Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	allegiance_n	king_n	oath_n	2,942	5	7.6429	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40703	Agreement betwixt the present and the former government, or, A discourse of this monarchy, whether elective or hereditary? also of abdication, vacancy, interregnum, present possession of the crown, and the reputation of the Church of England ; with an answer to objections thence arising, against taking the new Oath of Allegiance, for the satisfaction of the scrupulous / by a divine of the Church of England, the author of a little tract entituled, Obedience due to the present King, nothwithstanding our oaths to the former.	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1689 (1689)	Wing F2495; ESTC R40983	47,690	74

AGREEMENT Betwixt the Present and the Former Government Or a DISCOURSE of This Monarchy whether Elective or Hereditary Also of Abdication Vacancy Interregnum Present Possession of the Crown and the Reputation of the Church of England With an Answer to Objections thence arising against taking the new Oath of Allegiance For the Satisfaction of the Scrupulous By a Divine of the Church of England the Author of a little Tract entituled Obedience due to the Present King notwithstanding our Oaths to the Former LICENS'D Sept. 24. 1689. J. Fraser LONDON Printed for A. C. and are to be sold by Charles Yeo Bookseller in Exon 1689. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS CHAP. I. AN Introduction grounded on a general Maxim That unnecessary Changes in Government are to be avoided as dangerous page 3. CHAP. II. The chief Maxims insisted upon as prejudiced by the late Settlement p. 11. CHAP. III. The Government whether Elective or Hereditary and how p. 12. CHAP. IV. Of Vacancy and the supposed Interregnum thereupon by the late King's Abdication p. 31. CHAP. V. Of ABDICATION p. 32. CHAP. VI. Of Vacancy and Interregnum p. 37. CHAP. VII Of the Convention and how it became a Parliament p. 42. CHAP. VIII Arguing from the Possession of the Crown p. 51. CHAP. IX Whether a King can make Laws limiting the Crown p. 58. CHAP. X. The Honour of the Church of England no just Objection against our taking the new Oath p. 60. The APPENDIX The Objection from the Word Allegiance considered p. 66. POSTSCRIPT p. 75. TO THE READER SCruple is an Ague of the Mind it sometimes shakes it and sometimes heats and disturbs the Brain If the Matter be unknown to the Patient and to Doctors we are not certain of the Cure and the less if the Stomach be untoward and the Appetite averse to Medicine in such a Case various Methods used to be tried and Remedies prescribed but through Ignorance of the Cause or some latent Obstruction Skill it self a long time is thrown away at length perhaps a vulgar Medicine given at a venture hits the Distemper and works the Cure. After many learned Doctors charitable Endeavours to deobstruct and ease some good Mens Minds that are shaken with Scruples about the new Oath of Allegiance hitherto in vain if it be yet in vain though I cannot boast of my Skill I make bold to trie a new Practice upon them And I hope my good Reader hath the like Reverence and Value for the worthy Persons that yet labour under may I call it the Disease and the same Zeal and Affection for the Health and Quiet of the Body Politick that I my self have and doth join with me while I do heartily that which I fear Physicians seldom do pray over my Patients for a Blessing from the Great Physician CHAP. I. An Introduction grounded in a general Maxim. The general Maxim Vnnecessary Changes in Government are to be avoided as dangerous UPON any great Revolution it seems much the Concern of the New State so to settle the Government as may offer least matter or occasion of Discontent to the People and consequently to make as little Alteration in the former Maxims and Customs that is in the old Constitution as is possible lest the old Leaven should work again to the prejudice of the new Establishment We may observe in our own History that such publick Grievances as from time to time have been objected by the People to the disquieting and sometimes hazarding of the Government have generally been aggravated with the charge of Innovation as being contrary to our ancient Liberties Rights and Customs and for some Ages in Instances infringing Magna Charta that great Record of the Subjects Priviledges and Codex of our ancient and common Law in which much of our old and happy Constitution consists indeed any Alteration in our Constitution seems to shake the Foundation and frightens the People like an Earthquake This Maxim is commended by three great and well-known Examples 1. Our Saviour's This Caution was sanctified after a marvellous manner by the Wisdom of God in our great Examplar Our blessed Saviour we know was sent into the World to put the Church into a new frame now in his so doing did he reject all that was old or leave out any thing that might be any way serviceable in the new Is it not remarkable that he did resume and make use of as many of the old Materials as could possibly be accommodated to the Edification of the Gospel-Church Did he not take both the Sacraments did he not collect the very Petitions of his Prayer out of the former Usage and allude much in the new Government to be established to that which he found in the old Did he not preach and expound upon the Law of Moses and the ancient Prophets and appeal for his Defence and Justification to their own Books Indeed he seems to have left out nothing of the old Dispensation but what was inconsistent with the new namely that which was typical and expired in the Truth and that which was purely judicial and therefore ceased with the temporal Government of the Jews which our Saviour was not then come to take upon him Now was not all this Accommodation of our Saviour to Moses wisely as well as graciously contrived that the People for whose sakes he was first sent might not be offended or startle and flie from him upon the Scandal of Innovation Yea so tender was our Saviour of them in this Point that during his whole Life both he himself and his Disciples by his Commission addressed only to the Jewish Nation that the greatest Scandal by the Call of the Gentiles might be avoided and they might still appear to be God's peculiar People while there was any the least hopes of them According to their Lord's method and example we afterwards find his Apostles in a great Council held and decreed it as a necessary thing for some time to retain and to practise some legal Ceremonies even after they were all really abolish'd in the Death of Christ that if possible they might thus gain that is reconcile the stubborn People to the new Establishment or at least leave them without excuse Afterwards the fear that possessed the Christian and believing Jews of too great Alteration to be made by the Gospel occasion'd that sober Advice we reade of in Acts 21. 20 21 23 24. of the Church to St. Paul Thou seest Brother how many thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are amongst the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying That they ought not to circumcise their Children neither to walk after the Customs Do therefore this that we say unto thee that all may know that the Information against thee is nothing i. e. of no moment but that thou thy self walkest orderly and keepest the Law. 2. Of the Church of England in the

Populi the Preservation of three Kingdoms is concern'd and in danger and the more by the Colour of our pretended Allegiance I think there is much weight in the words of a late Author I can be sure saith he of nothing if I am out in this Notion That no Oath can bind any longer than the Obligation thereof is consistent and reconcileable with Salus Populi the Welfare the Spiritual and Temporal Welfare of the People which is the sole End of all Government And seeing the Safety and Preservation of the Community depends upon the Promise of Allegiance to the supream Governor for the time being and the Subjects are under a plain necessity either to hazard or ruine the Publick or to transfer their Allegiance they may certainly do it lawfully yea are bound to do it by the Law of Laws Salus Populi suprema Lex Secondly So much briefly for the Law of Nature Now do not the Holy Scriptures warrant the same Do we find any either in the old or new Testament that scrupled or were question'd for their Obedience to the Powers in being I think the present Reverend and Learned Dean of Sarum Dr. Pearse hath a Sermon in print to prove Submission to Governments a Fundamental of the Christian Religion I am sure our Saviour and more largely St. Paul require our Obedience to the Powers that are without any Consideration of their Title merely because of their Authority and Administrations in which the Apostle expresly founds the Duty of Subjection for Conscience sake The Arguments to this purpose lately urged from Romans 13. by several worthy Authors I despair of ever seeing tolerably answered to whom I refer my Reader only let us meditate those notable Counsels of God by the Prophet Seek the Peace of the City Babylon where the People were Captives to their Tyrannical Enemies and pray unto the Lord for it for in the Peace thereof ye shall have Peace Jer. 29. 7. Thirdly Lastly Is there not sufficient in our own Laws to justify our Allegiance to a King regnant without our being satisfied touching his Title Have we not the Authority of former Ages Is not our Statute-Book a clear Testimony of it In what time was it ever denied Who was ever censured or punished for granting it Are not all such Kings who reign'd without Right recorded as Kings of England and their Laws as authentick and obligatory Is it not evident then that Allegiance due to a King regnant with right or with none is agreable to the State and Principles of this Monarchy and founded in the Usage and Common Law of England But that which methinks should put the matter beyond Question is the known and often mentioned Stat. of 11 Hen. 7. 1. grounded as it speaks the sense of the Nation upon Reason Law and good Conscience And though the worthy Author of Considerations and others have with a great deal of strength argued hence to satisfy the Scruples of our Brethren and it cannot be expected that I should add any thing very considerable yet I shall very briefly observe a few things for our purpose from it 1. 'T is thereby acknowledged that a King de facto hath the Name and Stile of a King of England 2. We are to recognize such a one as our Soveraign Lord. 3. That Allegiance is due to such a King from all his Subjects 4. That by reason of the same Allegiance they are bound to serve him even in his Wars 5. That they are never hereafter to be question'd tho the lawful King should recover his Right for so doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance as the Words are 6. That War made against such a King by his Subjects is Rebellion All these things are plain in the Letter of that Law which hath continued unrepealed or unquestion'd for above two hundred Years and consequently so long hath been the approved sense of the whole Nation That Allegiance and true and faithful Service is due to our soveraign Lord for the time being whatever his Title be Hence it follows that in the sense of the Law a King de jure only is not King. The Statute saith the King for the time being and seeing we can have but one King he that hath only right to be King is no King in being or for the time being Hereupon I suppose the great Lawyers inform us that the King de jure only is not within the Purview of the Statute of Treason is not as they say Seignior le Roy. Consequently if Treason cannot be committed against a King de jure while he is out of Possession Allegiance cannot be due to him which is a Duty we owe to the King as our Soveragin Lord and none in the Eye of the Law is so but the King in Possession thus the formal reason of the Oath of Allegiance to the late King ceasing if he be no King in Law because out of Possession the Obligation of that Oath with respect to him ceaseth also besides much of the matter of our former Oath is gone too for we were sworn to bear true Allegiance to him in revealing and preventing Treasons against him and now he is not an Object capable of Treason But they also tell us Treason may be committed against a King regnant without Right and if so 't is thence evident that Allegiance is due to him against which Treason is directly contrary Treason is an Offence against our natural Allegiance which appears from the form of Endictments the words are Contra debitum Fidei Ligeantiae suae against the Duty of Faith and true Allegiance so near are they to the very Words in the Oath of Allegiance In a word to apply it Are not William and Mary now regnant and in full Possession of the Government To deny this is to impose upon our Senses Are they not our Soveraigns also to whom we owe Allegiance This to question is against all kind of Law May we be guilty of Treason against them Then supposed Allegiance to their Enemy seems to be a degree towards that Treason and to be a treasonable Principle if brought into Act it tends apparently to the Death of the King and Queen and how far the very Opinion is from Imagination and consequently from the Formality of Treason should be soberly considered at least to abate our consure of the Government that with some Severity requires our Allegiance and if it may be to perswade us to timely Conformity therein The Sum is I think we cannot justify our refusing to take the new Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary without destroying Acts of Parliament changing the Laws of England and razing the Principles and Laws of Nature The Words of II Hen. 7. cap. 1. bearing to our Purpose are these The King our Sovereign Lord calling to his remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of the Subjects of this his Realm and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince

at least for Conscience sake with respect to the publick Good to take the Oath of Allegiance which is part of our Obedience it being required by Law and therefore our Duty Obj. Your arguing seems to perswade us only to Obedience which we do not much scruple in the sense you explicate it The Swearing to bear true Allegiance is that which troubles us not knowing well the intended sense or meaning of it Sol. The Government hath given us reasonable Satisfaction in this Particular though not so clear as may be wish'd the very Title of the Oath even in this new Law is the Oath of Allegiance or Obedience Now if Allegiance in the sense of the Law as explained by the Law-makers be nothing but Obedience and Obedience in England is to be measured by the Laws what can Allegiance import more than Obedience according to Law which you say you are willing to yield and why now should you refuse to add this Sign and Security of such your Obedience by taking your Oath to do so 2. Moreover you find the Government insists not upon the Word Allegiance nor intends any strange or obscure Obligation upon us by it for in the Declaration they require of Quakers who refuse to swear they express Faith and Allegiance by those plainer Words I will be true and faithful to King William and Queen Mary 3. And as one lately hath very well observed the Parliament have avoided all occasion of Offence in wording this Oath that might consist with the Security of the Government for by omittting the assertory part of the former 't is evident they do not require us by this Oath to assert the Title but to secure the Possession and Peace of the Crown in King William and Queen Mary by our Obedience according to Law. Indeed we may perceive in the whole Proceeding of our late wonderful Revolution so much Sweetness Tenderness and Condescension to the Prejudices that the former state of things might leave in us both with respect to our late King and our own Obligations as if the Government had industriously studied to avoid all occasion of Offence as much as the nature of the Change suffer'd to be possible I have I think noted before that the Convention did not depose the late King did not declare the Crown forfeited did not require him to make a Resignation of it and tho they justly charge him with many intolerable Grievances yet they did not call the King to an Account for them Nay they did not so much as declare that the King is accountable so that the Minds of such as boast of excessive Loyalty have ease as to all these things that bear so hard a Contradiction to their Principles and as for our selves we have noted some Kindness and Condescension with respect to the Oath required thereby it it is neither required that we should abjure the Title of the late King nor assert the Title of the present God forbid therefore that there should be left any Prejudice in us from the hard Proceeding of the Government in either kind if it should it is plainly as false in its ground as 't is like to be evil in its Consequence especially if we stiffen our Disloyalty with the Continuance of a scandalous Impeachment of our Rulers and Legislators for Severity intended against the Church and a designed Alteration or Change of the ancient Constitution of this Hereditary Monarchy the one I hope is as true as the other Obj. The Statute of Hen. 7. so much depended on was made by a King that had no Title to the Crown himself Answ What then Doth it follow that the Statute is not of force Upon that ground we must blot out a great part of our Statute-Book which is full of Laws made by such Kings and the best of our Laws have no force if the Observation hath any truth that the worst Kings made the best Laws Object But 't is a Law mischievous to the Right of our Kings Answ It is much this Mischief hath not been discovered by our former Kings or Parliaments that so mischievous a Law should continue through so long a tract of time unrepealed 't is confess'd it may be inconvenient and prejudice the Interest of a King de jure but we ought in reason to set this against it that it is a Law at all times convenient and serving the Ease Quiet and Safety of the Kingdom for whose sake Kings themselves are 't is hereupon that the Lord Bacon tells us that the Spirit of this Law was wonderfully pious and noble upon this ground as one saith well because they who had no hand in the Sin should bear no share in the Punishment And the Lord Bacon adds That this wanted not Prudence and deep Foresight for it did the better take away occasion for the People to busy themselves to pry into the King's Titles for that however it fell their Safety was already provided for And as the late Author that cites my Lord Bacon for these Words adds very well The meanest Capacity will not be wanting for a Rule of that Subjection which every Soul owes to the higher Powers but if the Subject ought first to satisfy himself touching the Right of his Prince especially in such a time of contest as there was many Years betwixt York and Lancaster certainly every Soul could hardly be so well satisfied as to be subject for Conscience sake CHAP. VIII Whether a King can make Laws limiting the Crown Obj. THough it be acknowledged that a King de facto hath Power to make other Laws viz. Laws for Peace and Justice yet it is a Doubt whether a King that hath no right to the Crown can make Laws for limiting the Succession of the Crown as is now to be done Answ It is confess'd that when it was pleaded against the Title and Claim of the Duke of York that there were divers Entails made to the Heirs Males of Hen. 4. It was answered There had been none made by any Parliament heretofore as it is surmised but only in the seventh Year of K. Henry the Fourth But that Act taketh no place against him that is right Inheritor c. Howbeit all other Acts made in the said Parliament since have been and are sufficient against all other Persons Upon this Law the foresaid Distinction seems grounded but I think very weakly for these Reasons 1. Because this very Law mentions Henry the Fourth with the Addition and Title of King without any Diminution as appears in the Words cited 2. The ground upon which that Entail was declared Null was not a want of Power in King and Parliament to make a Law about the Succession but as they declare in the Dukes first Answer That no Oath being the Law of Man ought to be performed when the same is against the Truth and the Law of God implying as afterwards they speak out it was a Law though of Man it faileth not for want of Authority

being made by a King de facto with his Parliament but the reason why it could not oblige was taken from the matter of it it diverted the Descent and Succession of the Crown according to Right of Inheritance 3. The Argument that a King de facto hath no Power to make Laws to limit the Crown because he is supposed to have no Right to the Crown himself I say this seems not cogent 'T is true 't is supposed he had no Right at first and his Usurpation cannot be thought to create any just Title to the Crown yet when he hath it hath not he Right or rather Authority in Law by his Possession to use it that is to make Laws If not then all the Laws he makes even those for Peace and Justice are void for want of Authority which this very Law against the Entail of Hen. 4. denies I grant all positive Laws made by a rightful King or by an Usurper are equally voidable i. e. repealable But if we speak of such Laws as are void of themselves it seems to me they must be so one of these two ways Either for want of due Authority to make Laws Or with respect to something in the Matter of such Laws as is destructive of them For the first way 't is granted me that a King de facte only hath Authority enough to make Laws generally speaking if his Laws therefore be not of force to limit the Succession 't is for another reason mention'd before taken from that special Matter of the Right of Inheritance which it is thought cannot be infringed by any Law of Man. Hence 't is still a doubt with me whether a King de facto hath not an equal Power with the most rightful King to make any Law even touching the Crown as any thing else Suppose a King de facto after some Contests about the Succession settle the Crown as it ought to go Is not such a Law a good Law Wherein can it fail neither in Matter nor Authority Again the most rightful King in and by his Law limits the Crown as it ought not to be Is that Law a good Law No Power can make a Law that is malam in se to be bonam I confess I see no difference in the Legislative Power of a King regnant whether with or without Right especially seeing the Parliament which is the Body of the Kingdom choose the Matter and give Authority to the Laws as well as the King. But this Nicety need not trouble us under their present Majesties whose Title to the Crown I hope is unquestionable as well as their Possession of it Besides there is no room for this Objection among all our Scruples about the Oath of Allegiance for in our private Capacity we are not to answer for Errors in Government If the Succession can be supposed to be limited in any Point amiss how can we help it What 's that to our Duty how are we concerned The Law doth not require us to assert or swear to the Act of setling the Crown for the future it requires only our Obedience to our present gracious King and Queen and we do our Duty if we look no further CHAP. IX The Honour of the Church of England no just Objection against our taking the new Oath Obj. I Have heard it offer'd by some that tho it be lawful to submit to the present Government and to take the new Oath of Allegiance yet by our doing it the Church of England suffers in her Honour and her distinguishing Character of Loyalty Sol. I have some Reason to hope that with several Persons not perfectly reconciled or satisfied this is the last Objection that remains unanswered I shall therefore briefly with all the Strength I have at present set my self to remove it and so conclude 1. I confess Loyalty hath been reckoned the Character of the Church of England and in a great measure very deservedly but if we mean such Loyalty as doth distinguish her from all other Churches of Christians in the World it may be an Argument of Singularity and Reflection upon all other Protestant Churches as well as Popish Principles and Practices as some lately have made manifest demonstration And how honourable or laudable that is I determine not but it may be considered 2. I perceive the Movers of this Objection do not say that 't is unlawful to take the new Oath and indeed that is granted in the nature of the Objection for if the Oath be refused only because 't is dishonourable to take it 't is supposed to be in it self lawful tho not expedient And indeed the Argument would have force enough if there were not some heavier Thing than Honour to be put into the other Scale 3. And thus the present Argument is not directly Matter of Conscience but of Prudence For the Matter in genere and in its first Consideration is granted to be indifferent and 't is to be determined to be good or evil by the Addition of something to it in our special and secondary Consideration Now here you lay Honour and Reputation in the Scale and this hath its Weight but if we put Necessity against Honour and Reputation the Weight of these is inconsiderable and what is the Consequence Why that which we thought was not to be done because it was dishonourable we see it must be done because 't is necessary This is the Law of Prudence and Expediency changeth sides that which was expedient not to be done for the sake of Reputation 't is now expedient it should be done when the Necessity of it appears with its greater Weight 4. You already perceive how easily this applies it self to the Case in hand admitting something of Dishonour may in general and prima facie attend the Action for the very granting it to be an indifferent thing in it self whether I take this Oath or not plainly determines the Case and puts an end to the Controversy 5. For I boldly and peremptorily pronounce that if it be indifferent it hath such Additions and Circumstances as cannot but make it an indispensible Duty Rebus sic stantibus from the Argument or Ground of Necessity viz. both Precepti Medii 6. First There is a necessity of the Precept or Law that makes it to be our Duty to take this Oath which is but the Security of our Allegiance 't is required by the Nature of our Constitution and immemorial Custom which is our Common Law 't is required from the Paction betwixt Prince and People to secure each other by their respective Oaths 't is required by virtue of the Statute of Hen. 7. whereby we are to acknowledg the King regnant to whom alone we owe Allegiance and must secure it And lastly 'T is expresly required in the Laws of our own making by our Representatives in the present Parliament in and by which Parliament the King and Queen have equally sworn and plighted their Troth to us Whence Protection and

Recognition of a Tyrant whose Government was Arbitrary and was never owned by the People in a Free Parliament who never took upon him the name of King the proper Title of our Soveraign in all our Laws under whose Violence and great Oppression the Kingdom in general groaned for Deliverance in the return of their rightful King and might laudably hazard their Lives and Estates if there was any hopes the Accomplishment whereof by the wonderful Providence in its due time was happily effected in the Restauration of King Charles the second But what is our case now is it not quite contrary We do acknowledg we are now rescued even from Destruction as well as Oppression And what can we look for upon a new Change but a Scene of Blood the Loss of all our Civil and Ecclesiastical Liberties under French and Popish Slavery What can we hope for if the Lion bereft of his Whelps thirsting after Revenge be let loose upon us Will not his Rod that smarted before be turned into a Scorpion and the latter end of his Tyranny be worse than the beginning 10. Blessed be God there is an unclean Spirit ejected and our House is swept and garnished Is his Return to be courted or indeed to be hazarded If he should re-enter will he not pester us with more and worse Devils if possible when in vain and too late perhaps we may wish we had never encouraged or occasioned our renewed and aggravated Misery It highly concerns us to do what we can to prevent it and I see no other way left us to shew our Apprehension of the danger but by comforting the King who under God hath dispossess'd us and who only under Heaven is the visible Instrument of our Preservation from that last Estate to use our Saviour's Words that will be worse than the first which I hope we are yet sensible was bad enough and how we can do this without assuring him of our grateful and cheerful Allegiance and Fidelity by taking the Oath I cannot see at least I doubt not but enough hath been said to demonstrate the Inexpediency of our continuing to refuse it and consequently upon that Argument a Necessity of taking it notwithstanding the Objection of the Reputation of the Church of England for her singular Loyalty 11. To conclude I need not mind you since the three Estates in Parliament with the Generality both of the Gentry and Clergy throughout the Kingdom have left you perhaps three or four in a County take one County with another that yet stand out I say I need not mind these very few in comparison how fitly they took to themselves the Name of the Church of England or how likely a thing it is for them by scrupling the Oath to preserve her Reputation of Loyalty in their own sense Let the time past suffice that they have endeavoured it so long as there was any hopes to do it but now if the case be plainly desperate 't is time for them upon all the Arguments so many worthy Men as have laboured in Print for their Satisfaction to cry Quarter and to yield to the prevailing Power I mean to come in and submit and give the required Security thereof by taking the Oath of Allegiance to King WILLIAM and Queen MARY whom God long preserve and prosper AN APPENDIX The Objection from the Word Allegiance considered AFter I had put an end to my former Discourse I heard of the following Objection Object It is said that Allegiance being the Word in the new as well as in the Old Oath it seems it ought to be understood in the same Latitude and Sense in both Then how can we safely swear Allegiance to the present King and Queen in the same sense in which we have sworn Allegiance to the former King while the former King is alive Answ I hear this is the Scruple of some ingenuous Persons for whose sake I shall accommodate my Answer to their own Principles as neer as I can first by shewing that those two Oaths though both are called Oaths of Allegiance yet they are not of the same Latitude in the matter of them Secondly that though in a great measure they are admitted to have the same sense and though in that sense in which we have sworn Allegiance to the former King we are required to swear Allegiance to the present King and Queen yet we safely and honestly do it 1. For the first It is plain that the former Oath though it be called the Oath of Allegiance yet it hath more in the matter of it than can be imported in the Word Allegiance it hath two manifest parts of a different Nature the first acknowledgeth the King's just Title to the Crown as rightful King and is found in the form of an Assertory Oath The other is as plainly promissory I will bear Faith and true Allegiance c. Now though with respect to this promissory part of the old Oath we should grant that by the new Oath we are to swear in the same words and in the same sense yet 't is more than evident that these Words cannot be intended to assert any thing about the Title of the Crown and in all likelihood the Assertory part of the former Oath was left out on purpose in the new to avoid matter of Scruple or Offence Yet 't is confess'd that Argument suffers but little in its Strength if both these Oaths agree or are the same in any substantial matter while Men doubt that the former Oath doth oblige them to bear Allegiance to King James in the same sense in which we are required to take the new one It behoves me therefore now to prove the second thing proposed viz. That though Allegiance have the same sense and meaning in both and we have before sworn it to King James in that sense yet we may safely and honestly swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary Object The Objection in short is this If Allegiance sworn to King James be due to him by virtue of our Oath it cannot be due to King William and Queen Mary in the same sense it is due to King James Answ The Answer is as short for if Allegiance be due to King William and Queen Mary in the same sense that we swore to King James then 't is not due to King James tho we so swore For our former Oath cannot oblige us to King James to the injury of King William and Queen Mary it would then be a Bond of Iniquity We see the Objection and Answer stand both upon the same ground namely That Obedience or Allegiance cannot be due to two Kings in the same sense at once Therefore if I prove that Allegiance is due to the present King and Queen it must be yielded that our former Oath to King James cannot oblige us to pay such Allegiance to him My Argument is this Allegiance is due to the Supreme Power in being therefore it cannot be