Religion of the Nation Or doth any Man call a Conquer'd Nation or a City taken Storm or a Routed Army perjured because they accept of their Lives upon condition of promising upon Oath allegiance to their Conqueror 2dly The General condition of all Oaths is That I will perform them so long and so far as it is lawful so to do Now can any Man think it lawful to be active to the apparent Ruine of himself the Laws Religion and Community of which he is a Member If not he cannot think himself obliged by his Oath or Promise to those things which will in humane probability have these sad Effects 3dly The Oath of Allegiance is a legal Oath imposed by the Representatives and Guardians of the Community Now can it reasonably be thought that they intended to bind the whole Community and in them themselves to ruine both their Laws Religion and their private Interests If not no Man can rationally think himself obliged by such an Oath to do that which apparently doth tend to such an End. Again the immediate Law of all Societies is the publick Good. Now Allegiance saith Bishop Sanderson Case of the Engag p. 109. is a Duty that every Subject owes to his Country that is the Publick and consequently to the Supreme And hence it seems demonstratively to follow that he cannot owe it to the Supreme Power when the performance of it tends plainly and directly to the ruine of the publick Good and therefore cannot owe it to him when it tends to the destruction of that Community of which he is a Member The Allegiance which is confirmed by Oath is stronger than is natural Allegiance and yet the Casuists do generally teach that when the Observation of a promissory Oath is plainly destructive of the publick Good it is not Obligatory because the matter of it then becomes unlawful For 1. That which we cannot lawfully promise we cannot swear to do but we cannot lawfully Promise to be actively Obedient to the Commands of our Superior to the ruine of the Publick we cannot therefore swear to be so 2. An Oath can only bind us to do that which we can be obliged to do but no Member of a Community can be obliged to do what is destructive of the Good of the Community he being Jer. xxix 7. by virtue of his Relation to it to seek the Peace and Welfare of it and to pray unto the Lord for it and therefore cannot be obliged to act in contradiction to his Duty and his Prayers 3dly To this Effect may be urged that saying of our Lord The Sabbath was made for Man Mar. ij 27. that is for his behoof not Man for the Sabbath whence he concludes That the Rest commanded on that Day and in which the Observation of it did consist may be violated for the preservation of Man. Accordingly Kings were made for the publick Good the Welfare and Safety of the Government and Allegiance saith St. Paul is therefore due to them because they are the Ministers of God to us for good The Community or Publick was not made for them and consequently the humane Laws concerning them and the Allegiance we owe to them may be violated when it is necessary to do so for the preservation of the Publick When therefore Subjects are under a necessity either to Hazard or Ruine the Publick or to transferr their Allegiance for the time being to the King Regnant they may do the latter Moreover it may very probably be argued That when a King being wrongfully outed repairs to a foreign Power by which to conquer his own Kingdom I am not bound by my Allegiance tamely to give up my self without resistance to be enslaved to that power as I must be if in such cases I may not resist it being not in the King's Power how much soever it may be in his Will to Rule or to Command these Conquerors and therefore not to hinder our enslavement to them Yea when he visibly attempteth to dissolve those Laws on the Preservation of which the Good of the Community consists or by such evil Methods to subject it to Popery and Slavery i. e. to Temporal and Eternal Ruine my Duty of Allegiance cannot oblige me to be obedient to him in prosecution of those ends Had I sworn to stay a Prisoner in such a House that Oath would bind me to stay in it though I found it smoaky and wanting Accommodations for my Health but not when it is on Fire or ready to fall down upon my Head because the Observation of it to my own immediate Destruction is against the Law of Nature Much less can may Oath of Allegiance bind me to the Subversion of the Publick that being more against the same Law and the very End of Societies When therefore a King hath put his Conscience under such Guides as render it morally impossible for him to desist from the Subversion of the Established Religion and his Power and Person under such Hands that it is morally impossible he should return to his Government without enslaving the Community and subverting her Laws and Liberties I know not what natural Allegiance or Principles of meer natural Reason can tie me to hazard my own safety by refusing to promise Allegiance for the time being to another who will preserve both In cases of such unhappy Contests between the good of the Governor and the Governed it seems most natural to think it better ut pereat unus potius quam unitas For the present Governor in such a struggle may suffer much and yet the Government may not suffer but be as well preserved in another Person But when a Kingdom and a Church is thus subverted and enslaved the Government then suffers without prospect of Recovery and the Effects of these things reach unto Posterity Witness the woeful Spectacle of France According to the supposition of the Statute of Henry the Seventh and the Cases cited Obj. 2 the King out of Possession is de jure King and so we must be his Subjects de jure these being essential Relatives which mutually inferr one of the other If we be of right his Subjects we must owe him Allegiance of right and then How can we promise and swear to give away his right to another To this Objection I have given a sufficient Answer in what I have Discoursed on the Fourth Foundation of Allegiance n. 16. the Law of Justice To which things I add Answ 1st That as a King de jure hath right to the Allegiance of his Subjects so have they also the same right to Government and Protection by him and he is by his Coronation Oath obliged to afford it If then whilst he is out of Possession the exercise of his Government and Protection ceaseth though I have a right to it and he is not to be esteemed a violater of his Oath because he doth not then protect us or execute Justice for us Why may not the Exercise of that
whose Protection you enjoy Moreover if the King in his politick Capacity doth never die and yet the King out of possession is no King as to that politick Capacity or as to all intents and purposes of Law then the King Regnant in possession must be King for all the same intents and purposes or there must be an Interregnum which yet our Law will not admit of The Lord Bacon Tells us n. 5. History of the Reign of H. 7. p. 144. 1 Chr. xxj 17. That the Spirit of this Law was wonderfully pious and noble being like in matter of War to the Spirit of David in matter of Plague who saith Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbred even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed but these sheep what have they done Let thy hand I pray thee O Lord my God be upon me and on my Fathers house but not on thy people that they should be plagued The equity of which Prayer is built on this foundation That they who had no hand in the sin should bear no share in the punishment and should not be dealt with ut oves quae ducuntur ad mortem neque evadere possunt As sheep led to the slaughter which they cannot avoid This applied unto the present Law runs thus They who have had no share in he Sin if any he committed in that Revolution which hath dispossessed the King of Right and given possession to the King de facto should have no share in the Punishment and should not be brought into an unavoidable necessity of being ruined and undone by it But now without the benefit of this Law of Henry the Seventh and on the supposition of a necessity still laid upon them to retain Faith and Allegiance to the rightful King though out of possession and to deny it whatever they may suffer by so doing to the King Regnant or in possession as aforesaid they must be under an unavoidable necessity of being ruined and undone for they cannot reasonably expect Protection from the King Regnant if they deny him their Allegiance and not only so but declare they hold themselves in Conscience bound to give it to his Enemies nor can they hope to escape those Penalties which are at present or may hereafter be imposed on all who shall refuse to promise they will bear Faith and true Allegiance to him and so the more honest and the better Subject any Man is the greater miseries and hardships will he lie exposed to for the Sense of his Allegiance will induce him to preserve his rightful King upon the Throne as far as lawfully he can and hazard Life and Fortunes in so doing and when he hath done this he must if he be still obliged to retain Faith and true Allegiance to him when out of Possession in opposition to the King Regnant expose his Life and Fortunes still to a greater and more certain hazard Whereas as the Seasonable Discourse well observes Let Men argue as much as they please P. 2. yet it is certain that no Man is of such a captivated Allegiance as by reason of it to engage himself or think himself engaged to his own certain Ruine and Destruction The most valiant and strictly obliged Troops stick not to ask Quarter when they cannot defend themselves any longer and are justified for it by those to whom they swore to bear Faith of Life and Member as the old Oath of Ligeance did oblige all Subjects Excellent to this purpose is that Observation of the same Author A Man cannot by Oath or by any other way viz. P. 41. by natural Allegiance be obliged further to any Power than to do his utmost in behalf thereof and though the Oath for the right Magistrate be taken in the strictest terms of bearing Faith or Life or his natural Allegiance be construed to extend to the venturing the last drop of his Blood in his Service yet it is to be understood always with this condition if the Action or Passion may be for that Prince's Advantage For Instance In an Army each man is or may be obliged by Oath to lose his Life to the Prince whose Army it is rather than turn back or avoid any danger This Army after it hath done its utmost is beaten and now the Souldiers can do no more for their Prince than die which indeed is to do nothing at all but to cease from doing any thing either for him or themselves In these streights therefore it is not repugnant to their Oaths to ask Quarter or a new Life nor to take it with an Obligation of Fidelity to those who give it only upon that condition or with an Oath never more to fight against him who gives it whilst his Power continues In like manner they who live under the full Power of the King Regnant for the time being may be said to take Quarter for he hath their Lives and their Substance at his Mercy and so they may as lawfully oblige themselves to that which the Prince in Possession requires from them viz. that they will live in Allegiance or obedience to him and will not attempt any thing against him Secondly n. 6. Ibid. The same Lord Bacon adds That this Law wanted not prudence and deep foresight for it did the better take away occasion for the People to busie themselves to pry into the King's Title for that howsoever it fell their safety was already provided for And truely if as the Author of the Seasonable Discourse Asserts we may assure our selves of a justifiable Obedience by this That he who requires it is King in Possession and hath us and the means of our Subsistence in his Power then Subjects may easily know the Rule of their Obedience and the meanest capacity will not be wanting for a Rule of that Subjection to the Higher Powers which the Apostle requires for Conscience sake from Every Soul. But if all persons whatsoever must be put to the perplexity of examining the Title of every King that reigns over them and is in Possession of the Government it will I fear prove a very difficult task if not impossible for every Soul to yield this Subjection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the present Powers for Conscience sake or to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake there being often very intricate perplexities both as to matter of Right and as to matter of Fact touching these things For not to insist upon the long Contest betwixt the House of York and Lancaster the meanest capacity to satisfie himself of the Justice of the present Cause besides his general knowledge of the Nature and Obligation of an Oath must be able to pass an exact Judgment first concerning the Desertion of King James Whether it do not amount to an Abdication Secondly Whether there were not some Original Contract by the Violation of which he may have lost his Right to govern Thirdly whether by his Endeavours to subvert the
181. viz. It is worthy the Note that we find no execution of blood except in open battel in all these combustions nor any Nobleman to die on a Scaffold either in this King's Reign or any other since William the First which is now almost Three hundred years SECT III. NOW as the strength of this Argument seems to me greater than is that of many others which are produced in this Cause so are there many singular advantages which it hath above them For instance First Whereas 't is said n. 1. That we cannot take this Oath upon the Grounds which commonly are offered to move us so to do without condemning the Doctrine of Non-resistance allowing Subjects in some cases a Power to Depose their Prince asserting that our Allegiance to him may cease even whilst he doth continue to Govern or to sway the Sceptre and so we cannot upon those Motives comply with the Act enjoining us to take it without condemning our ancient and avowed Doctrines our Subscriptions to our Homilies and Canons if not the Doctrine of the Ancient Church and that which once was counted the Glory of the Church of England and consequently we cannot do it on those Principles without the scandal of Hypocrisie and Mutability and so of being Ecclesiastical Weathercocks that turn with every wind that blows and Men of such flexible Consciences as will permit us to swear backwards and forwards or any ways for our interest which scandal would cause ur Persons to be despised and our Doctrine not to be regarded Whereas I say some of the other Grounds of taking the Oath of Fealty and Allegiance to King William seem to subject us to these and many other inconveniencies this way entirely avoids them all For 1. We may still honestly declare as do our Statutes n. 2. 3. Jam. 1. c. 1. Can. 36.60 Can. 1. 1640. our Canons and our Convocations That the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Dominions and Countries That the Kingly Authority within his Dominions and Countries is immediately and after God Chief and Supreme and that all Subjects by divine Law stand bound to yield all Faith and Obedience to it above all Earthly Power whatsoever For this Doctrine doth not in the least diminish any Privileges or meddle with any Prerogatives of our Sovereign Lord the King but only tells us who for the time being is that Sovereign Lord to whom these Prerogatives belong 2. n. 3. We may still honestly declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King Stat. Car. 2 A. 14. cap. 2.12 Car. 2. cap. 10. And that by the undoubted fundamental Laws of this Kingdom neither the Peers of this Realm nor the Commons nor both together in Parliament nor the People collectively or representatively nor any other persons whatsoever had have hath or ought to have any coercive Power over the Kings of this Realm And with our Convocation still assert A. D. 1640. Can. 1. That for Subjects to bear Arms against their King offensive or defensive upon any pretence whatsoever is at the least to resist the Powers which are ordained of God. We may still subscribe these Doctrines of our Homilies as wholsome and godly Doctrines and Doctrines to be embraced by all men 2d Par. of the Serm. of Obed. p. 72. That it is not lawful for Subjects and Inferiors in any case to resist and stand against Superior Powers that Christ hath taught us plainly that even the wicked Rulers have their Power and Authority from God and therefore it is not lawful for their Subjects to withstand them Although they do abuse their Power That if they would command us to do any thing contrary to God's Commandments in that case we may not in any wise withstand them violently P. 74 75. or rebel against Rulers or make any Insurrection Sedition or Tumults either by force of Arms or otherwise Against the Anointed of the Lord or any of his Officers but we must in such case patiently suffer all wrongs and injuries referring the Judgment of our Cause only to God. Hem. of Rebel Par. 2. p. 301. And that though Multitudes not only of the Rude and Rascal Commons but sometimes also Men of great Wit Nobility and Authority have moved Rebellions against their lawful Princes whereas true Nobility should most abhor such villanies though they should pretend sundry Causes as the Redress of the Common-wealth which Rebellion of all other mischiefs doth most destroy or Reformation of Religion whereas Rebellion is most of all against true Religion yet were the multitude of the Rebels never so great the Captains never so noble politick and witty the pretences feigned to be never so good and holy yet the speedy overthrow of all Rebels of what number state or condition soever they were or what colour and cause soever they pretend is and ever hath been such that God thereby doth shew that He alloweth neither the dignity of any person nor the multitude of any people nor the weight of any cause as sufficient for the which Subjects may move Rebellion against their Prince For this Doctrine only adds to these Particulars this That the King Regnant in possession is the King whom we may not resist in any case 3. We are not obliged for the justification of our selves n. 4. and of our Doctrine to appeal from the Homilies themselves to those who composed or subscribed them to prove their Actions towards others and the Sayings of one or two of them elsewhere were inconsistent with the plain import of the words which they subscribed and taught as good and wholsome Doctrine when it served to defend the Protestants against the Insurrections of the Romanists the chief Adversaries of that Doctrine which England knew of in those times or to insinuate to their disparagement that they held this to be good Doctrine when it was useful to secure them against the Romanists but that the Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Resistance was as good when it was useful to preserve the Protestants in England or beyond the Seas against the Romanists But can fairly account for that assistance which they gave to their oppressed Brethren from the difference betwixt the constitution of their Government and ours this being one of the chief Laws by which the liberty of the Netherlands was long maintained and justified If any Prince hath disturbed the State of the Republick either by violence wrong dealing or treachery Oration of the Lawfulness of the Netherlandish War p. 14. then all the States and Burghers may deny him Obedience and shall be free and discharged of their Oaths they shall appoint a Chief in his place until he be reduced to a better Mind and more easie Government From the Observation of Dr. Hammond out of Bodinus L. 2. de Rep. c. 5. That in France Spain England and Scotland Reges sine