Fundamentals of this Government he may not have forfeited it And Fourthly Whether he may not have done it by actually subjecting part of it to a foreign Power and both it and himself to Papal and French Power Again on the part of King William he must know Whether he had not a just cause of War and if he had Whether that do not create a right to the thing gained by it Whether King James by disbanding his Army and withdrawing his Person did not virtually yield him the Throne And must not the Decision of these things if it be necessary to be made by every Soul in order to the paying that Obedience to the Higher Powers he stands obliged to yield them for Conscience sake cast many honest Souls into great Mazes and under insuperable difficulties And must it not then be very reasonable to conceive that God hath given them some way more easie And fitted to their mean capacities for satisfaction in this case and what can that more likely be than this of yielding actual Obedience to him whom they find in actual Possession of the Government whilst they enjoy the benefit of his Protection and of his Government Thirdly God saith the Apostle hath called us to Peace n. 7. 1 Cor. vii 15. i. e. to peace even with Pagans and to a peaceful Deportment in our conjugal and oeconomical Relations for unto that he in that Paragraph seems more immediately to referr 1 Pet. ij 12. And the Apostle requires the Christian to yield Subjection to the present Powers that by this good Behaviour their Adversaries might be convinced of the peaceable Deportment of Christians and how free their Religion was from causing any disturbance to the Government Now if Christianity did indeed enjoin them to yield this peaceable Subjection to the Powers then reigning and having full Possession of the Government without a scrupulous enquiry into the justness of their Titles they must be then obliged to live peaceably under all Governments and give disturbance unto none but if it did enjoin them first exactly to enquire and satisfie themselves of the validity of every Princes Title and refuse Subjection as ost as they found reason to dispute the Justice of it it might then often happen that all of them might be obliged to disturb the Government and the Jewish Converts at that very time who scrupled the Title of any Heathen Ruler over them might lie under continual Temptations to Disobedience and Tumults Again even in our present Case if we can bring our selves to this perswasion That Allegiance is due to a King in Possession for the time being we may not only pray for all that are in Authority 1 Tim. ij 2. that under them we may live peaceable and quiet Lives in all holy Conversation and Godliness but we shall actually do so But if after the Wisdom of the Nation in the most solemn Assembly hath conferred the Government on such a Person and given him the Title of our Sovereign Lord the King and put him in full Possession of the Crown every private person may still not only Question whether they ought to own him as such but even deny him their Allegiance and maintain that by an immutable Law of Nature they stand bound to give it to another it is in vain to pray we may live peaceable and quiet lives under his Government to hope for any Settlement of such a Government or any peaceable subsistence of it since we conceive our selves indispensably obliged to promote and to abett all struglings to disturb and overturn it But against this Discourse it may be urged n. 8. Obj. That Allegiance is a Duty we owe unto a lawful Sovereign not only by virtue of our Oath which is stiled legal Obedience but by virtue of the Law of Nature Now though our legal Obedience may cease as being that which only is imposed on us by Law and so may be removed by such a Law as rendereth it impracticable or transferrs it to another yet our natural Allegiance must be immutable because the Obligations of the Law of Nature are so To strengthen this Objection let it be considered out of the famous Judgment given in Calvin's Case First P. 440. That our Ligeance is due to our natural Leige Sovereign descended of the blood Royal of the Kings of this Realm Secondly Ibid. That by the Law of Nature is the Faith Ligeance and Obedience of the Subject due to his Sovereign or Superiour because Magistracy is of Nature for whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preservation of the Society of Man is due by the Law of Nature but so is Magistracy Seeing as Tully saith Sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest Without Government no House City Nation nor the whole Race of Mankind could stand Thirdly Ibid. That seeing Faith Obedience and Ligeance are due by the Law of Nature it followeth that the same cannot be changed or taken away Fourthly P. 441. That when a Man is out of the Kings legal Protection as a Man Out-law'd a Man attainted with a Premunire he is not out of his natural Protection but notwithstanding any Statute the King may protect and pardon him And so in like manner it seems reasonable to distinguish betwixt legal and natural Obedience or Allegiance and to affirm That by these Statutes and Judgments we seem to be absolved indeed from our legal but cannot by them be absolved from our natural Allegiance I think I have made the Objection as strong as the most scrupulous person would propound it and if I can really tender a clear and satisfactory Answer to it I hope my foregoing Argument will hold good even in the judgment of the most impartial I therefore Answer n. 9. Repl. 1. That what is granted seems to yield Advantage enough to us viz. That legal Allegiance may cease to be due to a King de jure and may be due to a King de facto though natural Allegiance cannot this last is due Antecedently to all Laws Promises and Oaths whereas legal Allegiance is that which we by Law do swear and promise Natural Allegiance is due to our natural Liege Lord descended of the Royal Blood of the Kings of this Realm Legal is that which the Laws exact to the King for the time being though he should not be thus our natural Lord. Natural Allegiance is due because he to whom I owe it is rightful King. Legal because he is King Regnant and actually affords me that protection which calls for Subjection This is undoubtedly mutable the other is esteem'd immutable Well then supposing but not granting what this Objection doth suppose That King William were King only de facto no natural Allegiance can be due to him but only legal and mutable that therefore only is required by the Law imposing this Oath and that
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
Kingdom of Judah six years Joash was the true King and so the Power ordained of God. 1. This Assertion meddles not with the Right to Answ but only with the Exercise of the Supreme Authority Now it is plain to Common sence and experience that a King out of Possession whilst he so continues cannot do any thing belonging to the Higher Power to do nor is he such an Higher Power as St. Paul represents for he doth not actually bear the Sword of Justice he doth not watch continually for that very thing he makes no Judges or Justices of Peace there are none Commissionated by him for the punishment of evil-doers or for the praise of them that do well He cannot be a terror unto evil works or a Rewarder of the good done in that Kingdom in which he hath lost all Power So that if it be necessary that we should always have a King under whom Justice should be executed and the Laws be maintained and he that is out of Possession for the time being cannot be that King it plainly seems to follow that for the said time he cannto be the Minister of God to us for Good intended by St. Paul. Again it is as plain that the King in quiet possession for the time being actually doth or may perform all these particulars and so in reference to them all may be the Minister of God to us for Good And why then may he not be deem'd the Ordinance of God for the time being Or why may not those Laws which make him the Supreme Power and the Executor of these Offices for the time being be also said to render him the Ordinance of God for the time being The Instances produced from the Old Testament have nothing in them parallel to our case Answ 2 or opponte to our Hypothesis as will be evident if we consider that the Possession pleaded for as being that which creates a Right to our Allegiance for the time being and renders any Prince the Ordinance of God for the said time is 1. Full and quiet Possession of Kingly Government without the Contest of any opposite prince in the said Nation for he who is not King can never be our Sovereign Lord the King. 2dly Possession given and received by the usual method viz. The Consent of all the Representatives of the People Governed and the Coronation of the Person Governing with the usual engagements to the Governed Which Coronation how unnecessary soever it may be to a Prince who hath an Hereditary Title to the Crown must necessarily be needful to make a King who is not so by Birth-right our Sovereign Lord the King for the time being For want of these two things though Oliver had engrossed the whole Government yet was he still a meer Vsurper and no legal Governor and therefore no Allegiance could by our Laws be due unto him he being no King much less a King chosen by the House of Lords and Crowned in the usual manner And by the enjoyment of these things it was that King Stephen John and the three Henrys though deficient in Title by Birth-right were notwithstanding in their respective times our Kings and so the Odinance of God for the said time This being premised the impertinency of all the instances produced will easily appear For 1. As for Absalom he never had any qiet possession of the Kingdom nor did ever David flee out of the Land for when the Battel was fought he was in Mahanaim a City of Refuge and a Sacerdotal City He had with him an Army of his own Subjects able to cope with Absalom besides those who in reality were for David though they pretended to follow Absalom 2dly Sheba was never Anointed or placed on the Throne he never had Possession or any deliberate Consent of the ten Tribes for he was presently pursued 2 Sam. xx 14. not only by the Men of Judah but of Israel also 3dly That Athaliah ever ruled by the consent and approbation of the People of Judah is not evident from the Sacred Records perhaps she did it only by meer force and violence 2 Chr. xxij 9. xxiij 3. because the house of Ahaziah had no power to keep still the Kingdom or because they knew of noen of the Seed-Royal that survived Moreover in all these instances there was an express Law or Declaration of the Will of God against all these pretenders For Absalom and Sheba rebelled against that David whom the Lord had expresly chosen to seed Jacob his Chosen Ps lxxviij 71. and Israel his Inheritance Athaliah was excluded by that Declaration Promise Oath of God whereby he had engaged that David's Kingdom should be established for ever Ps lxxxix 33 34 35. 2 Sam. vij 16. and that there should not want a man to sit upon his Throne Whence having found a Son of Ahaziah the Priests and People with one voice cry out The King's Son shall Reign 2 Chr. xxiij 3 as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David Now though 't is granted that no man can be God's Ordinance against his own immediate and express Appointment of another individual person so to be this hinders not but where there is a Law to make it so where the same ways are used which convey a good Title and where the exercise of the Government is conveyed by them whom God hath intrusted with the designation of the Individual Governor that Governor may exercise the Supreme Power for the time being even when the Right is in another or may at least be deemed God's Ordinance in so doing For whereas it is said that Civil Magistracy is by the Law of Nature Obj. but he that is only King de facto and so is King in prejudice to and violation of anothers Right cannot be a Magistrate by the Law of Nature but against it and so his exercise of that Authority is contrary to the Law of Nature I Answer Repl. that Magistracy is only by the Law of Nature because some government is so not because this Individual Governor is so If therefore Government may equally proceed under a King de facto as de jure they may be equally by the Law of Nature because those Acts of Government viz. the punishing Offenders the protecting of the Innocent and whatsoever else is of the Law of Nature because essential to Government which is so may equally be performed by both For a Conclusion of this Answer and this Section with it it may deserve to be considered That in these and all other cases of such Popular Elections and Revolts left on Record in the Old Testament we find not any person punished afterwards as Rebels for siding with the opposite Party against their Rightful King None that followed Adonijah and proclaimed him King none of the ten Tribes who Anointed Absalom or followed after Sheba none who submitted to Athaliah To which add a like Observation out of Daniel's History In the Life of Hen. 3. p.