Support of Authority it being sufficiently evident from the Reason of the thing For First every Subject receives Security and Protection from the King and therefore ought to protect his legal Protector For as all Persons receive the common Benefits of Government so they ought to joyn in a common Defence of it Secondly all Persons are born equally Subjects from whence it follows That the essential Duties of Subjection of which Defence of the King is one chief Branch must necessarily extend to them all Thirdly all Persons are obliged to venture their Lives for the publick Safety and to appear against the Enemies of their Country But the direction of this Affair belongs solely to his Management who is vested with the Power of the Sword and has the Prerogative of making Peace and War Those whom he declares the publick Enemies are to be accounted such and no others To him only it belongs to judge of the bigness of the Danger to proportion the Preparation for War to appoint the time and place for Battel By vertue of which Privilege all his Subjects are bound to comply with his Appointment and to bring their Persons into the Field upon demand If we look into the Laws of our own Country we shall find them clear and decisive against the Doctor In the famous Case of the Post nati argued before the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber 4 Iac. 1. all the Judges agreed that Allegiance extends as far as Defence which is beyond the Circuit of the Laws That is the Subjects are bound to defend the King in what place soever he resides whether in his Dominions or elsewhere For as these Reverend Judges go on Every King may command every People to defend any of his Kingdoms this i. e. Defence being a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects Now if the Defence of the King's Person and Kingdoms is a thing incident to the Allegiance of all his Subjects or necessarily implied in the Notion of Subjection then every Man is obliged to be a Soldier whenever his Prince shall think fit to employ him in that manner This is no more than the Resolution of all the Judges in Calvin's Case who declare That every Subject is by his natural Ligeance bound to obey and serve his Sovereign And since this Obligation of the Subject is thus general and comprehensive it must certainly hold in Cases of greatest Necessity and Importance The Duty of an English Subject is more particularly described in the old Oath of Ligeance mentioned by Britton which as Sir Edward Coke adds is yet commonly in use to this day in every Leet and in our Books The Tenour of it runs thus 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 c. This Oath as Sir Edward Coke observes elsewhere is to be taken of all above twelve Years of Age. The Oath of Allegiance made 3 Iac. 1. c. 4. takes in the same Compass of Duty For there the Subject swears To bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs c and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever This if it were duly performed were enough in all Conscience and as much as can be expected from any Soldier unless the being listed obliges a Man to Impossibilities Now this Oath every Person of the Age of Eighteen years is bound to take if required by Authority Lastly That the extent of Allegiance reaches to the assisting the King in the Feild we may learn from 11 H. 7. c. 1. where we are told that The King calling to mind the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects that by reason of the same they are bound to serve their Prince in his Wars against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him c. This Statute we may observe does not found the Subjects Duty of asserting their Prince in his Wars upon their Military Oath and Possession but upon their Allegiance and therefore since all Subjects owe a Natural Allegiance to their King they ought to defend him in the Feild when and where he shall command their Service And thus if the Judges and Laws may be allowed to determine the Case the Doctors fine speculations about Non-assistance must come to nothing His distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance into the Natural Duty of Subjects and an Obligation superinduced by Law is both ill founded and misapplyed First This distinction has no Foundation either in Reason or Law Our Oath of Allegiance does not extend our Obedience as Bishop Sanderson well observes and make us more Subjects than we were before It only gives a new Security by the Solemnity of the Action for the performance of that to which we were antecedently obliged The Oath finds us Subjects otherwise we might refuse it it does not make us such And therefore those who have not Sworn such an Allegiance are bound to all the Duties of Subjection contained in it This Sworn Obedience is enjoyned by Authority only as a Recognition of our Natural Duty to which it adds nothing but the Enforcement of a Religious Circumstance Which is agreeable to the Judges Resolution in the forementioned Case of the Post nati That Allegiance was before Laws And in Calvin's Case it 's averred That a True and Faithful Ligeance and Obedience which is all we are sworn to is an incident inseparable to every Subject as soon as he is Born Secondly As the Doctors distinction is Chimerical so the Application of it is Mistaken and Unreasonable He says Natural Allegiance is due only to him who has the actual Administration of the Government Natural Allegiance under Favour can be due to none but him who is our our Natural Prince no more than Filial Obedience can be challenged by any excepting our Natural Parents But Possession abstracted from Right does not make any Man our Natural Prince no not in the Doctor 's Opinion For he elsewhere tells us That the Kings of Egypt and Babylon never had a Legal and Natural Right to govern Israel By which Words it's plain he makes a Legal and Natural Right to be the same But bare Possession does not give a legal Right and by consequence not a Natural one Thirdly Natural Allegiance is due to him who is King by the Laws of Nature but he who can prove his Title by nothing but the Administration of Government is no King by the Laws of Nature For Nature i. e. right Reason does not found Dominion in Power nor gives any Countenance to Injustice And if an Usurper has no Prerogatives of Royalty from the Laws of Nature then Natural Allegiance cannot be challenged upon this Score For a Principle which gives a Man no Right to govern can't lay an Obligation
their own we have Liberty to come in at the Evening and sup with them and may wipe our mouths after all with the same good Conscience the Woman did in the Proverbs But truly I think those who won't venture to ride the Chace ought not to be admitted to the eating of the Venison However if we examine the matter critically it 's hard to tell which sort of Revolters the early or the later ought to be preferred They have each of them their peculiar Excellencies The one has more Courage the other more Caution and both the same Staunchness of Principles Ambition is predominant in the first Fear and Covetousness in the latter who is such a flexible apprehensive Creature that whoever can command his Interest may likewise command his Actions and fright him out or into any thing at their Pleasure I observe 2. That this Construction of the Doctor 's determines against K. Charles II. as fully as is possible For he was driven into Banishment before he could gain his Right And the Rump and Cromwel mounted the Seat of Government And the King his Father dyed dispossessed of the Crown So that by the Doctor 's Reasoning the People were not only disingaged from the Successionary part of the Oath but were bound to stand by the Commonwealth and oppose the Restauration If any one questions K. Charles I. his being dispossessed at his Death he may please to consider That this Prince was not only Defeated in the Field and made Prisoner by his Rebellious Subjects But there was a High Court of Justice erected to try him for Treason The Supream Power and Authority was declared to be in the Commons of England And Monday 29. Ian. 1648. the Day before his Majesties Martyrdom The Commons in the Name of the present Parliament enact That in all Courts of Law Justice c. And in all Writs Grants c. instead of the Name Style Test or Title of the King heretofore used that from thenceforth the Name Style c. of Custodes Libertatis Angliae shall be used and no other In short the King's Name was enacted to be struck out in all judicial Proceedings in the date of the Year of our Lord in Juries in Fines in Indictments for Trespass and Treason From these unquestionable Matters of Fact it 's manifest beyond contradiction That the King had not so much as the Shadow of Authority left him but was perfectly out of Possession before he lost his Life I shall draw one Advantage more from this Citation and so dismiss it The Inference is this That Treason lies against the King though out of Possession For the Regecides who were not comprehended in the Act of Indemnity were excepted for Sentencing to Death or Signing the Instrument of the horrid Murther or being Instrumental in taking away the Life of King Chales I. For this Reason They are left to be proceeded against as Traytors to his late Majesty according to the Laws of England If the Doctor desires another Instance that Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession he may receive Satisfaction from the first 12 Years Reign of King Charles the Second For in this Act of Indemnity it 's said That by occasion of great Wars and Troubles that have for many Years past been in this Kingdom divers of his Majesties Subjects are fallen into and be obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties And to the intent that no Crime committed against his Majesty or Royal Father shall hereafter rise in Judgment or be brought in Question against any of them to the least Endamagement of them either in Lives Liberties or Estates his Majesty is pleased that it may be Enacted That all Treasons Misprisions of Treasons acted or done since the 1. Ian. 1637. to the 24. of Iune 1660. shall be Pardoned Released c. From this Act we may observe 1. That though the King was newly restored at the making of this Act it 's said notwithstanding Divers of his Subjects not his Fathers had for many Years past been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties c. which is a plain Argument that as his Reign was dated from the Death of K. Ch. I. so they looked upon the People of England as his Subjects from that time and that his Authority to punish was entire during his Dispossession otherwise they could not have been obnoxious to great Pains and Penalties for acting against him 2. The King pardoned all Crimes committed against Himself Which would have risen up in Judgment and Endamaged his Subjects in their Lives Liberties or Estates Some of which Crimes as they can amount to no less than Treason so they must relate to the time of the Usurpation because the King was but very lately entered upon the actual Administration of the Government Neither do we read of any Treasons committed against the King from the 29 th of May to the 24 th of Iune which was the utmost term to which the Pardon extended 3. All Treasons Misprision of Treason c. excepting those excepted are Pardoned from Ianuary 1. 1637. to Iune 24. 1660. Now if Treason did not lye against a King though out of Possession this Pardon should have reached no farther then 1648. because then K. Charles I. was Murthered and his then Majesty deprived of his Kingdoms till the Year 1660. The General Pardon I say ought to have stopped at 1648. unless we can imagine the King intended to rank those among Traytors who appeared for his own Interest and to pardon the Treasons committed against Cromwel and the Rump which is a Supposition sufficiently Romantick especially if we observe That the pretended Indictments of High Treason against any of the usurped Powers are considered by themselves in the next Chapter and pronounced null and void And the Styles of the Usurpation Keepers of the Liberties of England Protectors c. notwithstanding their plenary Possession are declared to be most Rebellious Wicked Trayterous and Abominable and Detested by this present Parliament And why all these hard Words Because these Names of Authority when misplaced Were opposite in the highest Degree to his Majesties most just and undoubted Right That the Doctor may not complain for want of Evidence in this Matter I shall cite him a Proclamation of both Houses for Proclaiming King Charles the Second Dated May 8. 1660. It begins thus Although it can be no way doubted but that his Majesties Right and Title to his Crowns and Kingdoms is and was every way COMPLEATED by the Death of his most Royal Father c. without the Ceremony or Solemnity of a Proclamation Yet since the Armed Violence of these many Years last past has hitherto deprived us of any such Opportunity wherein we might express our Loyalty and Allegiance to his Majesty We therefore c. Now if the King 's Right was every way Compleated at his Fathers Death and the Allegiance of the Subject was due to him before his Restauration than
Irregularities committed by the Subjects towards each other which remains uncensured and unrectified by the Courts of Justice and therefore why should not Providence interpose by way of Supplement and determine private Property by Events as well as the Dominions of Princes Subjects by their Immoralities and Mismanagement deserve oftentimes to be chastized and dispossessed of their Fortunes Why therefore should there not be a Court of Events set up to assert the Soveraignty of Providence and to supply the defects of Human Justice in one Case as well as in the other But Providence has no Effect upon such Personal Rights Is it because they are Personal Then it can have no Effect upon the Crown for that surely belongs to the King's Person The Dr. cannot deny that God is supreme Lord of private Estates as well as of Kingdoms and that He disposes them according to his pleasure And since He orders all Events which are for the Good or Evil of private Persons it follows by inevitable consequence that whatever any man can catch is God Almighty's Gift and then surely there is no reason to question the Title God in erecting Courts of Judicature did not intend to make the Subjects any more than the Prince independent of his own Jurisdiction or to exclude Himself from any part of the Government of the World And therefore if all publick Changes and Revolutions of Kingdoms are certain Signs of God's Approbation and fortified with his Authority we ought to conclude the same with respect to inferiour Concerns If the Successes of Violence always draws Allegiance after them and translates the Authority from the Rightful Prince to the Usurper I see no reason why they should not have the same consequence upon private Property for that Cause which can produce a greater Effect may no doubt produce a less of the same kind If Providential Events can unsettle the Crowns of Princes 't is strange they should not have an equal Jurisdiction over things of an inferiour value If this Principle is sufficient to overturn the Fundamental Laws of a Kingdom and to transferr the Prerogatives and Royalties of Government I wonder how any petty private Rights can stand before it Have private Rights a firmer Establishment than the publick And is the Property of Crowns more precarious and slenderly guarded than that of a Cottage If Events can give an Island or a Continent to every Victorious Usurper why should a more modest Robber who makes himself Master of a small Sum of Money be denied the same Privilege of his Industry or Courage This is great Partiality and by the Dr's Reasoning a Confining Providence with a witness and fettering it with Courts of Human Justice So that God can't dispose of the Property of the Subject unless the Judges and Jury are pleased to consent to it The truth is the Dr. has made the Condition of Princes very lamentable As for Subjects when they are injured by Theft or Intrusion their Property remains entire and they have the Remedy of Law to relieve them But Princes must not pretend to these Securities when they are once disseized though never so unaccountably their Authority is out of doors and they must sit down by their Misfortune without Redress They are to Govern only durante bene placito no longer than the Sence and Conscience of the People will give them leave two Qualities which seldom fall to the share of the majority And which is an harder Consideration than all the rest it 's their Honourable Relation to God Almighty which puts them into these circumstances of disadvantage Had they not had a Commission from Him their Right had been fenced as well as those of other Men but their being His Ministers to Rule the World has cut them off from the common Privilege This must needs be a mortifying Consideration to Princes and make their Charge a very dangerous Undertaking Who that could live any other way would wear a Crown at this rate Who would change the Title of Private Property and throw himself out of the protection of the Law for such a glittering Uncertainty Who would quit a certain and solid Interest and expose himself to all the Humours and Accidents the Wickedness and Extravagance of Human Nature is capable of producing 'T is certainly much more eligible to have the Security of stated Justice than to stand to the Courtesie of Events and lye at the Mercy of Ambition and the Madness of People But Such Disputes which are too big for a Legal Decision for the decision of which God has erected no Vniversal Tribunal upon Earth He has reserved to his own Iudgment What sort of Dispute does the Dr. mean and between whom does it lye Is it between the Lawful Prince and the Usurper If so the very Names of the Parties are sufficient to end the Controversie For certainly there is no need of disputing whether Right is Right or Wrong is Wrong The Dr. I fear to perplex the Argument seems to perplex the Title and disputes as if it was equally doubtful on both sides and then I confess Events i. e. Possession might determine it But this cannot be supposed without altering the state of the Question For the Dr. has put the Case at the worst and reasoned upon the Supposition of Vsurpation and owns That his Principles oblige him to do so And would our Author have a Vniversal Tribunal erected to overthrow Universal Justice to dispossess and exterminate Lawful Princes and determine the Cause in Favour of Violence Well! Possibly the Dr. means this Dispute is between God and the Lawful Prince 'T is for the Correction of Princes and the Transferring of Kingdoms Touching the transferring of Kingdoms there are several ways as I have already observed of maintaining the Divine Soveraignty in this point without making any Difficulties in Providence and sapping the Foundations of Common Right And as for the Correcting of Princes God does not stand in need of Injustice and Rebellion for this purpose He can execute this Discipline without the necessary Wickedness of the Subject He can afflict Princes in their Families and in their Persons He may likewise suffer them to be over-run by Violence without giving any Approbation or Authority to the Oppression As he suffers the Devil to do a great deal of Mischief though He neither gives him a Commission nor ratifies his Acts. Besides there will be an Vniversal Tribunal erected at the last day where Princes must appear as well as meaner persons and where mighty Men if they have done amiss will be mightily tormented Thus we see Kingdoms may be transferred Princes punished and God's Prerogative asserted without returning to the Doctrine of Events These Expedients are plain and lye easie upon the Understanding and answer all the Difficulties objected by the Dr. without running us upon greater Thus Kings who are only less than God are left to his Sentence and Correction Whereas the Dr's Scheme puts them in the Power