Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	commandment_n	superior_n	table_n	980	5	9.4032	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	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.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

by ways of Right Suits not with the Honour and Justice of God who is to give it The Authority is Gods and is not to be had but by God's Gift as we are both agreed and how will he give it In ways of Right or without Right in ways of Right surely I think For 1. He is a righteous God and a righteous God will be for planting Right among Men and this in every Thing All we have is derived from God both all the Power and all the Possessions of the World and all in the same way of Right which he is for having universally and unlimitedly Established So that whilst any man holds and claims only by Unrighteousness he doth not hold of God nor doth God look upon the Thing he holds as his till some way of Right makes it so Whilst he holds it by Wrong he rates him not as the Owner but Usurper and therefore bids him restore the Right Owner his own again and that is all any Man ever gets with him by mere unrigheeous Possession viz. no Property therein but only Guilt and Punishment and a Necessity of making Restitution So that as God is to derive this Authority among Men he derives it where he derives a Right to it and without Right he derives none upon any Person 2. If he derive it not in way of Right there is but one way left and that is To lay it in the midst and order it to go to the strongest Arm or to him that can take it But this is to throw it up as a Ball of Strife and set all in War and Confusion But God is the God of Peace and Order and there is no keeping Peace but by ways of Right If Right be to carry Authority it will carry it quietly but if he leave it to Strength and Power the way that Power has to get it is by War and Force which all men I think must needs see can never be the way of the God of Peace and Order If God be supposed to lay it in the midst and let it go to the Strongest then he is also supposed not to meddle in the Contest and then it is to make him cease to govern and direct human Affairs III. Thirdly It suits with the Meaning and Obligation of the Commandment which is to carry and convey this Authority from God to the Person authorized For 1. The Fifth Command ment and all others requiring Duty to Superiors are Commandments of Justice And St. Paul calling for the Duties to Princes bids them render to all their Dues Tribute to whom Tribute ● Rom. 13. 7. All Second Table Duties suppose Right in those that claim them 't is Unrighteousness to deny them and there is no Unrighteousness unless they are denied to those who have Right to them What is not against any mans Right is no Wrong to him So the Commandments carry no Obedience but to him who has Right to the Obedience then they must carry it only to him who has the Right to the Authority For if any Man has no Right to the Authority 't is no Breach of Right to set aside his Authority and then what Unrighteousness can it be for those that are not under Authority not to obey So the Commandments cannot be broke towards him that has no Right to Authority and therefore are only Command ments of Obedience towards him that has Right to it 2. The Fifth Commandment calls for this Obedience to the Father which carries it to Princes as well as Natural Parents In what sense are they Fathers Natural No but Politick To the Politick Father then Subjects must be obedient and he is the Politick Father I think who is the Father by the Rules of the Polity and those Rules of making any one a Father make the Legal Right Thus also when we are bid to be Subject to the higher Power or to honour and obey the King the Command or Law of God requiring the Subjection to him doth not make any Person King that is the proper Business of human Right or of the Laws of Men and God's Command doth not put the Person in that State but suppose him in it and that the Ways and Laws of Men to whom that doth belong have done it already Whom therefore the Law or Legal Right unless set aside by Divine Nomination which is a better Right makes a King him the Commandment backs and binds us to be Subject to Like as the Eighth Commandment makes no Property But when the Laws of Men or human Right have made it that Command comes in to guard and forbids any Person to invade it For 3. In these Commands Princes are supposed as set up by Laws or human Rights and the Commandment is to give Authority and carry Obedience to them when they are once got in by such Titles I mean in absence of Divine Nomination which alone takes place of them God's Law calls for Obedience to him who is got on a Throne that is legally and rightfully his own For these human Acts and Rights are supposed in the Commandments of the Second Table or the Laws about Society Society is to be a Society of Men and Men are left by God to order and set up some things therein and then the Commands of God come to guard or empower and carry Obligation to them And thus it is both with G●vernment and Matrimony and Pro●erty and Converse which are the great Business of Society and the greatest Comfort and Convenience of Life in this World When Men are placed in this World the Good Things of the Earth depend on Care and Industry and there would be no Enjoyment to encourage Industry without Property nor any certain Off-spring to be industrious and careful for without Matrimony nor any Guard either for our Properties or Families without Government nor any Society without Converse and Communication of Minds nor Converse without use of Speech and settled signification of Words Now as for this Civil Government and Matrimony and use of Speech and Property God has fitted all Men for them and made Mankind to need them and to have inducement enough from their own Necessities and Convenience to set up all these Things which he designs they should and is pleased when they do and has provided sundry Laws to empower and guard and give them Comfort by them when they have done so But after all Mankind themselves must set them up God leaves it to them to make their own Languages and chuse their own Wives and Husbands or contract Marriages and settle Properties and model Governments and appoint who shall be their Governours The Paternal Power in the long Lives of the Ancient Patriarcks carried the Matter of Government I conceive in the first Governments But as Men grew shorter lived and the Sense of Kindred wore out there would be a Necessity of other Ways of appointing Governours which therefore human Acts and Ways must settle as they did the

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

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 F●f●h Commandment Allegiance is unavoidably due to him Suppose him the Father there spoken of and that Commandment bids all to Reverence and keep Subj●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 h●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 L●rd words it not to forswear our selves And that may be either in ●alsifying the former Oath by Non-performance or in falsi●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 All●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 Attemp●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

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 ●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

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 whil●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 D●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