Revolutions Now he designs his Right of Providence to give Authority to the Revolution that is to authorize ones being pulled down and the others being set up or to make God transfer the Authority from one to the other thereby And the Principle it self and like Scripture Sayings about Providence in that Case too will give as good Right to those that act in them as to what is got by them as I have formerly shewn So by this Principle the Usurpers in Revolutions get Right to attempt and invade a Prince's Rightful Crown and when they have got it from him to make it their own and to bind all the Subjects as fully and fast to them as they were bound to the former King And what more Service would a Man desire from Principles whose part is not to act and accomplish things but only to justifie and confirm Actions and the Actors in them But quite contrary the other Principle of Legal Right gives all the Check to Revolutions that Principles can do leaving no Man Right to invade a Rightful Prince's Throne nor to hold it when he has unrighteously got it but to restore it to the true Owner again Nor Liberty to the Subjects to turn over to the Usurpers against their Rightful Prince which were both to resist Authority and to oppose Right and support Wrong And this is to bar and prevent Revolutions as far as Principles can do it that is among all that will be guided by Principles and do only righteous things But if it would prevent all Revolutions of Government that says he p. 44. is a Demonstration against it that it is a bad Principle and comes not from God Indeed this seems an odd Fetch That doing Right cannot come from God if it would prevent Unrighteousness which therefore comes from him because it would do so But his Reason is because then God could not exercise a Prerogative he has reserved to himself of removing or setting up a King whom he cannot set up unless he can oblige the Subjects to obey him He should have inferr'd therefore when God will exercise that Prerogative he will remove one King's Right that the Subjects may owe him no Obedience and give it to another that they may pay him Obedience and that because God will have them follow Right and carry themselves righteously towards both And though human Laws are the ordinary way yet God has other ways of making or unmaking Kings that is Rightful Kings when he pleases For he may put an end to the dispossessed King's Right by taking him out of the World or by bringing him whilâ—t he lives to resign and part with it by his own Consent or give it away from him to the other by immediate Revelation if he sees fit as I shewed before And these are his ways of exercising this Prerogative of Removing or setting up Kings when that is to remove and transfer the Allegiance of Subjects But if he only by Course of Providence changes Possession but neither by human nor divine Title transfers the Right to a Crown it is a Punishment or Tryal both on dispossessed Prince and People and is not the Removal of a King which sets them loose from him And this adhering to such dispossessed Princes till they are some way disauthorized and deprived of Right as well as Possession is not for Mankind to be Slaves of Princes as he says p. 45. but only to be Slaves of Right if Slavery must be the Term for it as Princes themselves must be too if they will be Righteous He also p. 43. 44. charges the Inconvenience and Defects in Government all the time such dispossessed Rightful King is shut out upon this Principle of unalterable Allegiance to Legal Right Those Inconveniences and Defects indeed are apparently to be imputed to his being kept out But unalterable Allegiance to his Legal Right surely doth not keep him out And in such Case if a Man will speak Justice and direct the Charge where the Blame is he must not say they cause all the Inconveniences or Overthrow of Government for want of him that are careful conscienciously to do him Right but they who unconscionably keep him out of his Right Before I dismiss this Consideration of his Reasons I shall take Notice of the Distinction he makes p. 28 29. between Maintaining and Defending and Restoring in the matter of Allegiance and the Oath for it But unless he can set this aside by the Conventions Principle and that of the Publick Acts viz. the translation of the Legal Right this nicety I believe will not solve or take it off He p. 27 28. distinguishes between Natural and Legal Allegiance And they are distinct as to the Bond and Ground of Obligation one being from the Law of Nature and the other from our own Laws But the main of that Dâ—stinction lies not in their calling for distinct Offices particularly not in Legal Allegiance binding Subjects to defend their King's Authority and Natural Allegiance binding to no Defence thereof For all Subjects were bound to defend their Kings before they had any written Laws for Allegiance By the Law of Nature when Authority is set up it is to be Defended And it can have no other Defence but the Subjects Allegiance It s inseperable Effects is to oblige and if it oblige to any Service it must oblige more especially to such as is necessary for its own Preservation and Defence The Union of Subjects to a Prince is that of Members to the Head which are certainly bound to defend it as I at first noted And therefore when the Law comes to bind this Defence faster by the Legal Oath it doth not pretend to bring in a new Duty but by the addition of an Oath to make that more secure which Nature had bound on all before The Effect and Substance of Ligeance is by the Law of Nature as is declared in Calvin's Case but the Form and Addition of the Oath est ex provisione hominis And the Statute it self which imposes the Legal Oath declares it To tend only to the Declaration of such Duty as every true and well affected Subject not only by Bond of Allegiance but also by the Commandment of Almighty God ought to bear to the King's Majesty Now since Defence is implyed as a necessary Duty and Ingredient of Allegiance if he leaves any Man Authority to call for Allegiance How will he hinder him by the same Authority from challenging Defence And this whether it be in holding Possession or in getting it and seeking Restauration to it If Allegiance is left Due in both Defence will be like to be left Due in both because Defence is part of Allegiance Indeed as he says p. 31. 27. All Subjects are not bound to turn Soldiers Nor will they be alike p. 29. in the way of obliging Calls and Opportunities to defend a Prince when out of his Throne as when Seated on his Throne But as to such Defence
as every one is bound to in his Station whilst a Prince is among them How will his way exempt them from paying the same when they have an obliging Opportunity whilst he is Dispossessed of his Throne This I think K. W. claim'd from the Irish Subjects requiring them to come in to him and to return to their due Obedience whilst his Errand was Restoring or getting Possession And this in virtue of their Natural Allegiance they having taken no Legal Oath to him And more particularly as to the Legal Oath the Maintenance and Defence Swore in that is with respect to the Legal Right as is plain in the Oath and as he himself observes p. 28. And here methinks it should be harder to get off from Maintaining and Defending if the legal Right be allowed to remain which they Swore to maintain and defend him in And the Maintenance Promised was against all Attempts whatsoever against his Person Crown and Dignity Now the Crown and Dignity is his who has the best Right to them Right making Property as I formerly observed So leaving the Legal Right to any Dispossessed Kings Person will leave him the Crown and Dignity And then all continuance of Attempts to deprive his Person of the Crown and Dignity will be Attempts against his Person Crown and Dignity I think And how will this making Attempts thereupon be Maintaining and Defending both his Dignity and him against them So no way will remain but the translation of Legal Right to take off this Maintenance and Defence in my Opinion He thinks also p. 30. That we are not bound to defend a King when he illegally Subverts the Laws or Legal Religion of a Kingdom 'T is enough in Conscience he fancies p. 27. pattently to bear such an one but a little too much for Subjects to venture all to keep him on the Throne to oppress them This I think makes Kings illegal Actings a Discharge of Subject's Allegiance and Legal Defence which agrees equally ill in my Opinion with the Oath of Allegiance and with Passive Obedience For that is to be so Passive as to make no Resistance and to be so Obedient as to pay all due Service and Allegiance even to such illegal Invaders of Religion and Laws Nor is this Duty taken off by the abuse they will make of the Subject's Performance in turning that Power upon them afterwards to persecute and oppress those who were its Dutyful Supporters for no Duty is taken off by the accidental abuse which others may make of our payment of it nor was this in particular thought to be taken off by the Primitive Christians They were not without plain appearances that if a Persecutor kept the Throne he would turn or continue his Power to persecute and oppress them But yet for all this they durst never be wanting in any Part or Duty of good Subjects in their several Stations to keep him thereon either against any Domestick Rebellion or Foreign Invasion The Subject's Duty in these Cases I think is as to the illegal ways never to act under him or serve him in the illegal Thing But yet for all that to be ready in their several Stations to defend his Person and the Cause of his Crown when either Subject or Foreigner shall rise against him And 't is their Acting in the illegal Thing that the Law punishes but no Law will punish them for Acting to support his Person and defend his Crown Though a Man may be a Traytor as he urges p. 30. For Acting for him against Law yet never for Defending him when Assaulted for that is according to Law So though they are not to defend such illegal Opposer in an illegal Thing yet are they bound to give him the due Defence of Allegiance and the Legal Oath notwithstanding it And thus I have considered both the Scriptures and Reasons he has offered for this Right of Providence And as the former Proofs I think shew Reason enough to overthrow it so he has brought no good Reason to support it And therefore mere Providential Possession of another's Crown without other Title is no Right much less such as should set aside the Legal Right So that the Legal Right will stand good notwithstanding it And if he that has the Legal Right has the best Right to the Crown though another be got into Possession The Supposal of a Legal Right in another will leave all the first mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance to the Possessor For in ingaging by such Allegiance to help him in keeping out the right Owner Subjects would be very Unrighteous and ingaging also thereby to resist the Authority of their rightful Prince they would be very Undutiful and Rebellious and therein moreover to break their former Promises and Oaths they would be very Perfidious and Perjurious All which I think are not to be taken off by the Supposal of Legal Right in the ejected Prince but only by proving he has parted from it and that the Possessor is vested with it which uses to be the Principle of the publick Acts on such Revolutions and particularly is so in our present Case and which as the Author has not at all medled with so neither shall I. And thus Honoured Sir I have considered what this Reverend and Learned Person has offered on this Argument Wherein I have endeavoured to take the Freedom which is fitting with his Opinion but to shew the Respect which I have and his many Excellent both Pious and Learned Labours have so long given the Serious and Wise part of Men cause to have for his Person I pray God to enlighten and thereby to awaken the Consciences of all concerned in this Question Some may be apt to take Offence at a free Discussion of these Grounds thinking it may touch too near on Reputation But as many as prefer Religion before themselves will be more careful to keep its Duties in Credit than to keep up their own Credit And I am sure all that have a serious Sense of Christianity and reverence for the Commandments of God must needs see that they have a much higher Concern than Reputation in this Dispute The Difficulties are of highest Importance in that Account we must all one Day make before the great Iudge of the World And if the Grounds several Men satisfie themselves upon at present will not take them off it nearly concerns them to see it in time whilst there may be ways of providing a more comfortable Answer against they come to be posed upon them God in his abundant Mercy grant us all the Grace to have and keep Minds raised above this World and both to see the Truth and follow it I remain Sir Your most Faithful and Affectionate Servant c. FINIS THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF the Difficulties in the way of the Present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off The Allegiance required Difficulties against it from several Commandments All suppose a rightful Competitor to
Estate as well as the highest Authority and if you suppose the Right to this Estate to be in him doth not that make it his rightful Property Then to seek to hinder him of his Right to take it out of his hand or to keep it out of his hand would be very unrighteous To pray for it to wish or desire it would be a Breach of the Tenth Commandment an unjust and evil Covetousness To attempt it or any ways abet or act therein would be a Breach of the Eighth and pass among unjust Seisures And the Allegiance that tyes to pray for and to promote the Possession of K. W. Q. M. I think doth pretty evidently do all this against him 2. To be Dutiful and Obedient to him in point of Power Admit him to have the Legal Right and he will seem to be the Politick Father and still King and then by the Fâ—fâ—h Commandment Allegiance is unavoidably due to him Suppose him the Father there spoken of and that Commandment bids all to Reverence and keep Subjâ—ct to and Serve and Support him and transferring Allegiance runs directly contrary to all these Duties It is turning Subject to another against him not keeping Subject to him against all Men. There is an end of praying for him when they openly fast and pray against hâ—m They have done with supporting him when they fall to support another in his Throne They can be but one King's Subjects as having but one Allegiance which when they promise and pay to K. William and Q. Mary they must needs cast off to K. James And as the Supposal of his Legal Right makes them owe him as may seem all the Duty of the Fifth Commandment I think such transferring of Allegiance would manifestly be very bad Payment of it 3. To be true and faithful to their own Oaths and Promises The Third Commandment is Not to take God's Name in vain or as our Lâ—rd words it not to forswear our selves And that may be either in â—alsifying the former Oath by Non-performance or in falsiâ—ying again by swearing more than we can perform in the new Oath The former Oath to K. James was notwithstanding any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience to bear Faith and true Allâ—giance to His Majesty Now I suppose to transfer Allegiance from him doth not fulfil the Promise of continuing to hear Allegiance to him And to bear it to his Competitor is not to bear it to him for certainly he and his Competitor are not the same And to defend him and his Heirs to the uttermost of our Power against all Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity Now how Attempts have been made and how they are continued against his Person Crown and Dignity all Men must needs see And the calling for the present Allegiance is to back the Attempâ—ers therein And if you suppose his Legal Right to turn over to the Attempters will not verifie the Promise of Defending him and his Crown against all Attempts nor will aiding and praying for them when going against him be keeping his Crown on his Head to our utmost against them It is declared further That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever has Power to absolve us of this Oath nor of any part thereof And that notwithstanding any Absolution from this Obedience we will bear him this Faith and true Allegiance 'T is visible they that turn to bear it to another who is set upon his Throne bear it no longer to him They were bound thus fast to him therein before and some must have set them loose and by his Supposal that was not done by King James himself if as he puts the Case his Legal Right still remains And if they give this Faith and true Allegiance away to another when these Absolvers have loosed them how is that holding to bear it on to him notwithstanding any such Absolution Such Rubs lye in the way of transferring this Allegiance from the former Oath to King James And since in this new Oath true Allegiance is to be sworn again to K. William and Q Mary if they swear such Service and Support to them against K. James as 't is not lawful to perform as it seems visible they do if you suppose the former Bond is still remaining there would be a new Falsification To say and not to doe is to falsifie And to swear he will do what a Man ought not and will not do is to swear falsly And this every person doth that swears to do an unjust thing or to give away what is none of his own Such Oaths lay no Obligation nor procure Licence to perform the thing being as unjust after as it was before their Swearing No man must swear away any part of his Duty as the Author observes p. 32. because an Oath in which a Man so swears is false in the making assuring Men of what they are not like to find and deluding them by a Promise and Oath which must not be kept but broken As to the Persons concern'd in these Difficulties the Consciences of all the Subjects are concerned on some though not on all the forementioned Accounts The Eighth and Tenth Commandments of not being injurious to him in his rightful Properties would affect the Consciences of all Men in common Justice The Fifth Commandment of bearing Allegiance to him if true and legal King and paying him Honour and Obedience would bind the Consciences of all Subjects of these Dominions And the Third Commandment of not forswearing our selves but performing towards him our Oaths concerns only them that have been in Stations requiring the Oaths of Allegiance And to the foregoing Obligations which equally concern and are a fast Tye upon all others this superadds a new Bond or most solemn Obligation upon the Swearers themselves These in short I conceive are the great Difficulties against the new Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary whether called for upon Oath or without Outh Now of all these Difficulties I observe That they suppose a rightful Competitor in being to whom the Subjects are under a contrary Obligation The hindrance of Conscience is not from their own Rights which the Owners may give up if they please but from the Rights of a Third Person And the Refusal is only to do Right and to keep a clear Conscience towards him For as the Case is put it is K. James's supposed Right to these Realms as Proprietor that witholds them in regard to the Eighth and Tenth Commandments from that Allegiance which must joyn to drive or keep him out thereof and his supposed Right or Power and Authority over them that bars them in Conscience of the Fifth Commandment from casting off Obedience to him and turning Subjects to K. William and Q. Mary and the further Right he has to all this by their solemn Promises Oaths which keeps them fast to him in respect to the Third Commandment till
either by Death or some Act of his own they have his sufficient Discharge All which hindrances of swearing Allegiance to one possessed of a Throne would vanish were there no supposed rightful King and Competitor still living nor any other Bar against turning to the Possessor but meerly his having been set up by unlawful means And therefore in turning Subjects to such unlawful Possâ—ssors these Difficulties would be no Difficulties of Conscience to them who have all the right of Power in themselves For when by their Submission they give up all this Power to the wrongful Possessor they give away only what is their own and do no Person any wrong Great Difficulty there may be indeed in giving up their own Rights but that is not a Difficulty of Conscience or from any Law of God whose Laws may all be equally kept whether they have a mind to keep their Civil Power or to part with it and come into a subject State but only a Difficulty in inclination and interest or of worldly hardship And this was the Case of the Senate and People of Rome when Julius and after him Augustus Caesar first usurped upon them till such time as by the Lex Regia the Empire was conferred upon him by their own Act and became a Legal Constitution And so it was also with other Nations particularly with the Jews when both King and People turned Tributaries and submitted themselves to an usurping and prevailing Prince as they did to the Egyptians and Babylonians their Kings themselves as Iehojakim and Coniah his Son as well as the People submitting to take their Crowns from and hold them under them and binding themselves as Ezechiel says Ezek. 17. 13. of Zedekiah by Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance to them And 't is the same Case with any Towns or Places taken from their lawful Prince by invading Neighbours a Case so much pressed by some in this Argument after once as it usually happens at the end of a War the Places at first seiz'd by Force are given up by the right Owner to the Possessor in Treaties For then the People are no longer obliged to his Right which he himself has given up but are all at Liberty to submit themselves In all which Submissions and turning Subjects to these Usurpers or Conquerors they denyed no other Person what was his Right for none else had any Right over them so there could be nothing Unâ—ighteous in this Submission Nor will they be Difficulties longer than the Prince who has Right over them lives The Woman that is bound to her Husband is bound only so long as her Husband liveth as St. Paul says Rom. 7 2. When a King's Person dyes his personal Rights dye with him And after that none of the aforesaid Difficulties so far as his personal Right made the Difficulty will be any hindrance to them in Conscience from turning subject to another that is possessed of his Throne And this was the Case of the Roman Subjects under all their bloody and numerous Revolutions and Usurpations The Conspirators that set up and succeeded against any of the Emperors still cut off their Masters and taking the right Emperor's Blood as well as his Power cut off his Right and the Peoples Allegiance together with his Life And either this or the aforesaid Submissions of the Subdued rightful Princes was â—he Case in the several Advancements and Erections of the Four Monarchies both as to the Kingdoms they Subdued and as to their Subduing one another particularly as to the Power of the Persian Kings which as the Babylonian had done before in the death of Belshazzar Dan. 5. 30 31. expired with Darius for besides that his Son who would have been the next Heir was in the Conqueror's Hands that Kingdom though they had a great reverence for the Royal Blood and it usually went from Father to Son yet was not legally tyed to lineal Descent and Succession by Blood as I think may appear In the choice of Darius Hystaspis who though of Royal Race as Justin lays yet had only his Lot for the Crown among the rest of the Princes on the overthrow of the Counterfeit Smerdis And in the Dispute about the Crown and the Decision thereof betwixt his Son Artemenes and Xâ—â—xes after his Death So that on the Death of Darius Codomannus all the Subjects of that Empire were at Liberty to submit themselves and bear Allegiance to the prevailing Macedâ—nians as they had done to the Persians before and did wrong to none therein no other having any just Right over them From this also I observe Where a Peoples Submissions are of Force to justify and carry a Translation of Allegiance viz. When they are their own Masters and free from any Third Persons rightful Power over them If they owe the Allegiance demanded of them to a rightful King they cannot give it away from him And if they pretend to do it it is still as truly his as it was before and all the aforementioned Difficulties press upon them 'T is not for one Man to give away what is anothers what is a Man 's own continues his own after all the Gifts that are made of it till he gives it away himself The Popes have been very Liberal in giving away Princes Rights And a People may be very Liberal also in giving away their Princes Rights when they give away their own Allegiance But if what they give away are really his Rights he loses no Right by either of their Gifts who had no Power to give But if there be no Prince in being that has any Right over them they may give up their own Rights to whom they please and their Submissions who are thus at their own Disposal are sufficient to bind themselves Having thus given a brief State of the Difficulties of Conscience in the way of the Refusers of the present Oath of Allegiance I proceed next to consider what are the ways proposed to take these Difficulties off The way of the Convention and Publick Acts is denying K. James now to have any Legal Right Such Right they own he had but they say he has parted with it by breaking the Fundamental Contract and by Abdicating the Government and the Throne thereby as they say becoming vacant Now if any will set themselves to prove this I grant that Proof will clear all these Difficulties For the Supposal of his Legal Right is the ground of all these Exceptions If he has no Right to any of the Realms they do him no wrong to pray That the right Owner may have his own and to help to put him whose the Right is into Possession If he is not their rightful King they owe him no Allegiance and Duty of Subjects And if there is an end of his Right there is an end of their Oaths The Oath of Allegiance recognizing his Right and promising all the forementioned Allegiance and Defence to him is only whilst he has a Right to be
point of Properties and the other forementioned Things Now the way of Mens setting up these is by human Ways and Rights The vesting either of Power or Property for instance must be in some Persons that is some particular Persons must have the Power and the Property And this way of vesting the Power or Property in those Persons can only be by giving them a Right to them for it is their Right to them that must make them to become theirs So that human Acts and Rights must give every Man the State and Power of a Prince or of an Husband and the Property of an Owner and that must give Words their settled Meanings whereby any one that hears them may know what another means And as human Ways and Rights are to set up these States or Things so since human kind has every where the like necessity and the like ability therein these human Rights and Ways will set them up in all places And when these human Rights are in every place passed about them then comes the Law of God and Nature which are to be Laws for every place to empower or guard what such presupposed human Right has given The Fifth Commandment makes no particular Man a Prince nor the Seventh an Husband nor the Eighth and Tenth a Proprietor of what he holds among Men nor doth the Ninth determine any Speech's signification but all suppose them And if God has not done it by immediate Interposition since it must be done either by God or Men they suppose that human Rights have made these already And supposing all these things of Society in this State by human Right these Commandments come to secure their several and respective Duties towards them So that in absence of particular Revelation which alone can make not only a better but â—ndeed any other Right it is an Humanly Rightful and Legal Power which the Fifth Commandment and all other Laws of Obedience to Superiours require us to be subject to and to support and Rightful and Legal Property which the Eighth and Tenth Commandments forbid us either to seize or covet and Rightful Matrimony which the Seventh Command will not have violated by Adultery and Words of human Settlement and Institution wherein the Ninth Commandment forbids all Falsification So that what human Law fixes God's Law secures and to him that holds any of these things by human Rights the Commands of God call for this Obedience and other Duties And therefore he that has the legal Right has the Commandment on his side and must have all the Duty and Obedience which it requires And this I think may show That in the Question about transferring Allegiance the Case of Conscience is not a mere Point of Law as the Author p. 53. seems to intimate or such as doth not involve Moral and Natural Duties wherein he allows every Man may and must examine and understand for himself For tho' the Law must make any Man a Prince to have the Right to the Allegiance yet where the Law has given the Right these Moral and Natural Duties carry all their Obedience to it The Commandments take him that has the legal Right and require all the Duty and Allegiance they enjoyn to be paid to him and require none of it to any other Person So that in going against the Human Right we go against the Moral and Divine Precept which requiring all to him that has the human Right is either broken or kept according as we observe or reject the human Right Indeed if the Point of human Right should happen at any time to be more doubtful and really disputable it would be a less Offence to mistake it But so far as we pay our Duties and Obedience against the human Law and legal Right we pay them also against the Divine Law and Moral Duties But this Disobedience and Breach both of Divine and Human Laws in such Case would be the more pardonable as having the Plea of pityable Ignorance and the Mitigation of being in a dark and doubtful Case wherein Mistakes are less dangerous to honestly disposed Minds I observe still further from this That the Commandment is equally broke in being undutiful to him that has an Human Right as it would be by Undutifulness to one that had a Divine Right For the Commandment is equally for securing Obedience to those in Authority by any sort of good Right Therefore its words or expression of the Person is general to the Father the Higher Power the Magistrate all which must come to be so by some kind of Right and it matters not what whether Human or Divine so long as it is a good Right It is a Natural Precept which is equally for Jews and Gentiles and doth not alter the Style but is the very same and calls for one and the same Obedience to a King of Divine Right by a Divine Intail or Nomination as it doth to another of mere Human Right Which I note because in case of Ioash the Author thinks p. 35. there was a stricter and more unalienable Allegiance due to him on account he came to the Crown as he says by an Intail from God But admit his was a Divine Right the Commandments for Obedience to rightful Powers cary no more nor more unalienable Allegiance to it than they would to an human Right It calls for it only in the same Words and lyes equally open to both and makes no Distinction of either All it requires for Obedience is That they have Right They must be obeyed whilst they have it and no longer than they have it So that be the Right Ioash's or a King 's of any other Nation it will equally stand till a better Right has set it aside The Seditious Jews I think were for making a great difference in point of Obedience between Governments and Kings set up by Revelation and others by Human Right and so esteemed the Heathen Powers who had no Word or Revelation of God for their Government or Governors but only human Ways and Titles as no Powers to whom the Command required Subjection and Obedience This Was one great cause of their restless Endeavours to cast off those Powers One Pretence was recovering their own Liberty which St. Peter notes the Iudaizers used for a Cloak of Maliciousness or Cover of Rebellion the Insufficiency and Iniquity whereof is attempted to be proved and made plain to them in the Speeches of K. Agrippa and Iosephus But onother was Want of God's Authority in these Powers Much troubled they were with this in our Saviour's time and brought it as a Question of Conscience to him Whether it was lawful to own them They were more possessed with this when St. Paul writ to those at Rome and higher still when St. Peter writ being so generally filled therewith as made them ready to burst out into those Commotions in all places which brought their Excision and the final Overthrow of their City and Nation But in
such Illegal acting And this Inherent and Unexercised Authority claims Obedience to him even at such time that is to keep under his Obedience and not cast it off and rebel against him And the same may be said in case of all other Misuse of Authority for few Mens Principles of Obedience are so loose but they will own it to be still due to ill Kings and Governor who abuse their Authority and 't is strange any Man should believe otherwise that believes the Scriptures But now do not I see why Authority may not have Obedience due it when it is not used as well as when it is misused For what binding Force should there be in misuse To my mind nothing is ever the better for being misused and if misuse can add nothing to it nor lend it any Force whereby to hold the Conscience I fancy it may bind as strongly to Obedience when it cannot be used at all 6. This confining Obedience to actual Exercise and Administration of Government is to make actual Protection or Administration the Condition of it And this will make a Conditionality in the Duty of Relatives aâ— Protection of Kings and Obedience of Subjects are One will be bound to obey if the other doth protect and so far and so long as he doth actually protect which he always doth most whose Administration is justest and keeps closest to the Laws which are the Cover or Protection they seek and expect who live under a limitted and legal Government And this way according to their keeping or degrees in keeping the Condition there would be one Obedience due to a Protecting and another or sometimes none at all to an Oppresive King one Obedience to a King in his good Days and another in his bad ones and not one and the same according to the Scripture Precepts which neither make nor admit of such Distinctions to all and at all times and like would be the Consequence thereof in the Duties of other Relations The performance of one being the Condition of performing in the other when one breaks the Bond is broke on both and no Tye left on either Whereas though the Persons are Relatives yet in all these States the Duties on each side are Absolute which one is bound in Conscience to perform whether the other do or no. The Author says p. 42. 43. Though Protection and Allegiance are not Relatives yet Government meaning actual Government and Allegiance are such Relatives as do se mut uo ponere tollere or infer or remove each other mutually And to extend Allegiance beyond actual Administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate The Difference between Protection and actual Government is only this That actual Government is wider and takes in either actual protecting or oppressing whereas Protecting he there makes to be Administring justly and by Laws and opposes to Opressing Now Allegiance is the act of the Subject as actual Government and Protection are of the Prince Allegiance is the Subject's act only keeping his Duty as Protection is of the King keeping to his Duty But actual Government taking in both Protecting and Oppressing is the act of the King either keeping or breaking his Duty Now if Allegiance which is only the Subject's keeping must not be related to Protection which is the King 's keeping but to actual Government which is either his keeping or breaking his Duty methinks these Relatives are ill match'd and look as if they were not akin And if Allegâ—ance relate to any thing since it is only the act of the Subject keeping it should relate to Protection which is the act of the King keeping his Duty And if his other act of Government or Oppressing must have any Relative it should be their Breach of Allegiance which is to break with him as he doth with them For as Performance answers to Performance so should Breach to Breach I imagine in Likeness and Relation But these Acts on either side are not Relatives or Correlates to one another though the Persons are The Acts are the Acts of their several Duties on both sides and those Duties are absolute which each must perform without any regard to the other's Performance Otherwise there is no Duty from a good Wife to a bad Husband or from a good Child to a bad Parent more than from a good Subject to an ill King And yet That such Duty there is towards them is as certain a Rule in Morality and Religion as that he mentions about Relata is in Logick The Relation is between the Persons not between the Acts and Offices which are called Relative Duties though in their Obligaâ—â—on they be absolute only because they are Duties of Persons that stand mutually related And in the Persons his Rule is true Take away one Relative Person and you break the Relation and without its Correlate the Relative cannot remain But if the Prince cannot Govern saith he p. 42. the Subject cannot obey True he cannot obey actual Government when he cannot have it but he may keep under the Obedience of his Governor and obey it as he can as I shewed before till the Governor's Authority is gone or his Government comes to be actual again By all these Reasons I think it may sufficiently appear That the Obedience shewn before to be due to rightful Authority is not tyed to the Exercise and Administration thereof nor to follow Administration of Government without Rightful Authority But is the Due of the Authority whether the Person having and claiming it be in Place and Possession to exercise his Authority or no. 7. And for further Confirmation of all this I shall to all the foregoing Proofs from the Nature and Reason of things and Scriptures in the Seventh place add a Proof of the same which I think will be a good Proof among all English men in a Case of Allegiance required by Law and that is from our own Laws Now That Obedience in the Eye of our Law is due to Rightful Authority iâ— a dispossessed King is plain because in the Eye of Law Subjects may criminally disobey him If they ought him no Obedience they could not disobey him or deserve to suffer any thing at the hand of Law for not paying Obedience where by Law they ought none But what more common in Law than this towards a dispossessed rightful King Witness the Censure of Law on the Undutifulness shown to King Charles I. when arraigned before the High Court of Justice where he stood utterly dispossessed of all actual Admininistration and on like Disobedience and breach of Allegiance against K. Charles II. during his Dispossession and all the other forementioned Acts declaring Treasons the hight of Disobedience in Practices against dispossessed Rightful Kings as has been observed in Case of Richard the Second of Henry the Eighth's Heirs Q. Mary and others The same may be further evidenced from other Declarations of Law about the Dueness of Allegiance to such dispossessed Kings Whilst
THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS According to SCRIPTURE REASON AND THE Opinion of the Church In Answer To a late Book of Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK Master of the Temple ENTITULED The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers Stated and Resolved according to Scripture c. With a more particular Respect to the Oath lately injoyn'd London Printed in the Year 1691. THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS c. CHAP. I. Of the Difficulties in the way of the present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off Honoured Sir HAving now at length by the blessing of God found that leisure and convenience I spoke of in Dutiful Regard to the Ingagement you sent me I have set my self with the best attention I could to consider the Grounds and Reasonings in Dr. Sherlock's late Book viz. Of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers with a more particular Respect to the present Oath I Hope I have not miss'd his Sense I am sure I have not done it willingly nor been wanting in that Respect which I profess to have and think that all Lovers of Piety and good Reason have had great cause to bear for a Person who in his many learned Labours has so well deserved of both But I have examined his Opinions with the same freedom that he has proposed them and which the interest of Truth and Righteousness require as I conceive in this Case And this freedom I believe will not be Offensive to himself for if they will stand it will give him a further Opportunity to clear them But if they will not as I verily think they will not it will concern all and no Person more than himself to be showed the Falshood of them And that not only as being unsound and insufficient to justifie the Conscience in the present Allegiance But also as being very ill Principles and Destructive in my Judgment to that moral Honesty which should govern the Actions of Manking One Design of the Reverend Author in this Book and that a very charitable one was to endeavour the Satisfaction of those who are still dissatisfied about the Oaths And that we may the better judge how fit his Discourse is to reconcile their Consciences thereto I think iâ— not amiss to represent in short the Difficulties which Men conceive against the present Oath of Allegiance and then examine how successful his way is like to prove in taking them off And I think it will appear notwith â—anding all he has advanced in this new Hyp thesis That the Difficulties are as great as they were before and that there is like to be no way of removing them but by demonstrating K. James's Abdication and K. William and Q. Mary's Legal Right which the Convention and Publick Acts ground the Allegiance in debate upon As for the Difficulties in the way of the Refuâ—ers to my Apprehension thus the Case stands True Allegiance to K. W. and Q M. is to become their true Sâ—â—ject to sta 〈…〉 by and to support them against all pâ—rsons The Fifth Commandment which is Gâ—d's most ancient Law for Allegiance by Honour intends not only Râ—spâ—ct bâ—t Service and Support of Parents the Denial of whiâ—h as hoth our Saviour and St. Paul say is a Breach thereof The great end of Civil Society is for mutual Defence So when Civil Government is set up the first and most Fundamental Obligation to it is to Defend it and this Defence is by the Allegiance of the Subjects Allegiance is the Band which tyes not one Stranger to another who may look on with more Indifference as idle Spectators but the Members to the Head And the Duty of Members is to do all they can to keep the Head upon the Body and to be as ready to guard their Head as to guard themselves And if any person will take the pains to examine the constant and current meaning of true Allegiance in our Laws and in the Legal Professions thereof he will find nothing more clear I think than That true Allegeance speaks the Support of their Sâ—vereign against all Opposers and contrary Pretenders And being thus an Espousal of one against all others we can have but one true Allegiance or one King at a time to whom we owe and are to pay this true Allegiance as this Reverend Person truly notes p. 14 Prop. 6. In particular this true Allegiance to K. William c. both in the Sense of the State and in the Practice of the Subject is to support them against K. James If any that owes K. William and Q Mary Allegiance doth but correspond with K. James or give him any Assistâ—nce the Courts judge it a breach of this Allegiance And when K. William goes professedly against K. James or to reduce as the Acts and Declarations say the Rebels in Ireland i. e. all those Irish that adhere to K James all his Subjects are required in vertue of their Allegiance and Subjection to him to fast and pray for his Success which are the moâ—â— solâ—mn Assistances and with as much Solemnity to give Thanks for the same at his Return after he has prevailed againâ—t him All which they that profess and have promised All giance to K. W. Q. M. have accordingly done through the Kingdom Now King James was confessedly the Rightful King of these Realms to whom all the Subjects thereof ought this true Faith and Allegiance and to whom all in any publick Office or Trust had Sworn it either to him by Name in all the Oaths taken in his own Reign or which is the same thing to him under the Words Lawful Heirs and Successors he being undoubtedly the Lawful Heir and Successor to his Brother in the Oath to bear true Allegiance to the King and his Lawful Heirs and Successors taken in his Brother's Reign This true Allegiance is by the present Oath transferr'd to K. William and Q Mary and that as the Convention and publick Acts which order this Translation say because K. James now has no longer any Legal Right to the Throne but K. W. Q. M. are rightful King and Queen And this if cleared prevents all the Difficulties which are on Supposition of King James's continuing to have this Legal Right still But this learned Author to suit his Argument to those as he says in his Preface who are most strongly prejudiced against the Legality of the late Revolution reasons in this Book upon the Suppâ—sition of unjust Usurpation And supposing as he doth K. James to have a Legal Right to the Crown such as these in my Judgment are the Difficulties which will lye in the way of transferring Allegiance for his Book to take off viz. how such takâ—ng away their Allegiance from K. James supposed therein to have the Legal Right and turning over against him to another supposed to have no Legal Right can be thought 1. To be just to King James in point of Property A Crown is the greatest
Justly therefore might God Condemn Zedekiah and the Jews for standing out against the King of Babylon which was only to Condemn Subjects for standing out against their King I add That as to Ieremiah's Prophesies they were Predictions of Events and of the final Success of the Babylonian either against the Jews or other Nations and so were Warnings to all that would believe the Prophet to prevent Extremities by early Submissions and to compound and make good Terms for themselves And the great Offence of any People so far as concerns these Predictions setting aside what might concern them any otherwise as they were his Subjects before was Disbelief of God's Prophet and hearkning to false Prophets against God which in the Event would be its own Punishment when they should be carried away by standing out who might have stayed in their own Land had they believed God and submitted as he directed Jer. 27. 9 10 11. 5. Lastly If Allegiance must only go to rightful Powers they who are to obey will be concerned to understand who is the Right and this he thinks would be such a Perplexity of Conscience as God never designs especially in Duties that concern all Persons But now this Perplexity of Conscience is not confined to the Right of Princes but is common to all Rights either of Princes or of private Persons For if their Conscience is tyed up to a private Right there is the same Necessity of being able to judge between a pretended and real Right and of knowing exactly what gives a real Right that they may not misplace the payment of it which are the Difficulties of Conscience he mentions in giving a Prince his Right And yet for all these Perplexities 't is plain God has bound all Mens Consciences to such Right else they would not be bound in Conscience to give every Man his Due or to be Righteous other Duties also are as lyable to these Perplexities as Right is Idolatry concerns all Mens Consciences and particularly the Worship of Images against the First and Second Commandments And are not all Mens Consciences as lyable to be perplexed in understanding what Idolatry it and what is an Idolatrous Image and what an Idolatrous Worship thereof and are not as perplexed Disputes raised about them betwixt us and the Papists as any that are lyable to be raised about Rights Lying concerns all Mens Consciences And may not Mens Consciences be sufficiently perplexed in inquiring what makes the Evil of a Lye and how far Men are obliged and how they come to be so to use Words in such a certain Sense to know when they do and when they do not tell those Lies which are against Conscience And the like Perplexities are lyable to be started about Oaths and Sabbaths and Government and Property and Adultery that is about all the Commandments And yet for all this lyableness to such Perplexities God has made them all to be matter of Conscience to all Men. So that this is no more an Argument against our Consciences being bound to the Rights of Princes than against their being bound to any other Thing The Truth of the Case is as I conceive there is a plain understanding of the Things themselves and that is obvious But there is a seeking to understand further by searching into Grounds and Reasons and that is full of Perplexities The First way of Understanding is the way of plain Minds the later of nice Wits and Philosophers And Men generally understand the First way whilst they are willing to do a Duty but they then more especially set their Wits to understand the later way when they are unwilling to do it and fall a turning every Stone to evade it And thus I think all the foresaid Duties are plain to all Men who would take them in a plain and obvious Understanding as Men willing to do them and all will be perplexed when they come to be Disputed and Spun out into Niceties by learned Men when they grow uneasy under and study to avoid them And I think one shall hear no Complaint of the perplexedness of any of the foresaid Moral Duties till Disputing Wits came to perplex and meddle in them Particularly as to the Right of Princes I see not but that is as plain as the Right of a private Person They have as plain a way among us of coming to have Right as any private Person for it is the very same viz. Proximity of Blood or Lineal Descent by inheriting from their Fathers or Predecessors And do not other Men in every Neighborhood come the same way by their Estate So that in ordinary Course they may as easily know their Princes Right as their own Right or their Neighbor's Right And then they may as easily know how to do him Right as how to do them Right And who should have the Crown after him is as well known as who should have their own Estate of Inheritance after them 'T is as easy to know who is the King's Heir as who is their own or their Landlord's Heir For the King's Children are more notirous or better known and the Ages of them than the Children of any private Person Sometimes I grant a Dispute may be raised about them and all Disputes bring on Allegations to serve turns and will perplex any Thing But may not the same be raised concerning any private Right or any other Thing So their Rights are knowable as any private Persons in all ordinary Course and lyable only as these are by accident to be perplexed by contingent Disputes and therefore one is no harder upon the Conscience for ought I see than the other is But were it their Duty to submit only to him that has Right they could not Discharge that Duty he says or understand the Prince to be Right who claims it without turning over the Laws and History of a Nation and being well skilled in them But cannot a Man that knows neither Law nor History know the next in Blood to the former King has the Right to the English Crown This is known by the general Consent and Acknowledgment of Men in all parts of the Realm And if a Man is not Book learned such a Traditionary Knowledge of the Law in that Point is enough for him So that thus far he may easily satisfy himself viz. who is the rightful King according to the present received way of Succeeding But whether this has always given Right and was formerly the way must depend on History unless the Government had begun within Memory of Man and were but of yesterday But the same Question must do so in any other Thing that begun long ago And in particular all the Truths and Duties of our Holy Religion are much Older than our Government And if any one is not content to take any of them as he finds them now at present in the Holy Scriptures and the Practice and Profession of the Church shall make a Question whether they
of the actual Government has therewith got possessed of the Authority to govern God by course of Providence giving or taking both together as he conceives and never seperating them so as to have Exercise of Government without Authority or to leave Authority in one that cannot Exercise it and actually Govern which Points his Proofs still run upon Then possession of Power and actual Administration gives or carries Authority and the Settlement of that Possession only settles the Authority He that has a settled Possession has got a settled Authority and he that is unsettled in Possession has this way an uncertain and unsettled Authority and as often as Providence gives or recals Possession it will this way give and recal Authority But wherever God's Authority is or for how short a time soever it is it must be obeyed out of Conscience And therefore as to Point of Conscience I think by his Principles the Question should be whether any Usurper is possessed or at most is thoroughly possessed of the actual Exercise of Government That being the thing wherein Conscionable Allegiance is concerned But as to the point of Secure Settlement how long he is like to hold it or what appearance there is of its being alter'd that is not matter of Conscience to shew us our Duty but of Prudence to consult what may be wisest for our own Safety And that the Exercise and actual Administration of Government was possessed by the Rump Parliament and other Usurpers is too manifest to be disputed But as to this Seitlement he speaks of How long time must go to it He doth not say the present Government hath had the longest time to settle it and it had not had so much when he judged it settled enough to take the Oath And as for the Number of the Nation he knows That not many Weeks had passed for the Settlement thereof before the Imposers themselves were to swear Allegiance nor many Months before all the Clergy and all others in any Office obliged by Law thereto were called upon to do the same And those Usurpations were of a longer Term than any of these amount to So that there is no Pleading want of Settlement in them in point of time Again how much Quietness must go to Settlement 'T is thoroughly settled he thinks here though there is an actual Struggle and two great Armies in one Kingdom contending for the Throne and unsubdued Risings in another with Suspicion of Proneness in numbers more among them to do the same Whatever be made of the Diâ—contents there has been so much talk and Apprehension of here at home yet still he will say this is a thorough Settlement for all there are these Bars in the way to Quiet And those Usurpations might have shewn more Quietness than this all the three Kingdoms at some times being in a quiet State of Obedience And as to the frequent Changes he mentions they were short liv'd indeed for Forms of Government But yet for all that being possessed of Exercise of Government they must have God's Authority by this Principle and be owned and obeyed accordingly whilst they stood Possession would carry God's Authority and Subjects Obedience to change of Forms as well as to change of Persons But if frequent After-changes be an hindrance to thorough Settlement those are not knowable but by time And if such Change when it happens make all the Possession before to be no good Settlement in what a Case on the Author's Supposition of the Dispossessed King's Legal Right are all Swearers Consciences in such Revolutions For if they cannot in Conscience swear away their Allegiance from the Legal Right till a Possessor is well settled nor his Possession is well settled if it will be changed there would be no swearing Allegiance to the new Government on any such Change with a safe Conscience upon his Supposal of its wanting Legal Right unless a Man knew before hand it will not be changed And who can know that of this Government or of any other without a Prophetick Spirit which I suppose no Swearers had And then by these Principles for ought I see they swore to do what the Event may chance to make them forsworn in which Swearing is not to be justified And then as to want of National Consent p. 47. he means I suppose by a legal Representative of the Nation For a Practical Consent they had all publick Acts proceeding in their Name and publick Officers acting by Commission from them and all People submitting accordingly as they do now and acquiescing under them Not to mention any other ways of Peoples expressing Consent by Addresses and other Applications to them But why must we come to consent at all for giving a Right of Providence For consent is the way of getting and giving human Rights where the Consenters have any Right to give And if Providence be tyed to set up Kings only by human Consent that will put an end to the fancy'd Right of Usurped Possession and bring it to need a bottom of Consent or human Right to stand upon It will also confine the Power of God in setting up Kings which is p. 25. 37 38. one of his great Exceptions against the legal Right For God is confined if he cannot make a King over Men without human Consent as well as if he cannot make one without human Laws And accordingly This necessity of human Consent in setting up and authorizing a King p. 25. he expresly excepts against upon that Account And if Consent were necessary Why must it be National in the legal Form This would be to tye the Right of Providence to Laws when as the end of seeking a Right from Providence is to fetch Right from God not observing human Laws but acting above and beside them And if the Right of Providence were to be tyed to any Laws sure it is most fit to tye it to Laws for Right or legal Titles And this also would be not only a confining the Authority and Power of God in making Kings but confining it to human Laws which is the very thing he Objects against legal Rights for 't is certainly as much a confinement of him to Laws to confine him to legal Consent as to legal Titles Besides the Providential Right is to give Authority where Laws are changed and legal Constitutions or Representatives are alter'd it is to authorize change of Forms as I noted as well as change of Persons And therefore would authorize new Forms of Parliament and making Representatives as well as all other changes of the Constitution when once Providence had given Administration of Government and Possession of Power into their Hands Lastly This Consent in Form of Law is a particular Method of this Nation but the Right of Providence is to be a general Thing and so if it needed any would only require such a way as might be general and sufficient in every Nation So that such Consent would have been sufficient to settle
the way of the Principles I have been hitherto laying down And as to what he says p. 27. 28. c. about the Difference betwixt a maintaining and defending and a restoring Allegiance I may take some notice of that anon 2. His next Reason p. 36. for this Right of Providence is That without it there is no defending the Doctrine of Passive Obedience But why so Because there is no irresistable Authority but that of God and unless Sovereign Princes received their Authority from God Non Resistance would be Nonsense But they may and do receive Authority from God and not by a Right of Providence but either by Divine Nomination as sometimes in Iury or by human Rights and Titles as in all other places And this way of Right doth give a Person God's Authority as I have shewn which his way of Providence doth not And his fancied way of Providence would not be more immediate nor so good and righteous a way of giving it And this Authority of God conveyed thus to a Person by Rightful Title is an irresistable Authority because it is God's and because it is a Sovereign Authority There is no resisting any Authority derived from God but under God or by seeking to have it by an higher Authority which is God's too And thus the Authority of Fathers or Masters which is God's Authority may be restrain'd and checkt when it is abused by the Authority of the Prince which is God's too and an higher Authority And so may the Excesses of any inferior Magistrate by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate All which opposing Authority by way of Regular Appeals and under Protection of an higher Authority is not the criminal resisting God's Authority but keeping under it and seeking to be relieved by it But when this Authority is not only given by God but is a Sovereign Authority then there is no Resistance or worldly Remedy against that because the Sovereign has none above it Thus may the Doctrine of Non Resistance be a Rational Doctrine without his Right of Providence The Law of Subjection to Sovereign Powers and not Resisting makes it a Sin to resist for 1 Ioh. 3. 4. Sin is the Transgression of a Law And Sovereigns having not only God's Authority but a Supream Authority under God on Earth is a Reason why it necessarily should be so But that they should come by this Divine and Supreme Authority by his Right of Providence is neither necessary nor just nor fit in my Judgement But the way of rightful Title either by Divine Nomination or Human Right is the best and justest and I think I may say from what I have Discoursed thereupon is the only true way of coming by it But though the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance may very well stand without his Right of Providence and still transferring and paying Allegiance to present Powers against rightful Titles I think on the other hand it is necessarily overthrown by it I know Numbers of those that Swear the Present Allegiance upon the Ground of a King de Facto are of another Mind and believe it is no Breach of Passive Obedience to one that has a legal Right to transfer and ingage their Allegiance to stand by another who is possessed of his Right which I judge only shews non Attention to the Nature and Import of such Actings For Passive Obedience implies above all Things To keep under a King's Obedience And to cast off his Authority is the highest Disobedience And in this lies the uttermost Heinousness and Aggravation of Resistance that thereby Subjects disclaim their King's Authority over them and throw off all Obedience to him and this is plainly done by transferring Allegiance from him They cannot bear Allegiance to Two nor have any more than one King as the Author truly says p. 14. So that in transferring Allegiance to another they throw off all to him and are as Men no longer under his Obedience and Subjection Besides it puts them among Resisters and so can be no good Payment of the Duty of Non Resistance For it ingages them as I observed the Nature of all Allegiance is to stand by the Possessor and to withstand the other some by Arms others by Prayers every one in his Station And since both Competitors cannot have the Crown and both seek it all that will stand by and support one will therein unavoidably resist the other who comes to recover and get it from him 3. Another Reason is p. 37. If we deny this Right of Providence to carry Allegiance to Usurpers against legal Titles we deny God's Authority to remove or set up Kings against human Laws But if God please to set up a King by particular Revelation that will make him a King against human Laws because God is above Laws and this no Man denies that denies this Right of Providence If God is not pleased to take this way of special Revelations he is pleased to leave Authority to be carryed by human Rights And I suppose he will think it no Impeachment of God's Authority in making or removing Kings to say he cannot do them but by human Rights when he will take no other way but is pleased to leave it to them Besides to come to ways of doing it among other Nations as well as among the Jews human Rights as I observed is larger than human Laws And when a Man cannot be set up or removed by the Laws God may do both according to human Right by the Death or Submission of Competitors If God please to take a King out of the World which is his great way of Removing them and is a way particularly referred to in this Scripture Phraise of Removing Kings as I before observed his Right is removed with him Or if he bring him to give it up by his own Consent his legal Right is that way too removed from him And the other gets Right over a willing People by his Competitors Oath or Submâ—ssion Though Kings then are denyed to be set up or removed by mere Providence without other Title yet is that no denyal of God's Setting up of Kings which he may do by all the ways of Setting them up viz. by all the ways of giving Right to Kingly Authority yea and that against Laws too if he pleases by all the other ways of conferring that Right viz. Special Revelation which is above Laws or Death of Competitors or Consent of Parties which departs from the Right that accrued by them And this limitting God in giving Right to 〈…〉 s of giving it is a limitation he has made himself and is very well pleased with And in matters of Right to be limitted to ways of Right seems no harder limitation than being limitted to be Righteous Indeed it denies his way of Setting them up viz. By Providential Possession without other Title But that I think is no denyal of the Authority of God in this Point because God doth not convey his
particular Preservation of Subjects though it might flatter them with present Ease and Preservation when such Changes are brought about yet would it press more upon them other ways and at other times than this would Compensate It would authorize their Kings Invasions upon their Rights and Liberties as I shewed and that is not for the Security and Preservation of their Liberties And it would multiply such Revolutions and that is against their Security likewise there being nothing secure to Subjects where the struggle is whilst the Change is only going on And when it is finished and an Usurpation settled though those Conscientious Persons that stand off in regard to the others Right are great Sufferers in it yet through the moderation of Possessors and above all through the care of God's good and watchful Providence their Sufferings do not always proceed to such utter Ruin as Men that are more afraid of Suffering than of Sining are apt beforehand to affright themselves withall In such Cases as he puts indeed p. 40. viz. where an usurping Possessor that has Power in his hand will persecute and ruine them for it by Destroying Imprisoning or Transplanting them this doing Right and keeping Allegiance to a dispossessed Prince would be ruinous to Subjects But so would any other Duties when a Tyranical Prince shall require the Breach of them on like Conditions And if the Possessor happen to do so which is the worst Case that can be put why must they not suffer for these as well as for other Commandments When any Duty is persecuted Persecution doth not authorize Men to break the Duty but the Duty obliges them to bear the Persecution To bear the Cross and suffer for Righteousness is their Duty at such times But Self Preservation is as much a Law to Subjects as to Princes and if it will justifie him to save himself by leaving his Kingdom will it not justifie them to submit to the peevailing Power so far as is necessary for their Preservation Self Preservation I grant is common to both that is a Liberty for each not a Law as he terms it to either But this Liberty is limited by Right and Duty So neither King nor Subjects must do any thing unrighteous or undutiful to preserve themselves And his flight for Safety is not unrighteous nor would theirs in like Necessity But if they should preserve themselves by acting against his Right and by making Payment of their Allegiance to another against him whilst he has the Right to it that acting against his Right is unrighteous He adds ibid. If the Necessities of Self Preservation absolve him from his Oath of Governing and Protecting his People why should not the same Necessity absolve them from their Oath of Allegiance to him It will absolve both from the actual Performance and Discharge whilst they are out of Capacity actually to discharge them But it absolves neither of them from the Obligation and Disposition to discharge it when and as far as they can He must look upon himself unless he has resigned his Power still as their King that ought and would though being forcibly kept separate from them he cannot actually Govern them And they answerably on themselves as his Subjects that are under and must keep under his Obedience unless his Resignation has given them a Discharge and stand obliged and prepared to do it though through hindrance of the same Force they cannot actually obey him Actual Performance of any Duties supposes Opportunity which Men have not whilst they are out of Capacity which Incapacity is brought upon both Prince and People by the foresaid necessity So that Necessity whilst it lasts will exempt from actual Discharge so far as it incapacitates But it leaves them under the same Relation and the Obligation and Disposition of Mind dependant thereon And these whilst in most things they can not actually perform with him will hinder them from turning Subject and transferring Allegiance to any other Person 5. Another Reason alledged for his Providential Right giving Authority and claiming Allegiance to usurping Possessors is the Preservation of human Societies which cannot be without Government nor that but under the present Possessors Now as to this there are several States of Society Either a natural wherein all the Communications thereof are derived regularly and as they ought to be which is a sound and perfect State or unnatural and forced when those Communications of the Vital Parts thereof are stopped or intercepted which is a sickly lame and imperfect State And answerable to these will be the different Courses of Government Proceeding either upon right Principles which is the way of a sound and perfect Government when Society is in its natural State or upon such other as it can get which is the way of a lame and imperfect Government that is off its natural Hinges when Society is put into an unnatural Frame And answerable likewise will be the Benefits of Government and Society which will be more full and perfect or lame and limited according as the other are Now the Case which he puts of a Rightful King being violently kept out of the Administration of his Authority is an unnatural and maimed State of Society And the Preservation of Government and Society therein must be preserving it so as suits with that Condition I confess 't is a great Blow to Society to have the Head of the State kept from Communication with the Body It is then out of the natural Course and labours in a maimed and forced Condition But this doth not dissolve the Being of the Society for that lyes in the mutual Relation and Obligation of the Head and Members The respective Societies betwixt a Bishop and his Flock an Husband and Wife a Prince and People are not dissolved when the Prince or Bishop or Husband are kept apart by Force and hindred from affording their proper Offices and Communications to their several Societies because the mutual Relation and Obligation still remains But besides the Being there are the Benefits of Society And how shall they he had when the Head and Body are thus divided Concerning this I observe That all seeking of these Benefits is to be under Rules and Limitations And these are all the Duties of the Second Table which are Social Duties So the Rules of Righteousness must rule and bound us in compassing any Benefits of Society which we must never pretend to set up or pursue by unrighteous ways All these Benefits of Society then are only such Benefits as can be had in Observance of God's Laws of Justice Truth and Faithfulness And how shall these Benefits be had in Societies in the forementioned maimed forced and unnatural State when the Head is kept from free Communication with the Members 'T is plain in a lame unnatural State they cannot be had in the natural and perfect Course and therefore Men must do the best they can to secure them by other Methods consisting with
these Rules of Justice which are to limit all Pursuits thereof The great Prelate he disputes against on this point p 38. c is for binding all Subjects even those that adhere to the ejected Prince to seek the Benefit of Society And in order thereto to pay much Regard and to submit to the Usurper in the great Points thereof As to be obedient to him in Defence of the Country against Foreigners in his Administration of Justice and Preservation of Trade and Commerce and Observance of Laws Limiting them only herein by their Obligations to the Rightful King that they do not obey the Usurper in any thing against him or in violation of that Faith which they owe to him And to this he thinks they are bound in prudent Care of themselves in grateful return for Protection in conscionable Care of the Publick Benefit though they are not bound by the Authority of the Person as the Learned Grotius also taught in this Case de Iur. B. l. 1. c. 4. Art 15. Now what is there destroyed in Society yea or lost of the Benefits thereof which can Righteously be kept in this supposed Defective Unnatural and Forced State of Society His main Objection to it is p. 39. that there is a want of Authority And Authority and Obedience is Essential to Civil Government and Civil Society And want of a Perfect and Natural Course there is of both these as there is like to be in such an Unnatural State but no absolute want thereof There is no absolute want either of Authority or of Allegiance For the rightful King has Authority and the Subjects owe him Allegiance and betwixt these as the Head and Body is the Being of the Society But what is to be said then to Administration of Government should there not be Authority also in that Yes and always is when Government goes on in a Natural Course and would be in the Case supposed if he that has the Authority could be allowed to exercise his Authority and to govern by it But he supposes he is not allowed to that And the other who is possessed of External Strength but without Authority will administer the Government and usurp the exercise of all Acts thereof though he has no Authority for it So there will be Authority in this Society though he that has it is not allowed to exercise and govern by it And there will be Administration and Exercise of all Acts of Government though he that usurps this Administration has no Authority for it The want is neither of Authority nor of Administration in the Society but of an Union of these two so as that he who administers might do it with Authority This I grant is maimed and unnatural But the supposed State is maimed and unnatural And in an unnatural and lame State when the authorized King and People are kept apart like as when the Head and Members are in other Societies there must be an unnatural and lame Course of Government Now when one that has not the Authority which goes not by Strength but Right yet having got external Power in his hands will Administer the Government if the Subjects will all submit to him therein the Society will competently enjoy the Benefits of Administration The natural and best ground of Subjects Obedience is Authority indeed but that cannot do here in an unnatural State and in a Case that supposes he will Administer who has Possession against Right and so wants Authority for it But this Obedience the Bishop fetches from other Grounds and those of Conscience too as well as of Prudence and carries it as far as it righteously can be carried that is in all things that are not prejudicial to the true Owners Rights or to their Fidelity and Obligations to him And farther than this none must go in seeking any Benefits of Society they being always under the Restraint of this Limitation as I observed and never to be sought unrighteously The Bishop Sect. 21. fetches a Liberty for the Subjects to obey the Usurper in the forsaid Instances from the Rightful King 's presumed Consent And great Reason there is to presume he will consent to what is done to keep up Government and not to keep himself out For a People he would have kept together and some Order kept up among them and 't is to an United People that he claims a Right and hopes to be restored again And this presumed Consent some as the learned Author whom he mentions carry farther to derive Authority in these Acts to the Usurper and those that act under him from the Lawful King And whether this presumed Consent can give him or them Authority to do them or no 't is certainly very equitable that his Acts for keeping up common Order and Justice no ways prejudicial to the lawful King should stand good when they are done and be made authoritative when they can And so accordingly they use to be made by the Rightful King's Ratification at his Return As they were by Edward IV. by Q. Mary and K. Charles II. on their several Restorations to the Throne But this presumed Consent he thinks is not enough to derive Authority to the Usurper And not to dispute that Point whether it be or no doth he know of any better way If not all I can say is That no body is bound in my Opinion to find two Regal Authorities more than two Kings which he thinks an Absurdity for one Society p. 14. Nor to find Authority in him that has no Right to it since Authority can go by nothing else but Right And if a Man has it not of his own nor can borrow it I see no Remedy but he must want it However having external Strength he will administer all the same Acts of Government as he would do if he had Authority to do them And if all People submit in regard to private Interests and publick Peace where there is no Authority to have Regard to his Administration will not want good Effect of keeping up Order and Peace and Common Justice among them Indeed they that act in place of Authority under such as they suppose to have no legal Right are concerned to look more to the Authority they act by But as for others they will have Benefit by the Administration whether it be with Authority or no. One Objection he makes p. 40. viz. of the usurping Possessor that has Power enough in his hand to do it either destroying imprisoning or transplanting all that stand out And would not an obstinate Allegiance destroy Society in this Case He supposes all Subjects to do their Duty and stand out Which though all are equally bound to do in Right yet they are never like to do so in Fact the Course of this World giving little appearance of a whole Nation being unanimous in quitting all Temporal Interests for a good Conscience But suppose they should and the Usurper being too strong for them requires them all
either to Swear Allegiance or undergo these hard things then they must suffer as Confessors for their Duty in this as other good Men have done for Duty in other Instances And the Duty of Confessing is never the less because there is so great a number of Confessors And if that Society be broken up by this means it is not too good to be parted with to keep Innocence and a good Conscience All Civil Society and the Benefits thereof being under the Restraint of the Rules of Righteousness and never to be sought or preserved by breaking any of God's Laws about Society or any others but only so far as they can be had by keeping of them Men must never purchase any Society by Sin and Sin is never the less sinful for being required of them on that Condition But p. 45. is not Obedience to Government it self for the Preservation of human Society Yes as all other Rules of Righteousness which are Social Virtues But they are for it not as discretionary means which Men may use or omit as they see it serves turns but as standing Rules and Laws of God which they are to keep without Exceptions They must rule us in all Cases and Pursuits either of Society or any thing else And a Liberty to transgress these when it may seem to serve present turns would leave neither security in nor benefit by any Societies But as for this Objection against an obstinate Allegiance it is not peculiar to it but will lye equally against an obstinate Picty or any other Virtues when they fall into the hands of such Persecutors as will allow no benefit of Society without breach thereof In the Dioclesian Persecution he knows the Christians were removed from the Emperor's Protection and from all Claim and Use of Laws and what benefit of Society then if they would not first Sacrifice to the Heathen Gods And the like may be under any Idolatrous or Heretical Prince who will tyranically make any other Instances of Idolatry or Heresy the Condition of living under him or of Civil Society Or such a Decree as Nebuebadnezzar did to destroy all People Nations and Languages that would not worship his Golden Image Dan. 3. 6. And so it may in any Church when they will tyranically impose any Sins or Errors as Conditions of their Communion to all that live under them or of Church Society Which yet all good Christians are bound to seek for the benefit of their Souls as much as Civil Society for the benefit of their Bodies and worldly Interests So that Obstinacy in any Truths or Duties will as much destroy Society as Obstinacy in Allegiance when they fall into such Princes or Persons hands who will let none live in their Country or have any Protection there if they do without renouncing them And yet these are Duties then notwithstanding and Men are then called to lay down not only the benefits of Society but their very Lives for them 6. His last Reason is p. 43. That these Principles of his answer all the ends of Government for Security both of Prince and Subjects But First Do they answer all the ends of Justice and keeping the Commandments I think I have made it plain they do not do that because they do not give every Man his own but justifie unjust Possession and give Right to unrighteous Actions destroying the Obligations laid and the Securities given by Right and Wrong among Men. And Government and Civil Society are for having these things done and for being ruled in all things by them and the greatest Blessing that comes thereby is the Observance of them Then as to the Purposes of Princes his Principle indeed answers an Usurpur's Purpose which is to keep what he has unjustly got and it shews him he may very justly and conscionably do that and that he has the People as fast tyed and as far obliged to him for all he has no good Title as they would be if he had the best Title But yet all his Purposes it will not serve For he that is once possessed of a Crown would not have it lye at other Peoples Liberty if they can to take it from him but would be glad of some such Title and such an human Right would prove if once he came to acquire that as would make every one else afraid in Conscience if they make any Conscience of what they do to desire or attempt to wrest it out of his hands And this the Title of Providential Possession doth not do For as that way he holds it only by Strength any other that can make a greater Strength will start a better Title to it than he has And as for the Rightful King's Purpose I think it no way answers it For his Purpose and that a very reasonable and just one too would be to have his Right to hold it when he has it and to have it unlawful for any Man to disturb his Possession of it or to get it from him or when he has done so to keep it as his own and not restore it to him again Yea to have Right from his Subjects as well as from the Usurper That since it is his Right they should not help to hinder him of it and since he has Authority over them that they should keep under Obedience to him And as it is the constant Purpose of Authority to bind to such Obedience so it is the constant Purpose of Right to have these Effects not only in the King but in any other Person And lastly as for the Purpose of Subjects if they all purpose as they all should do in the first place to keep a good Conscience I think his Principles may appear from what I have said to be far from that since they would carry them to resist him that has Authority over them which would be Rebellious and to oppose Right and maintain Wrong which is very unrighteous And as to their Preservation and outward Security in this world though in making them more externally easie under the Possessor whilst he holds the Possession it would serve this end at that turn yet would it deserve it a great deal more as I before noted in destroying Right and Wrong the best Guard of their worldly Preservation and in multiplying such Changes and Revolutions all the Compassings whereof are the greatest Blow and Bane thereto And though I am sure this is no end either of Government or Governors who are not for serving but keeping out such Changes and Revolutions yet it seems a very natural and the most natural end of his Right of Providence And then as he p. 43. grants Princes themselves as well as Subjects have Cause enough to be jealous of it since whatever Servive it might do them at one turn it might do them as great Dissâ—â—vice at another For to give Authority to Revolutions and to justifie those that act in them I think are the great ways that any Principles can serve