A Letter to a Bishop concerning the Present Settlement and the New Oaths My Lord I Have consider'd the Matter you mentioned to me with all the care and attention that my other necessary Affairs would allow and I account it indeed as your Lordship does a great unhappiness that any Protestants are dissatisfied with our present Settlement but especially that some of those Bishops are of this number who were so lately made Confestors for the Protestant Religion It is not without great Injustice that some of those Gentlemen who have put Pen to Paper in defence of the New Oathes take the liberty of charging these Bishops as if their present dissatisfactions did spring from Pride Interest Humor Obstinacy or a Fear of having their Wings clipt in this New Settlement I am confident that they which charge any of these things upon those Venerable and Excellent Men do not know Them and they Write as if they had never heard any thing of Them before this unhappy Rupture Undoubtedly They who would go to Jayl and were ready to be ruin'd in their Estates and to sacrifice themselves for the two best things in the world che Church of England and the Laws of the Land do deserve no such Character I am perswaded that what their Lordships and many others with them do in this respect proceeds purely from Conscience and that if Themselves were so happy or others for them to satisfie their Consciences about the Present Settlement and the New Oathes They would as heartily comply with the Present Settlement and act in it as any other of their Majesties Subjects But tho my Lord this is my judgement concerning their Dissatisfactions that they proceed from Conscience yet I am perswaded that there are Misapprehensions and Mistakes which if rectifi'd would make an alteration in their Opinions that too great stress is laid upon some things that do not deserve it and too little upon others that are of much greater moment I say this with Reverence of them that are so much my Superiors not taking upon me to Judge what the Reasons of their Dissatisfaction may be But for those of mine own rank whom I am more conversant with I may pretend to know most of their Reasons and as far as I can recollect all their Doubts and Dissatisfactions may be reduced into a very narrow Compass Your Lordship requir'd me to contract my thoughts into as small a Discourse as I could I will not forget your Lordship's Command I think that all may be reduced to these two Points One is The Scruple concerning the Oathes of Allegiance and Supremacy taken to King James the Second And the Other about the New Oathes to their Present Majesties requir'd of all persons who sit in Parliament or are in any Office Civil or Military or in Ecclesiastical Preferments Now if I could prove that the Oaths to King James have ceased to oblige us and that the New Oaths to King William and Queen Mary may be lawfully taken I presume that this will be allow'd sufficient to remove the scruples and will give satisfaction to such as will do me the right not to carp at or be angry at any single reason but to consider them all together In relation to Oathes in general I need not spend much time to enquire how they may cease to oblige those who have taken them that they cease to bind when the Government of that Person to whom they were taken is at an end I think no body will deny This is all I will desire to be granted me concerning the Oathes to King James And in relation to Government That may be said to cease seveal ways as when the Person entrusted with it dies or when He will govern no longer and so withdraws himself from it voluntarily or when He is conquered and forced thereby to withdraw himself in volunatrily and can give no longer Protection to those who were his Leige Subjects These are the chief Instances whereby the Government of any Particular Person may cease There is no doubt concerning the first of them but all our present dispute will be about the rest that is whether any one or all of them are applicable to the Government of King James whether He would govern no longer and whether He did withdraw himself from and leave his Government voluntarily or lastly whether He was driven out of it by a fair and just Conquest I think my Lord that the Proof of any one of these three Instances were sufficient to satisfie all honest Men that the Obligation of the Oaths to the late King James is superseded by it and I believe such a Proof to be no difficult task For to begin with the first of them The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy were taken to King James as King and oblige no further nor longer than He continued to be King that is to govern as King of England Now that the late King ceased to govern as King of England a good while before the Prince of Orange either landed here or I believe thought of coming hither may I think be made plain by these following Considerations I need not examine curiously here my Lord into the nature of government and the Diversities of it my business only is to have it agreed what sort of Government our English One is That it is a mixt Government is plain from our Constitution whereby every One of the Three Estates in Parliament are necessary to the making any Laws whatever for the Nation as well as the King 's Le Roy le veult It is the King the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in Parliament assembled that make Laws and not the King alone or the Lords alone or the Commons alone nor the King himself with any one or two of the States of Parliament And as the King cannot here make Laws alone for the Nation so He is according to our Constitution obliged by a most Solemn Oath and Promise at his Coronation to Govern according to the Laws made by Lawfull Authority This I am assured is the Essence of a King of England that He is One sitting upon the Throne and Governing not by his own Will or his own Edicts but by the known Laws of the Land. These being my Lord the two main Hinges of our Government that all the Laws the People of England can be governed by are made in Parliament and that the Government it self be administred according to these Laws if either the King alone or any one or both of the Houses of Parliament take upon them to make Laws the One Hinge is broken off and if the Government it self be not administred that is if the King do not govern according to the Laws the Other Hinge is broken off also and then the Constitution is at an end and our Legal Government does cease whatever new or better one be pretended to be set over us in stead of it Having premised this state of our Government and
it and thereby ceased to be King and if once He ceased to be such no body will deny that the Obligation of all Oaths to Him as King did expire at the same time But since my Lord we have commonly receiv'd a very transcendent Notion of our Monarchy which will not allow the Destructive Practices I have now mentioned nor worse than these to make a forfeiture of the Kingly Power here or to be the Subversion of our Monarchs Rights whatever they be of the Peoples I shall were the insisting further upon this Head. Let it then be supposed for that Opinion's sake that the King does not destroy his own Right or the Exercise of his Royal Authority tho' He does destroy our Constitution by ruling directly against the Law and making Laws by his own Power The next Enquiry is Whether a King can lay down his Government and divest himself of all Authority and whether King James did not voluntarily leave his Government by withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom and making no provision for the Publick No body will dispute with me thtt a King cannot lay down his Government The Case of the Emperour Charles the fifth and which comes nearer our own concern that of the Queen Christiana of Sweden are Instances of it beyond opposition And I think it would be as little disputed that the late King James did by a voluntary withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom recede as fully from his Government if these few things were fairly consider'd First That he was at that time of withdrawing himself actually upon a Treaty with the Prince of Orange and had Three Lords Commissioners with Him who the very night He withdrew that He himself could not but give this Just Character of the Prince's Proposals as to say of them That they were fairer than he could or did expect so that the King had no reason then to be afraid of his Person but might have continued with security in his Palace and taken care of the Government and called such a Parliament as both Himself and the Prince desired which might have quietly and effectually settled this Nation and prevented all ill consequences to his Person or to his Affairs Secondly That it was the Design of the Popish Party to perswade him to withdraw himself their End in it being to put us thereby into Confusion This they did not boggle to speak out the Lord Dover and Mr. Brent made no secret of it but said it more than once that the King would withdraw himself out of the Kingdom above a Fourtnight before He did it Nor were these Two the only Persons in this Secret and of this Opinion In the Letter that was sent down to the King while He was at Salisbury with his Army and can be produced He was told that it was the Unanimous Advice of all the Catholicks here at London that he should come back from thence and withdraw Himself out of the Kingdom and leave us in Confusion assuring Him that within Two Years or less we should be in such Confusions that He might return and have his Ends of us as their phrase was Now if the King was pleas'd to take such desperate Counsellors Advice and thereupon to withdraw Himself out of the Kingdom and command his Army to be let loose upon the People by disbanding them at such a Juncture I can see nothing herein to make his going away involuntary If then his withdrawing Himself out of the Kingdom was done out of design and willingly He did as effectually divest Himself pro tempore of the Government as if He had left a formal Resignation of the Kingdom behind him attested by all his Privy-Counsellors hands and our Allegiance to him did fall with it and our Oaths did no more oblige now than the Oaths taken to Christina Queen of Sweden did when she resign'd and went to Rome since in both Cases the Government of these Two Princes was equally at an end but our condition the worse of the two since Queen Christina left the Government to her Kinsman but our King left us to the Rabble and his disbanded Army There is one Objection my Lord which I have often heard made against this that tho' the late King out of a groundess fear or for any other reason or design whatsoever did voluntarily withdraw himself ou of the Kingdom yet this ought not to be accounted a compleat Cession or Dereliction of the Government unless it could be proved withal that there was not Animus revertendi that he never intended to return to us more But this Objection is of no weight in the Case of a Kingdom For whether the King intended to return back any more or no signifies nothing herein since the withdrawing Himself and making no manner of Provision for the Government and Safety of the Nation did actually put an end to his Government at least for that time and our Constitution can no more than any other Government in the World be left in such a condition or can be said to subsist in such a Case and it is against all the sense and reason of Mankind to think that any Nation either will or ought to continue without a settlement till the Governour who hath left it unawares and in confusion will be pleased to think of returning Does any one believe that if the late King when He withdrew intended not to return these ten Years that we of this Nation should have continued in the Anarchy He left us and have no Government till He would come back Among all our Discontents I hope none can be found so weak to imagine this and the same reason I am sure holds as fully against his leaving us one Month as ten Years So that whether the late King intended to return or no when He went away He ceased to govern us and the very same moment He was pleas'd to leave off governing by withdrawing himself He cancell'd the Obligation of all Oaths and Allegiance to Him as King. But beyond all this I can grant my Lord that the late King from the very time of his withdrawing nay from the very minute of resolving to do it had Animum revertendi did intend to return to us I do believe that those Papists which advised him to withdraw did design that He should return and that He himself did concur in both resolutions But what was He to return for Was it not to have his Ends of us What those Ends are I suppose no Protestant needs be told none of those who make this Objection can doubt of it since his late coming to Ireland Should we have waited then till the late King could return with his borrowed Forces from France to destroy our Protestant establisht Religion and our Civil Constitution because He had Animum revertendi and therefore not have setled and provided for the Nations safety Was the King's Government not at an end tho' He had withdrawn himself from us and left no Provision
because He was resolved to come back to destroy our Religion and to be reveng'd of the Nation My Lord I think such an Animus revertendi to be so far from making the Dereliction lame and void that is is as good a Proof of making the late King's Action a compleat Dreliction as if He had left it attested under his Hand and Great Seal that He would never return to us or this Government more For my own part I am perswaded that the late King withdrew himself voluntarily and by the Advice of popish Counsels out of this Kingdom I am perswaded that He went off with an Animus revertendi and I am as fully perswaded that the Inâ—ention of his returning was to ruine our â—roperties and Laws and to destroy our Reformed Religion or to put it into the Popish Dialect to have his Ends of us From the first of these to wit his withdrawing voluntarily I am satisfind that the late King James's Government and our Allegiance to Him are fâ—llen and the last of them the Intention of his Return will I hope satisfie all others as much as it has done me that we have no tempting reasons either to wait for the lat King's Return or to accept of his Government if He should get back I must now my Lord go on to another Consideration for there are some who are little satisfied notwithstanding all the Evidence that can be offered about the King 's voluntary withdrawing himself as they were at his misgovernment being urged as the destruction of his Royal Dignity And tho' these Gentlemen have not agreed with me thitherro yet in this last Consideration they must concur with me and that is That the late King was conquered by the Prince of Orange and driven away involuntarily at least So that if by this Conquest He was was put out of the condition of Governing and Protecting us we were as much depriv'd of the liberty of paying Obedience to him who was now driven from us The Business to be examin'd here is What sort of a Conquest this was and whether it was a just one such a one as by reason of which the People of England might lawfully submit to the Conquerour of their King To begin with the Expedition of his then Highness the Prince of Orange there appears to be all the Reasons in it that could justifie such an Invasion or make a Conquest just and good The Prince was no Subject of England but a Sovereign Prince who made this Descent into our Nation against our late King in defence of his own Rights as well as of ours and therefore his Action could upon no account be still'd a Rebellion But the Cause of his Expedition is above all other things to be enquired after for that must be the chief thing that can justifie the Revolution here and ought to be highly reasonable and such as can give satisfaction to all wise and indifferent Men since tho' the Prince of Orange were never so much a Sovereign Prince yet if he had not a very justifiable Reason of coming hither with an Army his Expedition had been altogether a most unaccountable Action and his Conquest unjust Now to give all the satisfaction requisite to this justest Scruple the Princes Reasons for coming hither in that manner appear to be as just and as good as his Success was great and if ever one Prince's Invasion of another Prince's Kingdom were to be justified the Prince of Orange's was For to instance in one or two of these Reasons He himself as well as his Princess had most undoubted Right to the Succession of the Crown of England and the Dominions belonging to it after the death of the late King James This Right was notoriously set aside or made wholly useless to Them by the Arts and Counsels of those Papists who were about the King and did influence him The Imposture of a pretended Prince of Wales was thought of and pitcht upon as the most effectual Bar to either of Their Titles and did set Them as well as Her Royal Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark aside and deprive All Three together of their Rights of Succession and provide effectually against a Protestant Successor the only Person the People then in Power at Court were afraid of But to wave the Instance of the setting up a pretended Prince of Wales betwixt these Protestant Princes and their Right of succession because the Proof of that Imposture has not been laid open as it might have been to the World and therefore cannot so strictly be insisted upon tho' most people even those who are dissatisfied about the present Settlement are satisfied of the Imposture the Right of Succession which was in the Two Royal Princesses and the Prince of Orange was made wholly useless to Them by the late King 's putting the Government of part of the Dominions of the Crown of England into such hands as would not deliver them up or submit to any Protestant Successor Ireland is an evident proof of this where all Offices Civil and Military contrary to the Laws of the Land were put into Popish Hands and such a biggoted Irish Papist was made their Governour as that whatever Rogueries or violences the Papists should be guilty of towards the British Protestants among them they should never need to fear being call'd to account being certain that his own management of the Government as well as his Religion would keep him from ever delivering up Ireland to any Protestant while He had the Sword in his hands and such a throughly Popish Army at his Command Now in this case when Ireland was wholly given up into such hands and Scotland was almost in the same condition and England ready to be put into the same it was high time for the Prince of Orange to assert his own and his Princesses Right and it was most reasonable for Him by all justifiable Ways and Means to prevent their being debarr'd their Right of Inheritance of these Kingdoms by bringing the late King to reasonable Terms or by depriving Him of the power of doing Them or their Right any further Mischief herein This therefore together with the Prince's Concern for our Religion and our Laws which were violated in so high a degree by the late King and with which His own Right of Succession was interwoven was a most just Reason for the prince of Oranges coming with an armed Force and if the King would rather put things to the hazard of Battels than the decision of a free and legal parliament no body else could help it and if his Army would neither fight for nor stand by him but suffer Him to be driven out of his Dominions it was because He had taken sufficient care to let all of them as well as the rest of the Nation know how very unjust the War would be on his part and how very unreasonable it would be for them who were the greatest part of them protestants to assist
Him in depriving his Children of the Hereditary Rights of Succession and ruining the Church of England and the happy Constitution of our English Government Such Considerations as these made the late King's Army so useless to Him and the prince's Victory so easie to Him whose business was not to Conquer here but to do Himself and his Princess Right and to preserve ouâ— Government in Church and State which if he He had tamely lookt on and suffer'd to be destroy'd His own Right would most infallibly have sunk with them being so entirely linkt with them Here some will be ready to call upon me and tell me that if the Prince was a conquerour then all our Rights and our possessions are in his hands and at his disposal and that our condition is far from being mended since we are by this Conquest in that state which the late King was labouring to bring us to subjected absolutely in our Persons and Fortunes to the Arbitrary Will of a Conquerour But it is very easie to answer this fearful Suggestion by shewing them that the King alone was conquered and not the Nation with him The Prince in his Declaration had assured the Nation that his only design of appearing in Arms here was to secure his own and Their R ghts and He did thereupon conjure them to assist Him in so good and so just a Design which the Nation did either by not aiding the King or by Rising up in several parts of the Kingdom for him so that here was a True Contract betwixt the Prince of Orange and the Nation which hath been faithfully observed the Rights of the Nation being entirely preserv'd to them and not one of them invaded nor the least pretence to a Conquest over the Nation made by Him. Thus my Lord we see our Rights are secure notwithstanding the late King lost his by bringing upon himself the necessity of being driven out of his dominions and conquer'd rather than he would do the Prince and the Nation that Right which He was obliged to by the Lâ—ws and by his Coronation Oath Now since the late king did lose his kingdom by these means and these accounts and was put out of the capacity of either Governing or Protecting those who were his Subjects it is become as impossible for us to perform Allegiance to Him as it is for him to Govern us and since the Prince and Princess of Orange by reason of this Conquest of the King and by Vertue partly of their own Hereditary Right and partly of the Consent of the Nation assembled in Convention are in Possession of the Crown of England and do Protect and Govern the Nation according to the Laws of the Realm and have taken the Coronation Oath that they will alwayes continue to do so the only Question is Whether our Allegiance in such a case is not transfer'd from the late King Who was justly conquered who does not govern us and can no further protect us unto those Persons who are now invested with the Regal power and in possession of the Government and do protect the Nation The Resolution of this Case would have been very readily made by an of us had providence placed us upon the Continent in those Countries which have lately been and now are like to be the Seat of War and not in an Island so happily secured from the sudden Descent of Enemies Had we lived in Germany or Flanders for example we should have learnt how far Allegiance is necessary and when it may be transferr'd from the prince conquered to the Conqueror No prudent Man thinks the people of any Town in Flanders perjur'd because notwithstanding their former Oaths to their Hereditary prince the King of Spain the fortune of War necessitates them to take new Oaths of Allegiance to a Conqueror And I think Men ought to make the very same Judgment of things here That since the Government of King James is at an end the Oaths to him have no further force and that since He was fairly conquered by that prince whom He was endeavouring to deprive of his Right of Succession to the Crown of England and is by that altogether incapacitated from governing and protecting us our Allegiance either wholly ceases or is susperceded as to Him and We may in our Circumstances give security to the Government and pay Allegiance for that protection we enjoy from it This my Lord is agreeable to the Laws and practice of all Countries to the Laws of our own Nation to Reason and which is more unto Scripture it self I need not trouble your Lordship much with shewing its agreement with the Laws of Nations since almost every days practice doth give Instances of iâ— whereby people and Countries that were under their own Sovereign princes and had taken Oaths of Fealty to Him are by the Fortune of War made another prince's Subjects and may lawfully according to the Law of Nations transfer their Allegiance to their new Lord. The Reason of all this is founded upon the Nature and End of Government it self upon that mutual Obligation which is supposed to be betwixt a prince and his people who upon his power and his promise of protecting them in their Lives and in their properties do engage to perform Allegiance and to bear Faith to Him now this stipulation does naturally fall when such a prince is no longer Able or no longer Willing to protect them and the same Reason which obliged them to pay their Allegiance to that prince does direct them now to transfer it from Him who is by the Fortune of War disabled from affording protection to the Conqueror who will engage to protect them and does preserve them in their persons and their Estates and in all their antient Legal Securities And as this cannot be denied to be the practice and the Law of all Countries abroad so the Laws and Customs of our own Kingdom do not only countenance such a transferring of Allegiance to a Conqueror but do indemnifie the paying Allegiance to a meer King de facto who may be an Usurper and the defending Him in his Government Thus in the Statute made the Eleventh Year of Henry 7. Chap. It is declared to be against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that Subjects going with their Soveraign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in his person or being in other places by his commandment within the Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doiâ—g their Duty and Service of Allegiance and it is Enacted by the King by the Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in parliament assembled that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever He or They be that attend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this land for the time being In his person and do Him true and faithful service of Allegiance in the same or be in other places by his command in his Wars within this Land or without that for the
said deed and true duty of Allegiance He or They be in no wise convict or attaint of High-Treason ne of other offences for that Cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any process of Law whereby he or any of them shal lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hâ—reditaments Goods Chattels or any other thing but to be for that deed or service utterly discharg'd of any Vexation Trouble or Loss This Law doth authorise any Subject to pay his Allegiance to the King in being and does secure him against all Penalties for the same and therefore reaches our Case where there is not a bare Possession but all the Right that Conquest can give And in the famous Act of Parliament concerning Treasons Coke's Institutes Part 3. ch 1. of High-Treason the 25th of Edward III. my Lord Coke says that by the King against whom Treason is committed in that Statute Is meant the King in possession of the Throne whatever his Right to it be These my Lord are his own words This Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto non Rex de jure yet is He Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute And the other that hath right and is out of possession is not within this Act. Nay if Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and after the King de Jure cometh to the Crown He shal punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon granted by a King de Jure that is not also de facto is void This is sufficient to shew the sence of our Laws in this case and for its being agreeable to Reason to transfer our Allegiance in the Circumstances mentioned I have already in part proved this and I think it may be fairly deduced further from the Writings of that great and excellent Casuist Bishop Sanderson whom all will allow to be a very competent Judge of the Dictates of Reason Whoever will read his Case of the Engagement may find a great deal to this purpose but I intend only to insist on what he hath delivered in his Fifth Prelection concerning the Obligation of Conscience where he disputes for and gives several reasons for the paying obedience to the Laws and submitting to the Government even of an unlawful Usurper and he puts this very case that where any one having driven away by violence the lawful Prince and true Heir of the Kingdom or having opprest him so far as that he is unable to stand up for his own Right doth while the other is still living take the Government upon him and act as King when he is in reality rather an usurper than a King and it is past doubt that downright Injury is done to the oppressed Prince If it be askt says he what I think a good Subject should do in this case who hath taken an Oath of Fealty to his lawful Prince or if he have not taken such an Oath yet is as much obliged to the Prince as if he had swoâ—n it My opinion is that it is not only lawful for a good Subject to pay obedience to the Laws made by him that has the Supâ—eme Power only de facto and not de jure and to do what other things are commanded by him so that nothing base or unjust be commanded but that it is necessary oftentimes for him to do these things and that he should be wanting to his own Duty if he did not Praelectio â—ta de Oblig Conscientiae XVI p. 176. What I could gather from this Case put by the Great Bishop is that if such obedience be lawful and very often necessary to one who is a meet Uâ—urper by unlawful Violence the least he would have determined in our circumstances must have been that Obedience might lawfully be paid to our present King and Queen who come to the Throne either by its being left empty by the last King or by a lawful and just Conquest And what the Bishop has afterwords urged in the Case of his Violent Usurper that notwithstanding the obedience to him the Fealty due to the lawful Prince must be preserved inviolate and nothing done in prejudice of his Right can have no place here since the late King fell perfectly from all Soveraignty here by deserting his Government and the Prince of Orange had a most just Cause of War against him and made as plain a conquest over him neither of which can be brought within the Bishops Case and therefore if Subjects may to keep to the Bishops Reasons upon the Case for their own sakes for the preservation of their Lives and Estates and for the protection they receive under those who have possession of the Government and for the publick sake for the Trade and Commerce of the Nation upon which the publick must subsist live quietly under and pay obedience to an usurped power every one of these Reasons is more forcible upon us to pay our Obedience to their present Majesties who have Right of just Conquest Right of Lawful Succession and the Consent and Recognition of the Nation in Convention on their side And as Reason has directed in such Circumstances to transfer Obedience to the Conquerour under whom we can live safe and in quietness so does the Scripture it self the best Rule we can desire in our Case As the Scripture commands under the greatest penalties Subjection to the Supreme power so it does not put men upon the Rack about the Right of Governours or upon examining who has or who has not the true Right to a Crown but directs obedience to the powers in beeing to those who are in possession of the Supreme power how small soever their claim to it may be This I can make evident my Lord from the Instances of some in the Old Testament and of those to whom our Lord Jesus himself and his Aposties did so strictly command Obedience in the New. Upon the death of Josiah King of Judah the people of Judah took Jehoahaz who was the fourth and youngest Son of Josiah and anointed him which was done by the chief priest and made him King in his Father's stead setting aside the Right of his Three Elder Brothers 2 Kings 23.30 Now that Jehoahaz was Shallum no one will doubt that will compare this place our of the 2d Book of Kings with Jeremiah 22. Ver. 11. and that Shallum was the youngest Son of four he can no more doubt that will consult 1 Chron. 3 15. In this Instance we do not find the Scripture condemn the peoples paying Allegiance to this prince thus set up but on the contrary God calls upon them by the prophet Jeremiah Jerem 22.10 11 12. to weep sore for him that goeth away who was to return no more nor see his native Countrey that is to lament for their King Shallum or
Jehoahaz who was carried by Pharaoh Nechoh into Egypt and was to die there After the Deposition of Shallum Pharaoh Nechoh who was his Conqueror made Eliakim King whom he called by the name of Jehoiakim tho' he was but the second brother and no notice is taken of the eldest Brother Johanan who if he was then living was certainly the true Heir to that Crown This Jehoiakim reign'd eleven years 2 Kings 23.36 in the third whereof he was conquer'd by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babel Dan. 1.1 Who afterward took him away and set up his Son Jehoiachin or Jeconia or Conia in his stead But he continued on the Throne but three Months for Nebuchadnezzar came again and besieged Jerusalem to whom Jehojachin surrendred himself and was by him carried into captivity Then Nebuchadnezzar made his Uncle Zedekiah king who was the third of those four Brothers 1 Chron. 3.16 and he reigned near eleven years as King of Judah while the eldest Brother Johanan was living and the second Brother perhaps Jehoiachim in the Babylonian's hands without all doubt if Jehoiachim was dead his Son Jehojachin the right Heir and the true King was living for we find him releas'd out of prison after 37 Years 2 Kings 25 27. during all which time we never find God complaining of the peoples submitting and paying Allegiance to this King Zedekiah that was set up by Nebuchadnezzar but we meet with Jeremiah's Lamentation taken up for this very King whom he calls The Breath of our Nostrils the Anointed of the Lord. Lamentations 4.20 tho' he was made King while the true King and Heir of that Crown was alive Here we have a Subject made King and set up against the true King by the Conquerour whose power herein God did so far approve as to call Zedekiah's defection from his Fealty to Nebuchadnezzar 2 Chron. 36.13 whose power over Judah was no more than what a Conquest and an unjust one too did â—ive a Rebellion and to give him and all that belonged to him up to Destruction and Captivity for it Whoever will reflect upon these Examples will see how far the people were from being condemned or discouraged from transferring their Allegiance to these four Kings the first of which Iehoahaz was set up by â—he People against the Right Line and before his Three Elder Breâ—hren the second Jehojakim was by a Conqueror made King before his Elder Brother Johanan the third Jehoiachin was set up against his own Father and the fourth was of a Subject made a King while the true King and Rightful Heir was still in beeing There is another thing very observable here and that is about the Oaths taken to Kings who were such meerly by Conquest It was the manner of the Subjects of Israel and Judah to take Oaths of Obedience to their Kingâ— as one may very justly collect from that passage in Ecclefiastes 8.2 Where the Preacher advises to keep the King's Commandment and that in regard of the Oath of God that is of the Oath of Obedience which the Subject had taken to â—he King. Now this Oath was sworn not only to King 's of God's own appointment or to their Hereditary Successors but to those who had no other Title or Right than that of Conquest when such Conquerous requir'd it of them tho' their own Princes were still living Thus Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah wear by God 2 Chron. 36.13 with Ezekiel 7.13 to be faithful to him while his own Prince Jehojachin was yet alive and Zedekiah took Authority from Nebuchadnezzar to reign as King under him which he continued to do according to his Oath for some Years but afterwards rebell'd against the Conquerour This Oath God did approve as lawful and calls it Mine Oath Ezeck 17.19 and held himself obliged to punish the breach of it as he should have done if Zedekiah had taken it to Jehojachin himself and had broke it as he did the Oath in this case This is plain from Ezek. 17.15 16 18 19. And for those Kings in the New Testament to whom Allegiance is so strictly commanded to be paid it is most evident that Augustus and those after him were direct Vsurpers upon the People and Senate of Rome having gained the Supreme Power into their hands by Craft and Arts and chiefly by the assistance of the Soldiery whose Right to dispose of the Supreme Power over the People and Subjects of Rome I cannot hear that any man does maintain and this was more particularly plain in the Advancement of Nero to the Throne by the Soldiery whom his Mother Agrippina had tampered with against Britannicus the last Emperour's Son and yet this is the very Emperour to whom St. Paul teacheth Obedience under pain of damnation Rom. 13.1 2. for whom he exhorts the Christians to put up Prayers and Supplications that under him who had no better Right to that Government than what I have just mentioned they might lead quiet and peaceable Lives in all godliness and honesty 1 Tim. 2 1 2. Whoever my Lord will compare our present Case in England with the Instances I have produc'd out of Scripture cannot deny me that Scripture does allow the transferring of Allegiance in the Case of Conquest from one Prince to another some of the Instances do reach further which shew the Command for and the Practice of Obedience to those who had meerly the Possession of the Government but no manner of Right or Title to it And now my Lord I have dispatch'd the Consideration of all your Lordship's Commands and of all I have been able to say in so narrow a Compass and amidst so many other necessary Avocations upon this Subject and yet I cannot conclude without examining a little their Reasons and their Intentions who are so little satisfied with ours or with the present Settlement If the present Settlement of this Nation under their Majesties does not give them satisfaction and is such as they cannot with a Conscience submit to it must be because they have sworn Allegiance to Another Person to whom they believe it to be still due because He is still alive If they find themselves under such an Obligation then their Endeavours or at least their Wishes ought to be that the late King might be recalled to his Government or that if He be unfit for Government a Regency might be seâ—led by the Consent of the Nation in Parliament He still retaining the Title of King. These Methods are the only ones that either themselves or any one for them thinks can salve their Allegiance But examin them singly and see whether they can If the late King should be recalled either it must be upon Terms and Conditions or it must be without them To recal Him to his Government without Conditions I never yet met nor heard of one Protestant that was for it but they all cry out upon Terms or not at all upon Conditions or we are all ruin'd in our Properties and ruin our Religion One Question then I