thus I become your Man from this day forward of Life and Limb and unto you shall be true and faithful and bear you Faith for the Tenements that I claim to hold of you saving the Faith which I owe unto our Sovereign Lord the King. The Lord Coke in his Institutes gives us this Exposition of it Foial and Loâ—al which are words equivalent to faithful and true Allegiance in the Oath before us these words are of great extent for they extend to the observation of the Lord's Counsel in whatsoever is honest and profitable Omnis homo debet fidem Domino suo de vitâ membris suis terrenô honorê observatione consilii sui per honestum utile Comprehended in these words Foial and Loyal I become your Man of Life and Limb. Therefore he must never be armed against or opposite to his Lord but both his Life and Member must be ready for the lawful Defence of his Lord. And this is sufficient to shew that by the Feudal Law as it is received in England every Vassal is obliged to an active Fidelity and Assistance of his Lord. Where fore 2. If this was the Obligation of every Vassal to his Lord is it possible for Men of sense to imagine that a lower degree of Fidelity was due to a Sovereign Lord who had a double right to the Service of his Vassals a property in their Estates and a Jurisdiction over their Persons Has the Law ordain'd that the Servant shall be above his Master and the Subject above his Sovereign Has it provided for the safety of an inferior Lord and left the Sovereign defenceless Given the one a right to the utmost service of his Vassal and obliged the other to be content with a peaceable Indifferency and a cold Neutrality Or lastly Can it be supposed that Sovereign Princes who enacted or introduced these Laws did intend that their own Subjects should have such a Superiority above themselves in the Fidelity of their Vassals This surely must be necessarily false as it is plainly irrational And to shew that it is so it will be sufficient to observe 1. That in the Homage and Oaths of Fealty made by Vassals to inferior Lords the Sovereign Lord was expresly excepted Spelman and others tell us That Frederick Barbarossa made a Law that the Emperor should be expresly excepted in all Oaths of Fidelity and that this Law was universally received in all Nations And that it was here observed in England is evident from the form of Homage here inserted and the ancient Oath of Fealty in Fleta But also 2. By the same Feudal Laws the Liege Vassals of the Sovereign were expresly obliged to assist and defend him against all Persons whatsoever without any exception This is evident from the very definition of Liege Homage in Skene and of a Liege Tenure in the Feudists and from the common Form of Liege Homage here in England which was made to the King in these Words I become your man for the Fees and Tenements which I hold of you and will bear you Faith of your Lise and Limbs your Body Chattels and Terrene Honour against all Mortals whatsoever As for those who held in Feudo-ligio that is immediately of the King it is undeniable that they were bound for their Fee to assist the King in his Wars and it is no less certain that Vassals of Inferior Lords who held but mediately of the Crown were also bound to the same assistance of their Sovereign To this purpose a Passage out of Willelmus Nubrigensis is cited by Du-Fresne Regi Anglorum tanquam principali Domino hominium cum Ligeantia i. e. solenni cautione standi cum eo pro eo contra omnes homines So Glanvile informs us That a Vassal at the Command of the Prince was bound to fight against his own immediate Lord. And lastly that Statute of the Conqueror does expresly prove it wherein he commands All Earls Barons Knights Serjeants and all the Free-men of the whole Kingdom to be always well provided with Horse and Arms to serve him as often as need shall require according as they are bound by their Lands and Tenements and as he had appointed them to do by the common Council of the Kingdom and for that consideration had given them Lands in Fee for ever Hitherto therefore it appears that Ligeance in its Original signification implied an obligation to assist the Sovereign against all his Enemies without exception And since all our Oaths of Allegiance are manifestly derived from the Feudal Oaths it must needs be probable that the Ligeance universally required of all the Subjects is not much different from the Feudal to which it owes its original And this universal Allegiance I shall first consider in General and endeavour to shew the Obligation of it out of our Laws and Lawyers Secondly I shall consider it as it is stiled Legal And Thirdly Natural Allegiance 1. I am to consider the obligation of Universal Allegiance in general Hotoman observes that there are two kinds of Fidelity the one perform'd by Vassals and the other by Citizens or Subjects And for this he cites a Law of the Emperor Frederick to this effect Let our Vassals swear Fealty to us as Vassals and all others as Citizens from sixteen years to seventy And in his Disputations he proves from several Forms of Oaths of Fidelity exacted by several Princes of all their Subjects that they do oblige to the same Duties with those required of Vassals and the Forms he there produces do particularly oblige to an active Fidelity and Assistance of the Sovereign against all men living Agreeably in this Kingdom as all the Subjects are therefore called Liegemen beccause they are bound unto their King as Vassals to their Lord so the Oaths they were required to take and the Allegiance they were bound to pay unto the King are the same in substance with the Feudal Oaths and Obligations of a Vassal to his Liege Lord and Sovereign The late Interpreter of the Law-terms tells us That Ligeancy is most commonly used for that Duty which every good Subject owes to his Leige Lord the King. And says after Cowel That it is thus defined in the Great Customary of Normandy That it is an Obligation upon all Vassals to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living to serve him with their Persons Assistance and Advice to do him no Injury nor in any thing to support his Adversaries against him So that hence it is obvious That this Interpreter took the Allegiance of a Vassal and every good Subject to be exactly the same and thought this to be a good Definition of it which is as absolutely inconsistent with a pure Neutrality or a Reservation of an higher degree of Allegiance to another as Words can express The same Learned Interpreter has yet added out of the Lord Coke another
Heir But in case of Treason which is the highest breach of Fealty after Legal Conviction of the Traytor the Fee is for ever forfeited and all his Lands and Tenements are absolutely at the King's disposal And though a Statute was made 25 Ed. III. to determine what was precisely Treason yet this was only declarative of what was truly Treason by the Feudal Laws which were then a part of the Common Law of England And hence it appears how necessary it is for the understanding of the true meaning of Faith and Allegiance to enquire into the nature of Fealty whence the Subjects are called Fideles Ligii Regis and from which all our Oaths of Fidelity and Allegiance derive their Birth and Original 7. As the word Allegiance was appropriated to express the Obligation of a Liege Vassal to his Sovereign so was it also at length enlarged to comprehend all the duties of Fidelity and Subjection which not only they who hold Lands in Fee but also every individual Subject of this Realm was bound to pay unto the King. Thus Zouch out of Duarenus The Fidelity which is due to the Sovereign is by the Feudists called Ligeance and as many as live within his Dominions are stiled Liege-men who are bound to the Sovereign not only by reason of their Estates but also in respect of their Persons and his Protection of them The reason then why all the Subjects of this Realm are called the King's Liege-men is because their persons being under his Jurisdiction and Protection they are therefore bound to pay due Fealty and Allegiance to him This universal Allegiance of all the natural Subjects of this Realm is by the Lord Coke distinguished 1. Into natural Ligeance which is so called because it is originally due by Nature and Birthright And 2. Legal Ligeance so called because the Municipal Laws of this Realm prescribe the Form and Order of it and this says he is that which the Law requires upon Oath at the Leet This Oath of Allegiance in his Institutes he says expresly is the same with Homagium Ligeum which he thus defines in Calvin's Case Quod soli Regi debetur sine servitio and opposes it to Homagium Feudale which hath it's original by Tenure And to this Sir Henry Spelman seems to agree who tells us That Liege or Sovereign Homage is due only to the King in right of Sovereignty And they both differ herein from the Feudists who define Homage to be Sponsionem fidelitatis propter Tenuram and from our ancient Lawyers who do intimate that Liege Homage was made unto private Persons also 8. The word Ligeance is yet further in our Laws and Lawyers enlarged to denote the duty not of natural Subjects only but also of Denisons and Aliens Thus we are informed likewise in Calvin's Case that besides natural Ligeance there is also Ligeantia acquisita which is due by acquisition or Denization and Ligeantia Localis and that is when an Alien who is in amity cometh into England because he is then within the King's Protection he does therefore owe a Local Allegiance to him 9. Lastly Allegiance is sometimes taken in a signification yet more general and extensive to express the mutual and reciprocal Obligation between the Liege Sovereign and his Subjects whereby the Sovereign is bound to the Protection and just Government of his Subjects and they again to pay due Fidelity and Subjection to their Sovereign And thus it is defined in general by Skene in his Book De Expositione Verborum who is herein followed by the Lord Coke and Sir Henry Spelman also It appears then in how great a Latitude the word Allegiance is taken and how variously it has been applied to express different Obligations to different Persons The various significations of it as far as I can observe may be reduced to these six First It anciently denoted the Service and Fidelity that any Vassal owed to the Lord of the Fee. Secondly It was confin'd to express the duty of a Liege Vassal to the Sovereign Lord. Thirdly It was then enlarged to comprehend the whole duty of every natural Subject to his natural Sovereign Fourthly It sometimes signifies that Oath of Fidelity which the Law requires of every Subject and is therefore call'd Legal Ligeance Fifthly It is said to express the Obligation of a Foreigner as of a Denison and of an Alien while he is in the Realm And lastly It is applied to express the reciprocal Obligations that are between a Liege Sovereign and his Subjects As for this last signification of Allegiance we have already consider'd it where we discoursed of the Prerogatives of the Sovereign Lords for here we are to consider the duty of Allegiance as it relates to Subjects only and there would be nothing more absurd than to say That when Subjects swear Allegiance to their King they do swear that he also shall discharge the Obligations of a Liege Sovereign towards them So likewise when Allegiance is applied to Aliens the very nature of the thing does shew that it must signifie only those branches of the duty of Allegiance which an Alien is bound to while he is in England viz. conformity to the Laws and an obligation not to attempt any thing against the King while he is within his Protection So also when it is applied to a Denison who is made free of the Kingdom but not entitled to all the Liberties and Priviledges of a Natural Subject it can then signifie only those duties of Allegiance which a Denison is obliged to whatsoever they are For as the Duties of Allegiance are diversified by the different qualities of Natural Subjects and a Clerk a Soldier and Artificer are not bound to the same particular acts of Allegiance so likewise the different degres of Allegiance must be determin'd by the different degrees of subjection and therefore a Natural Subject who enjoys all the Liberties and Priviledges of the Kingdom and owes the highest degree of subjection must be in reason obliged to a higher degree of Allegiance than a Denison who though he be to some intents incorporated into this Kingdom is yet the natural Subject of another Sovereign and he again is obliged to more than an Alien who is only a Subject in Transitu and enjoys nothing but Protection from Injury But we have now nothing to do with Allegiance as it is applied to Foreigners Allegiance in the Oath before us is required and imposed upon all the Natural Subjects of this Realm and therefore it must be that which is due from Natural Subjects and not such as is due from Foreigners We are bound to honour God and the King and Subordinate Magistrates our Spiritual Rulers our Parents all our Superiors and in some sense all our Inferiors Honour is due to all these but in different kinds and degrees according to the nature of the Duty as it is applied by different Persons to different Objects Now
and Subjection which is due to the Supreme Head and Governor of it Secondly As they hold their Lands in Fee of the K. and so are obliged to pay Fealty and Allegiance to him A Fee is thus defin'd by the Feudists That it is a free and benevolent Grant of a thing immoveable or something equipollent with a conveyance of the Right to all the Profits of it the Propriety being still reserved to the Lord and the Grant made upon Condition of Fidelity and the performance of honest Services So that in this Feodal Contract it being expresly provided that even the Vtile Dominium should revert unto the Lord upon breach of Fealty the Vassal was hereby obliged in point of Interest as well as Gratitude to an exact performance of it and consequently all the Subjects of England being Vassals to the K. are besides the common Duty of Subjects under the same Additional Obligations of Fidelity to him 3. From this Tenure of Lands in Fee they who held them were sometimes called Fideles and sometimes Ligii a Ligando and the Bond or Obligation they were under Fidelitas and Ligeantia and the Oaths they took to perform it Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance For anciently Ligeance was not appropriated to the Sovereign only but it denoted in general the Obligation of a Vassal to any Lord whatsoever Thus Hotoman in his Feudal Dictionary tells us That Liegeman was but another word for a Vassal and in his Disp he spends a whole Chapter to prove it Thus Du Fresne distinguishes between an absolute Ligeance due to a Supreme Lord and a Ligeance paid to an Inferior with exception of the former So also Bracton Glanvil and Fleta do speak of Ligeance as due to any Capital Lord besides the King. And Spelman in his Exposition of the word shews by several Instances That private Persons had their Liegmen also But tho' Ligeance had anciently so large a Signification yet 4. It was at length confin'd to denote only the Obligation of a Vassal to the Sovereign Lord of the Fee. Hence that Distinction in the Feudists inter Feudum ligium non ligium which is thus explain'd by Dr. Cowel in his Institution viz. That the former is properly so called when an Oath of Fidelity is taken without exception of any one and the later when it is sworn with exception of another Fealty The one is due only to the K. and the other even to common Persons In short the one was held immediately of the Crown and the other mediately under an inferior Lord and therefore it was but equitable that in the Oath of Fealty to him exception should be made of the King who was the Original Proprietor and Sovereign Lord of the Fee. 5. Two considerable Prerogatives may be observed from the Lawyers which were peculiar to the Sovereign Lord alone First That whereas the Inferiour Lord had only propter rem a right to the Fealty of his Vassal from which he might free himself by surrendring his Estate the Sovereign Lord had a Right to it propter personam also and consequently tho his Liegeman did part with his Estate yet Allegiance was still due by vertue of that inalienable Jurisdiction which the Sovereign had over his Person Secondly Whereas between an Inferior Lord and his Vassal there was such a a strict reciprocal Obligation to protection on the one part and Fidelity on the other that as the Tenant lost his Fee upon breach of Fidelity so likewise the Inferior Lord if he refused protection to his Vassal or committed any enormous Offence against him did forfeit to the Sovereign Lord all his right to the Fee. Yet as Molinaeus affirms this Penal Forseiture of Dominion extended only to Inferior Lords the Sovereign being exempted from it For tho the Liege-Sovereign was bound to protect his Liegemen yet there was no provision that he should forfeit his right to their Fealty if he did not perform his Obligations to them Indeed there can be nothing more irrational than to imagine such a Provision when Fee-Lands were Originally owing only to the Munificence of Kings and even before that new Obligation of Fealty they had an antecedent right to the Fidelity of their Subjects when the Kings Lands as the Lawyers speak were held under God alone and therefore could not be forfeitable to any when the K. himself could not be responsible for any Injury for want of a Superiour Jurisdiction and if any were done to the Subject there was no other remedy but only humble Petition that the K. would correct and amend his Fact which if he refused to do it was once thought a sufficient Punishment for him that God was to be his Avenger This I have here observ'd because the Assertors of the Republican Doctrines have maintained that Kings may forfeit their Crowns not only from the nature of that Imaginary Contract which they suppose was made at the first Origine of the Government but also from that Contract which was made between the Sovereign and his Vassals and which they suppose to be equaily on both sides Conditionate 6. Though these Feudal Laws are now in a great measure antiquated yet the Fealty by which a Vassal is bound to his Lord is still in force Sir Henry Spelman says That Fealty in England is inseparable from all Tenures and though it be now but seldom exacted yet it can by no means be releas'd without destruction of the Tenure so that the taking of the Oath seems rather to be remitted than the Obligation it self to be dissolv'd And much more does the Obligation of Fealty to the K. continue still in force-upon all the Subjects by virtue of their Tenures from him The same great Antiquary affirms That the Feudal Law was first brought into England by William the Conqueror Qui lege eâ è Normannia traductâ Angliam totam suis divisit commilitibus And this universal distribution of the English Lands among his Soldiers and Institution of Fee service is attested by Mat. Paris and by Mr. Cambden also And hence it is that all the Lands of England being originally derived from the Crown are still held of the King in nature of a Fee which implies Fealty to him And this is a true and easie account of those Assertions of the Lawyers That the King is the Sovereign Lord or Lord Paramount either mediate or immeate of every parcel of Land within the Realm and that the Subjects have not a direct and plenary Dominion but only a Fiduciary and conditionate property in their Estates which are still forfeitable by the common Law and upon breach of Fealty do revert to the Original Donor Which Law according to the nature of the Crime does also vary the forfeiture as in case of Felony the K. hath a Year a Day and the Wast after which it passeth down to the
ever exacted of all the Subjects of this Realm to the Kings thereof which as it is the most demonstrative proof that the Sovereign Power was always acknowledged to be theirs Allegiance being an Essential Right of Sovereignty and never so much as pretended to by any others so it is also evident from the very Forms of those Oaths which have been different in Words but the same in Substance that the Subjects were always bound to an active unconditionate and unreserved Fidelity to their Princes There is this Statute among the Laws of Edward the Confessor That all the People of this Kingdom should once a Year bind themselves together by an inviolable Oath and combine as sworn Brethren to defend the Kingdom together with their Lord the King against all Foreigners and Enemies and with him to preserve his Lands and Honours with all Fidelity and that they will be faithful to him as their Lord the King bâ—th within and without the Kingdom of Britain To the same effect tho somewhat different in the Expression was the Statute made by William the Conqueror That all the Freeman of this Kingdom should affirm upon their Faith and Oath that within the whole Kingdom and without they will be faithful to their Sovereign Lord K. William and every where preserve his Lands and Honours with all Fidelity and with him defend them against all his Enemies To this succeeded that which the Lord Coke calls Legal Ligeance or the Common-Law Oath of Allegiance which he cites out of Britton who wrote Anno 5. Ed. 1. which all the Subjects were obliged to take at Twelve Years of Age at the Sheriffs Court or the Leete and without the taking of which they had no warrant to abide in the Kingdom and the Form of it was to this Effect You shall swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and Truth and Faith shall bear of Life and Member and terrene Honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or Damage which you shall not defend that is oppose to the utmost of your Power Coke informs us that Five things were observed by all the Judges upon this Oath First That for the time of its Obligation it is indefinite and without limit Secondly Two excellent qualities were required that is to be true and faithful Thirdly To whom to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs Fourthly In what manner and Faith and Troth shall bear of Life and Member that is until the letting out of the last drop of our dearest Heart-blood Fifthly Where and in what place In all places whatsoever For you shall neither know nor hear of any ill which you shall not defend Such is the Ligeance which the Law has prescribed in that ancient Oath which is still in force It is neither circumscribed by time nor place it is unconditionate and unreserved it is not a lazy Passive Allegiance requiring nothing but pure Submission but an active and vigorous Loyalty exacting all that is in the Sphere of Moral Possibility and engaging us to spend our dearest Blood in the defence of our Sovereign's Person and the preservation of his Crown and Dignity to him For it is to be observed that by the Law all this Allegiance is due to the King's Person So the Lord Coke says it was then resolved by all the Judges That Ligeance was due to the natural Person of the King which is ever accompanied with the Politick Capacity and the Politick Capacity as it were appropriated to the Natural Capacity and not due to the Politick Capacity only And he adds that when the Spencers in the Reign of Ed. 2. invented this damnable Opinion That Homage and Oath of Ligeance was more by reason of the King's Crown that is of his Politick Capacity than by reason of the Person of the King this with the Consequences they deduced from it was condemned by two Parliaments as execrable and detestable Doctrines one in the Reign of Ed. 2. and the other Anno 1 o. Ed. 3. c. 1. And what was then resolved Judge Jenkins out of Plowden affirms was resolved by all the Judges 1 Eliz. as the Law of England viz. That the Body Politick and the natural Body make one Body and not diverse and are inseparable and indivisible And hence the same Learned Judge thought he had reason to infer That the natural Person of King Charles the First being at Holmby though under Custody and de facto divested of his Regal Power yet his Politick capaciâ—â— was there also because both did make but one indivisible Body And hence it was that King Charles himself required all his Subjects to take notice of the Law that Allegiance is due to the natural Person of their Prince and not to his Crown or Kingdom distinct from his natural Capacity and that by the Oath of Ligeance at the Common Law they were bound to be faithful not to the King only as King but to our Person as King Charles Therefore I conclude this Observation with that Assertion of the same Judge Jenkins That Ligeance is due to the Natural Body and is due by Nature God's Law and Man's Law cannot be so feited nor renounced by any means it is inseparable from the Person To return then to the Oaths of Ligeance prescribed by the Law it is further to be observed that tho the Common-Law Oath was never yet abolished yet it has been almost totally supplanted by that larger Oath of Allegiance which was enacted Anno 3 o. of King James the First and which many of us have taken to K. J. the Second And though this Oath upon the discovery of the Powder Plot was particularly framed and design'd to secure the King against the Treasons of the Papists yet as K. James himself does affirm in his Apology that it exacts no more than what the ancient Oaths of Allegiance did require so it is certain it exacts no less For it is not to be imagin'd either that true Faith and Allegiance in that Oath should be design'd to signifie less than they always did before or that a less Security was requir'd when a greater was intended But to prevent all Subterfuge even the express Words of the Oath do manifestly oblige to the highest Duties of Ligeance that can be I will bear true Faith and Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignity What kind of Assistance is here meant by the Word Defend may be understood from the Authors who expound the Jus 〈◊〉 such as Magerus de 〈◊〉 armatâ who treating of the Protection given by Sovereign Princes saith That verbum protegere necessitatem Desendendi cum armis importat and tells us That Subjects
all men would act with the same plainness and sincerity if they would be true to their own sense and apprehensions aud not disguise them with Artifice and Subtilty there would possibly have been no need of the present Enquiry nor of proving that Faith and Allegiance are not capable of contradictory senses that they signifie the same Duties now which always they have done that when they are sworn to one Sovereign they are incommuninicable at the same time to any other that we must not bind our selves to contradictory Obligations and cannot possibly be faithful to K. W. against all his Enemies and to K. J. against all his Enemies also And now I hope it appears That the Words Faith and true Allegiance in the Oath do not signifie meer Submission and Obedience only but also faithful Service and actual Assistance of our Sovereign against all his Enemies True it is that the Oaths of Allegiance are in the Law sometimes called Oaths of Obedience But Obedience then does import the whole Duty of a Subject to his Sovereign and not precisely a peaceable conformity to the Laws abstracting from all the other Duties of a Subject And this I think may be proved from these Reasons First Because Obedience in its utmost Latitude does comprehend the Duties of Fidelity and Assistance also For every act of Duty is an act of Obedience and therefore if actual assistance be a Duty to discharge it is Obedience Secondly The same Oath is more often called the Oath of Fidelity and the Oath of Allegiance And therefore if Fidelity and Allegiance do as I have shewn imply more than peaceable submission and conformity to the Laws it will not follow that it does not imply so much because the same Oath is sometimes expressed by another word Thirdly Peaceable Submission and Obedience to the Laws do amount to no more than such a Local Allegiance as is due from Aliens and I am pretty certain that the Laws require something more of natural English Subjects by virtue of their Allegiance than they do from Germans and Italians while they are in the Kingdom This confounding of Allegiance and precise Obedience to the lawful Commands of a Sovereign de facto is a very common and obvious Mistake Thus the Author of the Pastoral Letter brings this Argument to prove the lawfulness of taking this Oath in Question If it is lawful to obey the King it is lawful to promise to do it and if so it also is lawful to swear it therefore it is lawful to take the Oath of Allegiance Which is just such an Argument as this If it be lawful to bow before the King it is lawful to pay Divine Adoration to him and if so it is also lawful to swear that I will pay Divine Worship to him For as Religious Worship implies a great deal more than Civil so does Allegiance contain more than precise Obedience I may lawfully obey a Highway-man and I may lawfully swear it but I suppose it will not follow thence that I may lawfully swear to be faithful and bear true Allegiance to him It was lawful to swear Obedience to Cromwel in all lawful things but I think there were few even in that Age of Usurpations that were so hardy as to assert the lawfulness of swearing Allegiance to that Unnatural Usurper Dr. Sanderson proves that it may be our duty to obey the Laws of an Usurper not out of any regard to his Authority which he says is none at all but upon other considerations yet he is absolutely against swearing Allegiance to Usurpers Both he and all the Conscientious Divines of that Age could easily distinguish Allegiance from Obeying and so may any one that is not absolutely resolved against it The Pastoral Author adds indeed That Allegiance in our present acceptation is Obedience according to Law Which is true if Obedience be taken in its utmost latitude but then it will include an Obligation to assist K. W. against all his Enemies and in this sense they who refuse the Oath will I presume refuse also to obey him It has been objected further That whereas the actual Assistance of the King against all Attempts whatsoever was inserted either expresly or in words equivalent in all the former Oaths of Allegiance but in the present Oath it is wholly omitted and therefore it may reasonably be presum'd That where less is expressed less is required and that if the Imposers had intended such actual Assistance they would probably in plain words have required it What the Reasons were of making this and other Alterations in the new Oath of Allegiance as I have no means of knowing so neither is it of any moment to enquire To the Objection proposed it will suffice to answer That the Duty of actual Assistance against all men living is sufficiently expressed in it For in the Oath we are required to swear true Allegiance and that does vi termini import such an Obligation and as no particular Duties of Allegiance are expressed in the Oath so neither are any excepted and therefore we are obliged to all the Duties of it and what those are may be understood from the Laws and the common acceptation of the Word it self which as I have shewn has always signified an adherence to the Liege Lord against all men living And if the bare omission of particularizing this Duty is an argument that it was not intended then was no particular Duty intended for there is none expressed and so the result will be that when we swear Allegiance we take God's Name in vain and swear to nothing at all And this is the Answer which the Feudists have long since given to the Objection Cujacius says That the Clause of defending the Life and Dignity of the Lord and if there be any thing else which is wont to be expressed in such Oaths it seems to be contained in the general Promise of Fidelity Molinaeus tells us That a certain Form is not required but it may suffice to swear in general words as for instance I swear the Fealty of a Vassal or I do Homage under an Oath of Fealty neither is it necessary particularly to express the Heads of Fidelity for that is well enough understood by a tacit reference to those Duties which are required by the Feudal Law and Custom And he adds it may be also answered That Particular Duties are not therefore expressed in those Oaths because it is absolutely necessary but only for the clearer understanding of them But there is one Objection more which must be considered viz. That this is an Oath imposed upon Clergy-men as well as others and that since the Laws have ever exempted them from Military Services it is certain their Allegiance doth not bind them to it and therefore the Allegiance required in the Oath is not such as I have hitherto asserted because it does not universally bind the Subjects to an Active Military assistance of the Sovereign against all