Determination it 's resolved by the Reverend Judges First That Allegiance and Faith are due to a King by the Law of Nature They must mean a Rightful King For the Law of Nature does not encourage Injustice and Usurpation Secondly they affirm That the Law of Nature is part of the Law of England and cite Bracton Fortescue c. for this point And Thirdly That the Law of Nature is immutable From whence I infer That if Allegiance is due to a Rightful King by the Law of Nature if this Law is incorporated into our English Constitution and of an immutable Obligation from hence it necessarily follows That as long as we have a Rightful Prince our Allegiance is part of his Right and ought to be exerted for his Service Secondly they observe That in the Reign of Edw. 2. the Spencers Father and Son to cover the Treason hatched in their Hearts invented this damnable and damned Opinion That Homage and the Oath of Ligeance was more by reason of the King's Crown that is his Politick Capacity than by reason of the Person of the King Upon which Opinion they inferred execrable and detestable Consequents 1. That the King might be removed for Maleadministration 2. That he might be reformed per Aspertee 3. That his Lieges were bound to govern in aid of him and in default of him Now if it is such an impious and unreasonable Assertion to maintain that Homage and Ligeance is tyed to the King 's Politick Capacity Then it must follow his Natural Person which makes the Resolution of this Case the same
Vsurpers the same p. 117. No difference between an Human and a Divine Intail as to the Firmness of the Settlement p. 125. The Object from Hosea 8.4 defended with some Remarks upon the Iewish Theocracy p. 130. His Doctrin not founded upon the same Principle with the Doctrin of Passive Obedience p. 133. His Objection That the disowning Illegal Powers limits the Providence of God in Governing Kings c. answered p. 134. His Argument drawn from the Necessity of Government considered and Counter-Principles set up against him p. 136 c. The Relation between Government and Allegiance examined p. 144. The Dr's Objections against an immoveable Allegiance unsatisfactory p. 145. The Vsurpation under the Rump and Cromwel and had Divine Authority by the Dr's Principles p. 148. Absolom a providential Monarch p. 155. The Insufficiency of the Dr's Plea from a National Submission and the consent of the Estates p. 157. ERRATA PAGE 4 Line 28 after nullum dele in p. 8. l. 23. after the add Dr's p. 9. l. 5. after were add a p. 10. l. 26. aft own'd add p. 11. l. 36. for these r. those p. 14. l. 9. for fall r. fell p. 17. l. 7. del by p. 17. Marg. for Heb. 12 r. Heb. 11. p. 28. l. 40. aft Canon add p. 31. l. 27. for uncouttly r. uncourtly p. 37. l. 32. for there r. here p. 42. l. 24. for any r. an p. 46. l. 27. after disallow add it p. 50. l. 14. for these r. there p. 51. l. 28. for of r. and p. 53. l. 36. Marg. for Sept. r. Lept Ibid. l. 37. for Aritogiton r. Aristogiton p. 54. l. 17. for Valena r. Valeria p. 59. l. 36. aft answer dele Ibid. add after which p. 61. l. 20. for has r. was p. 62. l. 35. after State add p. 68. l. 15. for imploys r. implies p. 69. l. 11. aft Dr. add may p. 71. l. 29. for King r. Kings p. 73. l. 12. aft we add can p. 83. l. 15. for the see r. see the p. 88. l. 4. for Crowned r. owned ibid. l. 32. aft and add the p. 93. l. 26. aft would deâ— p. 99. l. 24. for asserting r. assisting ibid. l. 25. for Possession r. Profession p. 101. l. 28. del other p. 104. l. 31. for from r. for p. 114 l. 35. aft seek add it p. 115. l. 4. for them r. him p. 118. l. 19. for Disputet r. Disputes ibid. l. 28. for remains r. remain p. 119. l. 17. for draws r. draw ibid. l. 18. for translates r. translate p 121. l. 28. for returning r. recurring p. 124. l. 30. aft Laws del and p. 125. l. 2. for them r. him p. 151. l. 4. for of r. and p. 153. l. 16. for Countries r. Counties p. 156. l. 3. for Goth r. Gath. Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE Considered c. THat we may not be surprized with the Doctors Novelties he very frankly at first acquaints us what we are to expect from him He makes no Scruple to aver That the intermixing the Dispute of Right with the Duty of Obedience or making the Legal Right of Princes the only Foundation of Allegiance is that which has perplexed the Controversy His Reason is because Allegiance can only be paid to Government he means Force and therefore it can be due to no other Title From whence it 's plain That Illegal Violence is preferable to Legal Right i. e. a Man ought not to pay his Debts to his Creditor but to atturn to the next Highway-Man he meets I wonder the Doctor who seems so much concerned for Good Manners should set the Constitution aside with so little Ceremony For if Legal Right must always give place to Unjust Power the Priviledges of Law signifie nothing except they could make a Man invincible which I fear is a Task somewhat difficult If you enquire why the Author has such a mean Opinion of Right he 'll tell you Because all Arguments from this Ground serve only to confound the Cause and the Conscience and to lead Men into dark Labyrinths of Law and History First As for History in an Hereditary Kingdom it 's no doubt a difficult Point to find out the Royal Family To distinguish a King's Son from his Daughter and the Next in Blood from Iack Cade or Wat Tyler And at this rate except matters of Fact clear up if we pretend but to know our Right hand from our Left we may be carried into a Labyrinth And Secondly As for the Laws they are as dark it seems as if the Parliaments met only to propound Riddles and proclaim unintelligible Jargon to the Nation And if the Case stands thus those Gentlemen who have endeavoured to justifie the Legality of the present Establishment were certainly out in the management of the Dispute For if Right and Wrong are not distinguishable if Good and Evil are of the same Colour if it 's unsafe to make any Enquiries into such Niceties as these for fear of wildring our Understandings then I confess all Revolutions are alike to us and ought to be complied with However the Doctor might have been a little kinder to his own Party who no doubt did their best and not have told the World that they engaged in an unnecessary Argument which it was both unfit to dispute and impossible to manage to satisfaction and that their Performances how well soever meant have served only to confound the Cause I perceive if the Doctor had not gone in to their Relief all had been lost and therefore he is resolved to make them sensible of his Assistance and not to allow them the least share in the glorious Defence of the Revolution But if they are contented with this Character I have no more to say To return to the Laws which the Doctor avoids as so many Rocks and Shelves in Dispute fit only to wrack Conscience upon Now this Character as it s far from a Complement to the English Constitution so it s somewhat surprizing to one who remembers that this Gentleman has formerly been of another mind In his Case of Resistance he does not complain that the Laws which settle the Rights of the Crown were so mysterious and hard to be understood and yet this is not that one Principle which he says he has only renounced in that Book There he asserts the Prerogative and maintains Non-resistance from the Constitution as well as from any other Topick I wonder he should lose his Law after almost seven Years improvement of Study and Conversation After all the Doctor owns that the Laws setting aside their Obscurity are good things and were they easily understood he would willingly cast the Cause upon this Issue If we could readily find where the Seat of Government is fixed who is our King and what are the great Lines of Prerogative and Subjection If we could attain to this perfect Skills in the Government he plainly intimates That the Law would then be a clear and safe Rule of
are under the disposal of Providence 1 Sam. 2.7 Prov. 22.2 Therefore if Possession gives a Divine Right in one case why not in the other This Reasoning may be further improved by the Doctor 's Logick where putting out the Word Kings I argue thus in the Doctor 's Expression All Possession is equally Rightful with respect to God For those are rightful Owners who are put into Possession by God And its impossible there should be a wrong Possessor unless a Man can make himself Master of his Neighbours Fortune whether God will or no. Farther it will not be denied but that the Sabeans who took away Iob's Cattel Iob. 1.15 were Company of Robbers and which is worse they committed their Rapine by the Instigation of the Devil And yet Ver. 21. it 's said what was stollen by them was taken away by the Lord. Which according to the Doctor 's method of Interpretation will go a great way towards the proving their Divine Right He urges Rom. 13.1 That all Power is of God But this Text makes against him as he is pleased to expound it i. e. that it is meant of Power as Power without any respect to Right For his former Interpretation of Legal Power he has solemnly Recanted in his Preface Now if all Power be from God without regard to Law and Human Justice why a Captain of Moss-troopers who is an Usurper in little may not come in for his share of Prerogative I can't imagine For an Usurper and his Adherents are as much combined against Justice as any private Robbers They offer Violence to the Constitution they out-rage all those who oppose their Rapine and muster all their Force and Cunning to keep honest Men out of their own So on the other hand Thieves are generally formed into a Society They have their Articles of Confederacy their Original Contracts and Fundamentals as well as other People And therefore they must not be refused the Privilege of Usurpation upon the Score of being Out-lyers Upon the whole Why inferiour Thieves should be denied Divine Right any more than Usurpers is unimaginable Unless the Bigness of a piece of Injustice is a Circumstance of Advantage And a Man ought to be encouraged by Providence for Robbing in a greater Compass than his Neighbours These with some others of a resembling Nature are I conceive evident Consequences from the Doctor 's Scheme of Government Which besides that they prove the insufficiency of his Principles for nothing but Truth can follow from Truth They shew us at the same time that they are by no means so much for the good of Mankind as he insinuates And that we ought not to be so fond of them as he would make us nor so glad to see them well proved How much Honour he has done the Scriptures and the Convocation-Book by making them the Abettors of such Doctrin as this may easily be guessed I hope therefore it may be no hazardous Undertaking to joyn issue with the Doctor upon this point nor over-difficult to disengage these Authorities from seeming to give any Assistance to his Cause SECT II. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Doctor 's Opinion BEfore I enter upon this Part of the Argument I must observe to the Reader That it has been managed with so much Advantage against the Doctor already that it might have been very well omitted here were it not possible that these Papers may fall into some hands that may not be so fortunate as to meet with other Satisfaction However I shall venture to be shorter upon this Head than otherwise I should have been Where I must 1. Premise That supposing the Convocation was unquestionably on the Doctor 's side he would be far from gaining his Point For Allegiance is a Duty which arises from our Subjection to the Temporal Power and therefore the Laws of each respective Kingdom must be the Rule of our practice in this Case A Synod though it may deliver its Opinion upon such a Point has no Authority to determin against the State The Church as She did not give Princes their Crowns so there is no reason She should pretend to take them away If She will be a Iudge and a Divider in these Matters She claims a greater Privilege than our Saviour owned I hope the Doctor won't say an Ecclesiastical Canon can set aside the Common Law and repeal an Act of Parliament This besides other Inconveniences of which the Doctor might be made sensible would be no other than graffing the Roman Pretences upon a new Stock and translating the Supremacy from St. Peter's to St. Paul's But that this Convocation should maintain such Doctrin as this is unimaginable since the great Design of their Book is to prove the Independency of Princes to vindicate their Rights against Church-Encroachments and to shew that Ecclesiasticks are as much their Subjects as the Laity 2. If we consider the Time in which this Convocation sat we shall find it very improper to fix the Doctor 's Principles upon them without the clearest and most convincing Evidence in their Writings For they met the first of King Iames I. when the Act of Recognition was passed in Parliament where the Bishops of this Convocation were present and gave their Votes for the Bill In which they Recognize and Acknowledge being bounden thereunto by the LAWS of GOD and Man the King 's Right to the Crown by inherent Birth-Right and undoubted Succession And oblige themselves their Heirs and Posterity for ever to submit to or stand by this Right until the last drop of their Bloods be spent And would these Reverend Prelates concur to the making a Law drawn up with such Clearness and Solemnity of Expression and go presently and contradict it in their Synod Was it their way to make the Bishop vote against the Lord and not only clash with the State but with themselves What! Declare themselves bound by the Laws of God and Man to stand by the Succession to the last drop of their Bloods And at the same time lay down Doctrin which will help us to as many Governments in a Year as there are Moons and as has been smartly observed make Captain Tom the most Soveraign and Divine Thing upon Earth Those who can believe the Convocation guilty of such Singularities as these must have a mean Opinion of them and ought to lay very little weight upon their Authority Having premised these Observations I shall proceed to examin the Sense of the Convocation as to the Point in hand And 1. I agree with the Doctor That Usurped Powers when throughly settled have God's Authority and are to be reverenced and obeyed i. e. These Princes who as the Canon speaks got their Authority unjustly and wrung it by Force from the true and lawful Possessor are to be submitted to as God's Ministers when the legal Claim is either surrendred or extinguished For where there is no other Title Possession is sufficient in
puts me in mind of Epicurus's Deities whom for Fashion sake he supposed to exist but gave them such a slender Constitution that it was impossible for them to hold out against the least rencounter of his Atoms Just so kind is the Doctor to a Prince whose Title stands upon the Fundamentals of the Government For what does this legal Right signifie Are the Subjects bound to restore him No. This would oblige them to Two opposite Allegiances Are they at Liberty to stand neuter Not that neither For Allegiance signifies all that Duty which Subjects owe to their King And if this as the Doctor affirms falls all to the share of him who has the actual Administration of Government I 'm afraid there will be but little left for the other And as if all this was not sufficient to Mortify his legal Prince he Musters the Laws and Lawyers against him And says it s a very wise Constitution which obliges us to pay our Allegiance to a Prince who is not the legal Heir i. e. to an Usurper And the Reasons and Order and Necessity of Government require it The Reason and Necessity of Government is a very serviceable Principle to the Author whether he does not misapply and overstrain it shall be farther examined afterwards At present I shall only desire to be informed of the Doctor Whether it 's any part of the business of Reason to do an unreasonable Thing what necessity there is to destroy Justice and establish a Revolt Indeed if there was a Law that a King should forfeit his Kingdom as soon as the Disobedience of his Subjects should oblige him to retire though the singularity of such an Act would be amazingly Remarkable yet it would not be absolutely unintelligible But this is not the Case For both the Doctor and the Dispute supposes that the King 's Right continues after he is Dispossessed Now this is that which makes it superlatively Wonderful His Right continues in full Force and yet as far as the Laws can provide he is barred from all possible means of Recovery For it seems the Subjects are bound to stand by the Usurper and to distress and fight the King de Iure if he offers to regain that which they own belongs to him He has a Right it 's granted as much as ever say you so Then I hope it 's to govern and if so his Subjects are bound to re-establish him Hold there cries the Doctor They are bound to stand by the Usurper I confess I always thought that if a King had a Right to the Crown the Subjects were obliged to pay him Allegiance Right one would think should relate to something For to have a Right to nothing is to have no Right But the see improvements of Time Here we have a Right without a Property a King without a Subject One who has a legal Right to govern and yet all the Kingdom has a legal Right and a legal Duty to kill him if he goes about it Thus the Doctor makes the Laws fall foul upon each other And gives the People a legal Right to oppose a legal Right in the Crown Which is somewhat a plainer though not a truer Contradiction than his bringing in a Divine and a Legal Right clashing with each other For here the repugnancy lyes in the Constitution so that the Word Providence which uses to be so serviceable can give him no Assistance In short to tell a Man he is a King and yet to assign all his Subjects over to another and to barr him all possible means of Recovery is such a Jest of Iniquity and supposes the Legislators so incomprehensibly Singular and Unreasonable that for the Credit of our Countrey we ought not to interpret the Laws in such a wild Sense If the Doctor had a mind to turn St. Stephen's into Bedlam and make the Nation Mad by Representation he could scarcely have gon a more effectual way to work To conclude this business if the Subjects are obliged to defend an Usurper in Possession as much as if he was their rightful Prince I would gladly know what priviledge the one has above the other I grant the Doctor allows the Dispossessed legal Prince a Right to make War upon the Usurper But then as he has ordered the Matter he can have none of his Subjects to help him but those he brings along with him Besides this Principle gives two contending Parties a Right to the same Thing and makes a War justifyable on both sides which is something more than usual In answer to a Second Objection he observes That an Oath of Allegiance can oblige no longer than the Regal Character continues which is most true But his Inference concerning the Grounds of the Oaths being removed is altogether inconclusive For where the Crown is settled upon Hereditary Right and fortifyed by irresistable Authority There the King must necessarily continue in Being as long as the Man Because the Subjects can have no Power to call him to an Account or displace him The Doctor encounters a Third Objection but with the same Success The Objection is That we swear to defend the King 's Right and the Right of his Heirs c. To which he returns That we dont swear to keep them in the Throne Right For some Mens practises would make one believe we swore to throw them out as soon as we had an Opportunity But the keeping our Prince in the Throne is sometimes impossible for us to do against a prosperous Rebellion Does it therefore follow that we must joyn such a prosperous Rebellion and support it with our Interest Is it the Meaning of the Oath that we should desert our Prince in his Distress and refuse him when he has most occasion for our Service If Subjects should swear with such Declarations as these there are few Princes would thank them for their solemn Security I grant it 's sometimes impossible for us to keep our Prince in Possession against a Rebellion But certainly we ought not to follow a Multitude to do Evil. We ought to stand upon the Reserve and not fortifie the Rebels by our Revolt Soldiers don't swear That they will always get the Victory for that may be out of their Power But if they endeavour to debauch the Fidelity of the Army and make seditious Harrangues to defame the General they very much misbehave themselves Much less is it agreeable to change their sides upon the loss of a Pass or a Battel 'T is true upon the Prospect of an Exchange they may sometimes submit to be made Prisoners of War But if their Surrender will not be accepted without translating their Allegiance they ought rather to carry their Honour and Honesty into the other World than take their Life upon such scandalous Conditions To this Firmness in Loyalty not only Christians but Heathens upon whom Virtue and Bravery had made any considerable Impression always thought themselves obliged What the Doctor adds
this is one of the Crowns Prerogatives The Royal Style is for very good Reasons an incommunicable indivisible Right and cannot be given to another without taking it from the true Owner And if Stealing is Breeding it 's time to have done This puts me in mind of what my Lord Bacon observes concerning the giving wrong Names to Things which he terms Idola Fori which he tells us is one of the principal Causes that Sciences are so often disturbed and the Understandings of Men so much perplexed And doubtless where the Matter relates to Conscience and Morality the dressing up an uncreditable Character in the Habit of Reverence and Dignity is very apt to draw a false Idea upon the Mind and disorder the Practise of the Generality And if the Doctor pleases to look into the Statute Book and Parliament Rolls he will find our own Legislators of the same Mind For there the Three Henrys of Lancaster though they had considerable Advantages above other de Facto Men are called pretensed Kings and their Reigns Usurpations and Henry the Fourth is Styled Earl of Derby The same cautiousness of Expression we shall find in the Case of Richard the Third and Lady Iane Grey who notwithstanding their Possession of the Crown are attainted of High-Treason and mentioned in the Style of Subjects And if we consult the Scripture we shall find the Royal Style never given to Usurpers For though Asa's Mother and Ester are called Queens notwithstanding the first was but Dowager and the other had no more than a Matrimonial Royalty Yet Athaliah with her Six years Mis-rule is never allowed this Title either in holy Writ or by Iosephus I grant Hushai in his Salutation of Absalom was a very mannerly Person and cryed God save the King God save the King And told him moreover That he was a Providential Monarch and chosen by the Lord and all the People of Israel But then we are to observe That Hushai acted the part of a Deserter all this while and spoke the Language of Rebellion But in all other places where the History speaks the Words of the inspired Writer Absalom is never called King though David is mentioned as such when his Fortunes were at the lowest Ebb. If it 's Objected That Absalom was not sufficiently raised for this Title I shall prove afterwards which at present I desire the Reader would take for granted that Absalom had more Advantages than the present Dispute requires That he did not only Administer the regal Power but was likewise Settled upon the Doctor 's Principles and ought to have been entirely obeyed If it 's said That Abimeleck is called King I answer That there was at that time no lawful Prince Dispossessed and Claiming against him And therefore though he unjustly seized the Government yet since there was no rightful Competitor Possession gave him a Title both to the Name and Thing But to support an Usurper in his Majesty the Doctor says He is King indeed while he administers the Regal Power How can that be when it 's supposed in the Dispute That he has neither Legal nor Divine Authority Fourthly We must Pray for an Unsettled Prince that is an Usurper in his own Sense under the Name and Title of King Why so Because the Doctor has lead the the way I wish that is not the main Reason However he gives Two others 1. Because we are bound to pray for all in Authority which is more than an Usurper especially in this Condition can pretend to For to give him legal Right is a contradiction in Terms And as for Divine Authority the Doctor can allow him none of that till he is thoroughly Settled His 2. Reason why we should pray for him as King is because he has Power to do a great deal of Good or a great deal of Harm Now upon this Score we might pray for many more Kings than Iulius Cesar found in Kent There is a certain Person that shall be nameless for whom I hope the Doctor does not pray under the Title of King who has it in his Power to do a great deal of Good and in his Will a great deal of Harm as the Indians are very sensible and order their Devotions accordingly As for his Direction That we must take care to do it in such Terms as not to pray against the Dispossessed Prince it is contradictious and impracticable For First This dividing our Prayers between Two contesting Princes is to split our Duty into halfs and obliges us to Two opposite Allegiances which he condemns For certainly Prayers for the King are one part of the Subjects Duty especially of those of the Doctors Function Secondly His Advice is impracticable For the Proclaming him King to the People is a great injury to the Dispossessed Prince And as the Doctor well observes His very Possession of the Throne and every Act of Authority he does is against the Interest of the King de Iure And therefore such a Prayer cannot be Justified unless we pray to be rid of him Thus I have considered his main Principles The remainder of his Book being most of it consequences from these intermixed with Repetitions and naked Affirmations will go off with less trouble He observes That the taking away the Distinction between Rightful and Usurped Powers gives the most intelligible account of the Original of Government This he attempts by Induction and endeavours to prove that Government take it which way you will is not to be Explained upon a Foundation of legal Right He begins with Paternal or Patriarchal Authority And says That no Man had Authority either to give it away or usurp it I easily agree with the Doctor That no Man had Authority to usurp Paternal Power or any other But why it might not be fairly parted with is not altogether so plain The Doctor knows Emancipation was frequently practised among the Romans and allowed by their Laws This was no other than a Resignation of Fatherly Authority into the hands of the Child Indeed to chain a Man thus inseparably to his Right is in effect to take away the Advantage of it For it bars him the Liberty of disposing of his own and makes him a Slave to that of which he should be Master But suppose a Father can't give away his Authority I hope the Doctor will permit him to leave it behind him when he dyes Now this is sufficient for the Patriarchal Scheme For by this Hypothesis Adam and the other Patriarchs who had Sovereign Dominion from God left their Jurisdiction to go by Descent to their Heirs who were Lords not only of their immediate Brethren but of all the remoter Branches of the younger Families So that here is no need of the Resignation of Paternal Power For the successive Conveyance of Original Authority to the Heirs or reputed Heirs of the first Head is as much as this Hypothesis requires This is the
with the former And though I don't pretend to know what the Doctor is hatching in his Heart yet I 'm afraid he has slipped into this damnable and damned Opinion of the Spencers for he has ventured to affirm with great assurance That the Diminution of the Crown and the Personal Right of the King are very different Things Now if they are so very different it is because they are separable from each other And if the Crown may be diminished without injuring the Personal Rights of the King then the Rights of the Crown are not tyed to the King's Person That is in the Spencer's Language Allegiance the great Prerogative of the Crown follows the King 's Politick Capacity not his Personal and is due not to any Hereditary Advantage of Blood but may be challenged by Possession and Power especially if the Administration be cast into a Monarchical Figure From these Observations 't is evident That to maintain and defend the King's Person Crown and Dignity implyes an endeavour to restore him For not to repeat what has been said already the Crown is in construction of Law the Ius regnandi So that to swear to maintain his Crown imports an Obligation to defend his Right which is inseparably annexed to his Person and runs parallel with his Life unless he resigns From whence I conclude against the Doctor and Republican Saunders That in the Sense of the Oath to restore is necessarily included in Maintaining But possibly we are not aware what a monstrous Contents the Oaths of Allegiance will be big with if restoring is included in maintaining For then besides several other terrible things which I shall consider afterwards We swear it seems to disturb all Governments and raise Rebellions if we can to restore our King which are such absurd and unreasonable Engagements That had they been expressed in the Oath no Man in his wits would have taken it I think so too as the Doctor has represented the Matter But then before he drew such tragical Inferences it had not been amiss for him to have proved that there is any Government to disturb under a Usurpation For by way of Quere I would gladly know how there can be a Government without any Authority to administer Acts of Government And how a Man can have any Authority who has no Right to ground it upon or to give him a publick Character If Allegiance as we have seen is inseparably tyed to the Person of the King one would think there was no danger of a Crime in the performance of it Unless we should stretch it beyond the duration of his Person and appear from him after he was dead If the asserting the Laws and supporting the Constitution and engaging in the Cause of Justice Is a raising of Rebellion the Names of things are very much altered of late and if the things are not so too some Persons I fear are in no good Condition But to insist upon this no farther I believe the Doctor forgot that this extravagant Oath of Allegiance cannot be refused by any Person except Women Covert of the Age of Eighteen Years without incurring a premunire Now by the Iudgement of a premunire a Man is thrown out of the King's Protection And his Lands and Tenements Goods and Chattels are forfeited to the King And his Body is to remain in Prison at the King's Pleasure Now a Man though he had no higher aim than Self-preservation might better venture the inconvenience of following his King into Banishment and run the risque of the rest then have this Act executed upon him For these are present and severe Punishments whereas the other are but contingent and remote Misfortunes at the worst So that no Man in his wits who considers the danger of declining this Oath would scruple the taking it though it was drawn up with all that Strictness of Loyalty which startles the Doctor And though he has dressed up this Oath in frightful Colours and given it an unkind parting Blow which looks like a sign that there was more of Convenience than Inclination in their former Correspondence yet if we take off the disguise and wipe off the marks of the Doctor 's hard usage we shall find it of a Complexion agreeable enough that it obliges us to no more than what was our Duty before and implied in our natural Allegiance and that the Contents of it are both reasonable and necessary to the Support of Government The Dr. proceeds to remove another Difficulty contained in the Oath of Allegiance viz. we swear to the King's Heirs and lawful Successors who are not in actual Possession and therefore that must signifie to give them Possession Right If the King dies Possessed of the Crown we must swear to maintain the Succession otherwise it seems not But 1. I can't conceive what Security this construction of the Oath can give to an Hereditary Monarchy Yes very much says the Doctor For if the King dies Possessed we swear to maintain the Succession and to own none but the true Heir But how long is this Maintenance and Owning to last Truly no longer then his Sword can challenge it If he gets Possession we are for him and so we are for any body else For if Iack Straw steps before him and proves lucky in his Events the true Heir must be contented to live upon the Metaphysical Dyet of legal Right without any Subjects to support him And thus the Oath of Succession when prudently interpreted resolves it self into this kind Interpretation That we solemnly swear to be unalterably true to our own Ease and Convenience and to adhere Religiously to the nimblest and strongest Party And for fear this should not satisfie the lawful Successor we swear moreover if you please not to make it our Act to set up any Prince who is not the right Heir True For there may be danger in doing otherwise especially when the King dyes possessed For then the Posse of the Kingdom is usually conveyed immediately to the right Heir and his Interest is much the strongest We ought therefore to be faithful to him when it 's unsafe for us to desert and assist him as long as he is able to live without us 'T is granted we are not to be too busy at first in setting aside the Succession for fear of burning our Fingers But if any ambitious Person is strong enough to make a Break in the Line we may lawfully comply with the Intrusion So that it seems we must not form an unjust Interest nor set out with it at first for possibly it may sail us But when it has gathered Strength by the Conjunction of more Wickedness and improved into a thriving Condition we may fix and support it fairly enough I perceive some people out of a tenderness to Society won't give us leave to break our Fast with Rebels for fear we should ruffle our Concerns and miscarry before Noon but when the day is once
Treason was committable against him for Treason is nothing but a high Breach of Allegiance But this Proclamation is so plain that there needs no farther Comment upon it And thus I have made it appear from the Resolution of all the Judges in two distinct and celebrated Cases by Proclamation and Acts of Parliament that Treason lyes against the King though out of Possession Which performance the Doctor is pleased to call Proving the Point and looked upon it as an impossible Undertaking The Doctor 's next Observation begins very obligingly for the Crown And seems to insinuate that the Subjects need not disturb themselves with Fears and Jealousies For in case a Prince should be enclined to stretch his Prerogative He can't hurt them unless they will betray their own Liberties and venture to be Hanged for it And who would venture an Execution only for Robbing himself There is no fear the Majority of the English Nation especially should ever be guilty of such an Extravagance So that now one would think all was safe enough But it happens quite otherwise For the Doctor flyes out unexpectedly against Arbitrary Power makes indecent Reflections and gives all Princes a Second Admonition to take warning And after this sit of Schooling is over he argues thus That if the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige Subjects to defend a Prince in the Exercise of an Arbitrary Power He thinks it much less obliges them to restore such a Prince To this granting the Doctors supposition for Disputes sake I answer That notwithstanding the Subjects are not to act for the promoting of Arbitrary Power yet they are bound to support an Arbitrary Prince supposing they have one This the Doctor must grant unless he will maintain That a Sovereign and unaccountable Power may be Forfeited by Maladministration which I think is a Contradiction For all Forfeitures imply a Legal and Superiour Court to take Cognizance of the Cause and pronounce Sentence which cannot be supposed in this Case without making a Superiour to a Supreme And if Sovereign Power is Unforfeitable than the Right of him who is vested with it must always remain And if so the Subjects are bound to support him in the Exercise of it though it may be sometimes over-strained into Rigour Let us try the Doctor 's Argument once more The Subjects are not obliged to defend a Prince in the Exercise of Arbitrary Power They are not bound to maintain the Excesses of a Prince's Prerogatives therefore they may deny him his just Rights They are not bound to give him more than his Due therefore they may give him less or take all away from him 'T is a fault to break the Laws in Favour of the Crown therefore we may break them for Rebellion Where lyes the Equity and Logick of these Propositions A less Master of Thinking than the Doctor would have found out the Distinction between Arbitrary and Regal Power and concluded that our Obligations not to promote the one did not discharge us from supporting the other His Inference That the making and receiving Addresses of Lives and Fortunes is supposed to signifie some other Defence than the Oath of Allegiance obliged the People to is not Mathematically drawn For may not Men make a Recognition of their Duty and give fresh Assurances to perform that which they were obliged to before What is more common in Religion and Civil Conversation than to renew former Engagements by repeated Promises and Solemnities of Action These Addresses of Loyalty refresh the Obligation of the Subject and the good Opinion of the Prince And therefore it 's no wonder they are kindly received though they present him with nothing but his own I don't mean that the People have no Property in their Lives and Fortunes but only that they are bound to expose and resign them to the Publick i. e. their Prince's Interest when Occasion requires The Doctor remarks farther That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath and therefore the Defence or Maintenance we swear is National that is to joyn with our fellow Subjects in defending the King's Person and Crown But in case the body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths and depose their King and drive him out of his Kingdom and set up another Prince in his room it 's worth considering whether some private Men are still bound by their Oath And immediately concludes certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath for it is a national not a private Defence we Swear I confess the Doctor has stated the Matter of Fact notably enough about Absolving Deposing Driving out Setting up c. But the Consequence he infers from thence I cannot understand for these following Reasons First because there is nothing in the Form of the Oath to countenance this Interpretation but the contrary For by the Oath of Allegiance every Person Swears to bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and his Heirs c. and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power Whence I observe 1. That the Swearing in the Singular Number and without Conditions of Assistance is an Argument that every individual Person is bound to unalterable Fidelity to the Crown without any Relation to or Dependance upon the Behaviour of his fellow Subjects 2. He that runs in to a Majority of Revolters does not defend the King to the uttermost of his Power For the King has neither his Counsel the Reserve of his Person nor the Example of his Constancy some or all of which might have been serviceable in their way and were in his Power to give him Nay he is so far from defending the King to the utmost of his Power that he consigns himself and all his Power into the hands of the Usurper to be employed against his lawful Sovereign which is as direct a Contradiction to the Words and Intention of the Oath as can possibly be imagined Farther the Oath declares I do believe and am in Conscience resolved That neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof But the Doctor is of another mind and concludes That when the great Body of the Nation has absolved themselves their Neighbours are absolved too I suppose the Doctor will not quibble upon the Word Person and argue that though the Pope nor any other Person has any Power to absolve us yet the People may because they imply another Number and include a Plurality of Persons If he objects in this manner the latter end of the Sentence is sufficient to disappoint him For there we renounce all Dispensations to the contrary Which Clause is levelled against Popular as well as Papal Plenitude of Power and comprehends the VVestminster-Infallibility as much as that of Rome Lastly all these things are sworn according to the express Words spoken and according to the plain and common Sense and Understanding of the same Words and without any Equivocation or
Mental Evasion or Secret Reservation whatsoever But to swear with this private supplemental Sense That we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King provided the Majority of his Subjects will do so too if this is not a plain wresting of the common Sense and Understanding of the Words if this is not a Mental Reservation to purpose I despair of seeing any such in the Iesuits Morals Secondly This Construction of the Oath makes Government very uncertain and precarious The Dr. frequently flourishes with the Body of the Nation I hope he does not think the Nation is all Body By this great Body I suppose he must mean the Majority of the Kingdom Now if a Government lyes at the Discretion of the Multitude it must needs be admirably provided for If a King must go to the Poll for his Sovereignty and and we are obliged to tell Noses to know whether our Allegiance continues or not we are likely to enjoy the Blessings of Peace and Order at a great rate The generality of Mankind formerly don 't use to be over burthened either with Prudence or Conscience and I don't perceive that this Age has much mended the matter Which makes me wonder why the Dr. should give them such an unbounded Privilege to pull down and set up Kings to dispence with Oaths and other Commandments to repeal Laws to transferr Titles and turn the World topsy turvy at their pleasure But which way does the Great Body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths By Law No. They are not the Legislative Power The Parliament it self cannot pretend to this Privilege without the King This Great Body are Subjects like other People when they are separate and dispersed Whence then comes the sudden Alteration Can they rendezvouz themselves into Independency Can a Crowd give a man a Dispensation purely by the Magick of their numbers and the Disorder of their Meeting This makes the Composition work incredibly beyond the vertue of the simple Ingredients Who would live alone if Company can do all these Wonders Well! Possibly the Dr. means This Great Body can't absolve themselves from their Oath lawfully but when they have once done it their Act must stand Can they not do it Lawfully Then certainly not at all For in these cases id tantum possumus quod jure possumus Who ever heard that unlawful Absolving or a Dispensation against Authority and Right signified any thing However this is the Dr's meaning which makes him still more incomprehensible For 3 dly This Construction confirms the highest Breaches of Law and gives Force and Authority to the most irregular Proceedings It does not warrant the Deposing Act it 's true but when it 's over it gives it a Blessing and pronounces it valid The Pope sometimes pretends to depose Princes by a Privilege of Right But this Doctrine scorns to be beholden to a Colour of Justice but does the same thing by a Privilege of Wrong It sets Violence in the place of Law and gives Treason and Authority the same effect And how the difference between Good and Evil can consist with such a Latitude is somewhat difficult to understand But what can the minor part of the Subjects perhaps but a little handful do towards the restoring their King Why they can shew an exemplary Firmness and Resolution which may probably encrease their numbers and awaken the better-meaning part of the People into right Apprehensions of their Duty They can wait God Almighty's leisure retain their Integrity and save their Souls And is all this nothing The Dr. has a farther Reserve and that is An Oath to fight for the King does not oblige us to fight against our Country which is as unnatural as to fight against our King As unnatural then it 's unnatural to fight against our King which is worth the observing To go on and 1. As the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige us to fight against our Country so neither does it to sight against our King If it did it has been well kept Besides I would gladly see a reason why we ought to preferr the Country to the King Did we swear Allegiance to the Country or has it any Authority over us independent of the King If not why should we esteem Multitudes above Justice and side with the Subject against the Soveraign 2 dly We are to remember That the Dr. disputes upon a Supposition of Usurpation and therefore the Assistance of our Country does not belong to his Plea For those who appear for the Rightful Prince for the Laws and Establish'd Government of the Country they and no other are properly speaking the Friends of the Country If the Dr. takes the Country on any other notion he must make it a Wilderness of Disorder or a Den of Thieves And to carry on the Dr's Supposition To fight against Revolters is not to fight against our Country They have no Country to lose but have forfeited the Privileges of their Birth and Industry by their defection And though they may find Favour if they seek in time yet they can challenge none The Dr. was apprehensive that this Post was scarcely tenable and therefore after a little skirmishing retires to the main Fort his pretended Disposal of Providence And after all he grants That Subjects must have Regard to Legal Right And if they pull down a Rightful King and set up a King without Right they greatly sin in it Most certainly And therefore one would think when they have set up a pretended King without Right they ought to pull them down again and not persevere in the Breach of their Duty What the Dr. adds by way of Parenthesis That Subjects ought not to remove or set up Kings without Legal-Right unless the Constitution of the Government should in some cases allow it is somewhat unintelligible 'T is true some people would make us believe though without Reason That the Constitution does acknowledge an Illegal Prince after he is once set up and established But that it should allow the setting him up in any case I suppose was never heard of till now If the Constitution allows of its own Violation and the Laws grow lawless and give Men Authority to break them it 's time to look out for some other Government I can guess what the Dr. would have called such disputing as this is if he had catched an Author at such a disadvantage The Dr. proceeds to another Objection viz. This Doctrine of his makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right This is a severe Charge How does he purge himself Surprizingly enough He tells you It may be called a Difficulty in Providence if you please but it 's no Difficulty to the Subject unless a passionate Affection for the dispossessed Prince makes it a Difficulty Otherwise it will rub off easily enough For 't is but yielding to Necessity and leaving every thing else to Providence and there is an end of
of the People and gives a Rebellion when it 's grown General a Privilege to cancel the Regal Authority and to absolve the People from their Allegiance Now for Subjects to sit Judges upon their Prince and Inferiours upon their Undisputed Supream is the greatest Affront both to Decency and Duty imaginable The Dr's Remark That the final Determination of Providence in settling Princes i. e. Usurpers draws the Allegiance of the Subject after it is worth considering For what sort of Determinations are these They are against Law and Human Right When do they commence and what Signs have we to distinguish them by Why when Wickedness is in its Exaltation and Rebellion is grown Invincible then it is that Providence determines the point for Usurpation and gives it a Divine Authority then God it seems discharges the People from their former Engagements and gives them leave either to Chuse or Submit to a new Power The Dr. thought to clench the business by the word Final but as ill Luck would have it it has spoiled all For the Dr. in his Case of Allegiance has observed That the Usurpers being placed in the Throne at present and the Lawful Prince removed does not prove that it is God's Will it should alwaies be so And upon this Argument he founds the Ejected Prince his Legal Right Now if this Determination is of an uncertain continuance it cannot be termed Final for Providence may reverse it in a short time for ought we know to the contrary Farther Either this Determination is final or not if it is then God cannot restore the Rightful Prince nor dispossess the Intruder And is not this to confine Him to Events i. e. to Human Actions and to hinder him from the free disposal of Kingdoms If this Determination is not final then it signifies nothing for by Implication from the Dr's Argument it draws no Allegiance after it Besides the Reader may please to take notice that I have proved above That Events are no Declarations of the Will of God nor any good Grounds for Practice especially when they are neither agreeable to the Rules of Justice nor warranted by express Revelation The Dr's next Argument for a Disparity between Usurpers and Robbers runs thus Kings must be throughly settled in their Government before it becomes unlawful for Subjects to dispossess them Therefore to make the Case parallel he who seizes another Man's Estate must be throughly settled in it before it becomes Vnlawful to dispossess him But that no private man can be who is under the Government of Laws and has not the Possession of his Estate given him by Law Under favour I conceive the Case is exactly parallel For instance If a Man picks my Pocket and runs away with the Money it must by the Dr's Principles be his own for the Event is clearly on his side He has Possession as well as an Usurper and the same Countenance of Law for keeping it He has moreover the Consent of the Great Body of Pick-pockets who all submit to his Success and acknowledg the Justice of his Title and Who can now deny his being throughly settled in the Money If the Dr. replies he may be punished and obliged to refund provided he can be seized I answer So doubtless may an Usurper be served if the Lawful Prince can catch him But then it follows that so long as he remains undiscover'd he is I can't say a Legal but a Providential Proprietor and therefore not bound to Restitution However to give the Dr. entire satisfaction I shall not insist upon his Concealment but bring him into open view which may be done without disturbing his Settlement for it often happent that Thieves with a Guard of their own Perswasion retire into Boggs and Mountains where though the true Owners know their Retreat there is no coming at them Now as long as they remain in these impregnable Circumstances together with the Advantages I just now mentioned I can't see the least Colour of Reason from the Dr's Principles why they should not have a Divine Right to all their Booty Lastly The Dr. to prove these two Cases unparallel apprehends a great difference between a Legal Right to the Crown and the Legal Rights of Subjects to their Estates In settling Estates there is nothing more required but a meer Human Right But to make a Legal King besides an Human Right to the Crown he must have God's Authority for a meer Human Right cannot make a King This the Dr. urges to obviate an Objection That it is as wicked and unjust for Subjects whatever their Circumstances are to own any other Prince but the Lâ—gal Heir as it would be for Tenants to pay their Rent to any but their true Legal Lord. But his Answer is by no means satisfactory For 1. I have proved That an Usurper has neither Human nor Divine Right and therefore I desire the Dr. would not bring him in for his Share of Privilege among Legal Landlords and Legal Kings till those Arguments are answered for certainly he that has no Right or Authority ought not to have the same Treatment and Duties paid those with those that have 2 ly If a private Landlord who it seems has no more than a meer Human Right to his Estate does not forfeit his Title by being unjustly disseized Why should a Prince be in a worse condition who Claims under greater Advantages and has the Laws of man and the Authority of God to secure him If a single Legal Right is able to hold out against Force and Intrusion one would think it should improve by being doubled and not grow weaker by having Divine Authority superadded to it Now the Dr. grants That every Legal Prince is fortified with Divine Authority and therefore if Violence cannot extinguish a private Right it must be if possible less prepared to do any execution upon a Crown 3 ly To take away the difference the Dr. apprehended between private and publick Property I answer That if he means by meer Human Right an Authority from Men only as Men without any higher original then there is more required for the settling an Estate than a meer Human Right For Men abstracting from the Commission they receive from God and the Subordination He has placed in the World are all equal and have no Authority to make Laws and and bind Property they have no superiority of Nature over each other they have no Prerogative from Creation from Preservation from Omniscience and Omnipotence they have neither Heaven nor Hell at their Command and therefore have no reason to claim a Jurisdiction over their Fellow-Creatures in their own Right If their Laws had not their Sanction from a Superiour Authority it would be no Sin to break them for every one might take his Measures as Humour or Interest should direct them Therefore to keep the World in order God has confirmed Human Laws with his own Authority and threatned to punish the Violations of
it They ordered Aristides to attend him Themistocles tells him That the Lacedemonian Fleet which was laid up at Gytheum might be burnt provided the matter was managed with Secrecy which Loss must of necessity ruine the Lacedemonians Upon the hearing of this Aristides comes into the Assembly and makes his Report in general terms That Themistocles's Proposal was indeed useful but by no means fair and equitable The Athenians understanding this and not believing that any thing which was dishonest could be really serviceable damned the whole Project upon Aristides's Authority without so much as hearing it In this Discourse he likewise observes That the Stoicks had such an Esteem for Justice and Generosity that they positively pronounced That nothing which was mean and dishonest could be really profitable The Peripateticks another famous and numerous Sect of Philosophers though they held That Honesty and Interest might sometimes be separated yet they owned at the same time That the first was always to be preferr'd to the latter I wish these Heathens don't rise up another day and condemn some Generations of Christians who with all their Advantages of Revelation fall so unfortunately short of Natural Religion and Pagan Virtue who startle at the meer Idea of Justice and can't bear the Confinements of Honesty so much as in the Theory whose Principles and Practices tend to no other point but to debauch and debase Mens Spirits to make them mean and mercenary and indifferent to Right or Wrong In short Government had better be dissolved than upheld by unlawful means God never intended Society should be made a Sanctuary for Vice and serve only to promote the Ends of Injustice People had better live singly and dispersed than incorporate for Mischief and be tyed together with the Bands of Iniquity If Men can't be honest in Company let them break up and retire into Solitude There is a necessity for a Man to keep his Faith unbroken and his Honour untarnished but it 's not necessary to live either in Towns or Villages or indeed any where else when Life must be bought at the expence of Virtue and Conscience If Ease and the regaling our Senses are to be preferr'd to Truth and Justice it 's time to resign up the Privileges of Human Nature instead of pretending to these things we ought rather to go down upon all four and resemble the Shape and Posture as well as the Qualities of Irrational Creatures Is it not much more eligible to be dissolved into Mob than to range our selves in order for the support of Injustice and to play Tricks in Mood and Figure Let us rather chuse to wander in Desarts and Mountains in Dens and Caves of the Earth than combine like the Men of Sodom for Lewdness and Violence for the Pretence of a Community is no good Plea for Immoral Actions nor any Shelter against Fire and Brimstone Fiat justitia ruat mundus Better no World than no Honesty But 2. There is no Reason to apprehend the Strictness of the Old Principle should dissolve a Nation into Mob for the Usurper's Interest will be sure to keep up the Face of a Government there seldom wants Complyers in such cases to supply the Courts of Justice and to take care of publick Administrations A Lawful Prince is never dispossessed without a powerful Faction who will be sufficiently vigilant to nurse up their New Settlement and to throw their Irregularities into the usual form And therefore as we have no warrant so neither have we any necessity to own a Pretended Authority or to engage in the Business of Government for there is no fear but that there will be Ambition Covetousness Cowardice and other ill Principles enough to fill up the vacant places and to manage the Concerns of this nature But 3. Supposing this Event the Dr. is so careful to provide against should happen by disowning the Usurpation it would produce very good Effects For 1. Such a general Disorder would disappoint the Revolters of the Advantage they designed Now if their Expectations were always baulked this would be a mighty Check to Faction and Ambition and we should seldom see any Wickedness of this nature attempted If Men had no Prospect of building up another Government in the room of that which they pull down nor any hopes of thriving by their Rebellion the World would not be plagued with Incendiaries and Traytors so often as it is If Confusion and a kind of Civil Chaos was the necessary Consequence of a Defection and there was no likelihood an Usurpation should ever settle into any Order and Consistency there would seldom be Madmen enough in a Nation to overturn the Constitution for the worst of People don't love Danger for Danger 's sake 'T is true they have no regard to Conscience but they have a tender sense of every thing which is offensive to their Ease and prejudicial to their Temporal Concerns and will no more do an ill Action than a good one when it looks so frightfully upon them and is apparently against their Interest 2 dly When an Usurpation is actually on foot the best Expedient to re-establish the dispossessed Prince is to let the State fall into Disorder for if the Illegal Powers were generally disowned if their Commissions were refused their pretended Courts neglected and the places of Government unsupplied if all things were thus disjointed and out of frame it would introduce an Happy Change and Justice would soon recover her Jurisdiction The making a Lawful Government essential to the Peace and Being of Society will mightily refresh the Allegiance of the People recommend the Doctrines of Loyalty and encline the Subjects to return immediately to their Duty If for no other reason yet because they see they cannot live tolerably without it And when the Majority of a Nation agree in a Desire they are seldom long before they are Masters of their Wishes In short whatever Maxims render an Illegal Possessor unacceptable whatever shocks the general Security and throws the State into Convulsions must by consequence promote the Recovery of the Lawful Prince whereas a Principle of Latitude which contrives an Usurpation regular and easie is the way to fix it and to make the Subject acquiesce and grow indifferent whether the Title is good or bad for many People are too much governed by Secular Regards and don 't love their Concerns should be ruffled and their Pleasures interrupted for the best Cause whatever 3 dly A general Disorder would effectually discover the Wickedness and Danger of an Usurpation and create a proportionable Aversion Such Confusions would make men abhor the Thoughts of Disloyalty and start from it as from an Apparition They would go with the same Forwardness and Concern to suppress a Rebellion as they would to put out a Fire or stop a Sea-Breach A Rebel then would be looked on as a Monster of Mankind and hooted from Conversation and Day Now such Apprehensions as these must contribute very much
to the Establishment of Justice and the Peace of Society And though the Disowning an Illegal Power might possibly for a little time dissolve a State into its first Principles yet like Ore it would improve by melting and be refined into a more shining and solid Body This would prevent the frequent Returns of Usurpations and make them much more impracticable and uncommon Now the design of Government is to provide for the general Advantage of Mankind and that State is best contrived which is liable to fewest Miscarriages and therefore it 's a Maxim with us That the Law will rather suffer a Mischief than an Inconvenience i. e. It 's much better for a Kingdom to have particular Persons or Times exposed to Hazard and Misfortune than to be made up of Principles of Ruin and have Mala stamina in its Constitution And though the Justice and Regularity of the Mobile are no desirable things yet a Civil War raised by Rebellion is a more terrible and lasting Evil and occasions more Bloodshed and Desolation Farther It 's not amiss to ask upon whose account the Appearance of Government is to be secured under an Usurpation Would the Dr. have all this Care taken for the sake of Revolters Must the Laws be broken and Justice be banished that people may live at ease in their Sins and enjoy the Advantages of Rebellion Must they not be disturbed left they should repent and be saved and for fear Honest Men should have their own again If this be the Dr's aim he seems Indulgent to an Excess for Government was never intended to be a Protection for Wickedness And as Revolters don't deserve that Affairs should be put into this easie posture so those who are truly Loyal don 't desire it They know it 's their Duty and the main design of their Allegiance to stand by their Prince when he is under a Disadvantage They are willing to be governed by those Maxims by which the Crown may be most effectually served which promote the most comprehensive and lasting Interest of Government and tend to the Support of Justice They know it 's decent and reasonable the Subjects should suffer under a Rebellion as well as the Prince Besides since as I have proved Allegiance is due to the King out of Possession and the Subjects are bound to assist him in the Field upon demand it follows by parity of Reason that they are bound to run the same Hazards any other way rather than renounce their Soveraign for the same Allegiance which obliges them to venture their Lives in the Field does likewise oblige them to stand the shock of the Mob or of a more settled Usurpation The Pretences of Hazard and Disadvantage are uncreditable and unjustifiable Motives to desert the Crown and ought to be over-ruled by Decency and Duty It would be counted an odd Remonstrance if an Army upon their being ordered to fight the Enemy should tell their General That his Orders and Interest was to give place to the Security of his Troops That the design of their being listed was only to be disciplin'd and receive their Pay but as for Fighting there was a great deal of danger in that They knew well enough that a Battel could not be managed without some-bodies coming short home And since Death would certainly light somewhere it was every Person 's Concern to avoid it For their parts they were an innocent and conscientious Army and therefore it 's very unreasonable to press them to lose their Lives and their Baggage upon the account of any Cause or Engagements whatsoever for it can be no good Principle to expose such Honest Men as they are to the greatest Sufferings Now this is but an untoward Excuse but would be a very good one if the Consideration of danger or the Vertue of the Subject was sufficient to null the Obligation of Oaths and Allegiance These Observations I have set up as Counter-Principles to the Dr's and must leave it to the Reader to judge Whether those Principles which discourage Rebellion and press hardest upon Usurpation which assure the Fidelity of the Subject upon all Emergencies and create a good Understanding between Prince and People do not Answer all the Ends of Government better than those other Doctrines which assert the Divine Authority of Power that different Degrees of Submission are to be paid proportionably to the Growth and Success of an Usurpation That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath and that the Minor Part may be absolved by the Majority And that the Preservation of Societies though they are no better than that of Romulus is the great Law of all Now one would think it required no great depth of Understanding to determine the Case a Moderate Proportion of Unbyassed Reason will inform us That those Principles which have the fore-mentioned Advantages which promote the Improvement of Humane Nature which oblige us to Good Faith and Gratitude and give Life to Generosity and Honour are much to be prefer'd to others in point of Security which have a quite contrary Effect The Dr. observes That Self-preservation is as much a Law to the Subjects as to the Prince he means the Subjects have the same Privilege by it and He is as much Sworn to Govern his Subjects as they are to Obey him And if the Necessities of Self-preservation absolve Him from his Oath of Governing his People the Dr. desires to know why the same Necessity will not absolve Subjects from their Oaths to their Prince Now I think this Question is easily Answer'd For Self-preservation is allowable where the Means are Lawful and not otherwise Now there is no Law which bars a Prince from Visiting a Foreign Country or from Travelling from one part of his Dominions to another The Coronation-Oath does not bind Him to Impossibilities nor oblige him to Govern those who bid him Defiance and will not be Govern'd It 's none of the Duties of a King to sight whole Armies singly or to stay amongst his Rebellious Subjects to be Outraged in his Person and Honour But on the other hand it 's not impossible for Subjects to stand off from an Usurpation and to reserve themselves for their dispossessed Prince and that their Natural and Sworn Allegiance obliges them so to do has been proved already It 's in vain therefore to insist upon the Plea of Danger when we are under these Solemn Pre-engagements If self-preservation will absolve us from our Oaths and justifie our Breach of Faith we may excuse any other Apostacy upon the same Score But Government and Allegiance it seems are such Relatives That the one cannot subsist without the other if the Prince cannot Govern the Subjects can't Obey and therefore as far as he quits his Government he quits their Allegiance The Dr. talks of quitting the Government as if there had been a Resignation in the Case and the Subject had been discharged under Hand and Seal Now certainly