the way of the Principles I have been hitherto laying down And as to what he says p. 27. 28. c. about the Difference betwixt a maintaining and defending and a restoring Allegiance I may take some notice of that anon 2. His next Reason p. 36. for this Right of Providence is That without it there is no defending the Doctrine of Passive Obedience But why so Because there is no irresistable Authority but that of God and unless Sovereign Princes received their Authority from God Non Resistance would be Nonsense But they may and do receive Authority from God and not by a Right of Providence but either by Divine Nomination as sometimes in Iury or by human Rights and Titles as in all other places And this way of Right doth give a Person God's Authority as I have shewn which his way of Providence doth not And his fancied way of Providence would not be more immediate nor so good and righteous a way of giving it And this Authority of God conveyed thus to a Person by Rightful Title is an irresistable Authority because it is God's and because it is a Sovereign Authority There is no resisting any Authority derived from God but under God or by seeking to have it by an higher Authority which is God's too And thus the Authority of Fathers or Masters which is God's Authority may be restrain'd and checkt when it is abused by the Authority of the Prince which is God's too and an higher Authority And so may the Excesses of any inferior Magistrate by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate All which opposing Authority by way of Regular Appeals and under Protection of an higher Authority is not the criminal resisting God's Authority but keeping under it and seeking to be relieved by it But when this Authority is not only given by God but is a Sovereign Authority then there is no Resistance or worldly Remedy against that because the Sovereign has none above it Thus may the Doctrine of Non Resistance be a Rational Doctrine without his Right of Providence The Law of Subjection to Sovereign Powers and not Resisting makes it a Sin to resist for 1 Ioh. 3. 4. Sin is the Transgression of a Law And Sovereigns having not only God's Authority but a Supream Authority under God on Earth is a Reason why it necessarily should be so But that they should come by this Divine and Supreme Authority by his Right of Providence is neither necessary nor just nor fit in my Judgement But the way of rightful Title either by Divine Nomination or Human Right is the best and justest and I think I may say from what I have Discoursed thereupon is the only true way of coming by it But though the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Non Resistance may very well stand without his Right of Providence and still transferring and paying Allegiance to present Powers against rightful Titles I think on the other hand it is necessarily overthrown by it I know Numbers of those that Swear the Present Allegiance upon the Ground of a King de Facto are of another Mind and believe it is no Breach of Passive Obedience to one that has a legal Right to transfer and ingage their Allegiance to stand by another who is possessed of his Right which I judge only shews non Attention to the Nature and Import of such Actings For Passive Obedience implies above all Things To keep under a King's Obedience And to cast off his Authority is the highest Disobedience And in this lies the uttermost Heinousness and Aggravation of Resistance that thereby Subjects disclaim their King's Authority over them and throw off all Obedience to him and this is plainly done by transferring Allegiance from him They cannot bear Allegiance to Two nor have any more than one King as the Author truly says p. 14. So that in transferring Allegiance to another they throw off all to him and are as Men no longer under his Obedience and Subjection Besides it puts them among Resisters and so can be no good Payment of the Duty of Non Resistance For it ingages them as I observed the Nature of all Allegiance is to stand by the Possessor and to withstand the other some by Arms others by Prayers every one in his Station And since both Competitors cannot have the Crown and both seek it all that will stand by and support one will therein unavoidably resist the other who comes to recover and get it from him 3. Another Reason is p. 37. If we deny this Right of Providence to carry Allegiance to Usurpers against legal Titles we deny God's Authority to remove or set up Kings against human Laws But if God please to set up a King by particular Revelation that will make him a King against human Laws because God is above Laws and this no Man denies that denies this Right of Providence If God is not pleased to take this way of special Revelations he is pleased to leave Authority to be carryed by human Rights And I suppose he will think it no Impeachment of God's Authority in making or removing Kings to say he cannot do them but by human Rights when he will take no other way but is pleased to leave it to them Besides to come to ways of doing it among other Nations as well as among the Jews human Rights as I observed is larger than human Laws And when a Man cannot be set up or removed by the Laws God may do both according to human Right by the Death or Submission of Competitors If God please to take a King out of the World which is his great way of Removing them and is a way particularly referred to in this Scripture Phraise of Removing Kings as I before observed his Right is removed with him Or if he bring him to give it up by his own Consent his legal Right is that way too removed from him And the other gets Right over a willing People by his Competitors Oath or Submâ—ssion Though Kings then are denyed to be set up or removed by mere Providence without other Title yet is that no denyal of God's Setting up of Kings which he may do by all the ways of Setting them up viz. by all the ways of giving Right to Kingly Authority yea and that against Laws too if he pleases by all the other ways of conferring that Right viz. Special Revelation which is above Laws or Death of Competitors or Consent of Parties which departs from the Right that accrued by them And this limitting God in giving Right to 〈…〉 s of giving it is a limitation he has made himself and is very well pleased with And in matters of Right to be limitted to ways of Right seems no harder limitation than being limitted to be Righteous Indeed it denies his way of Setting them up viz. By Providential Possession without other Title But that I think is no denyal of the Authority of God in this Point because God doth not convey his
King Charles II. was dispossessed hâ— was faithfully adhered to and served by several of his Subjects who for this were punished by the long Parliament aâ— Delinquents And this Adherence and Service the Statute 13 14 Car. II. c. 25. declares was according to their Duty and Allegiance The Rule given about Allegiance by the Judges in the Case of Union in Sir Francis Moor's Reports p. 798. is That if a King is expulsed by Force and another usurp nevertheless the Allegiance is not taken away though the Law be taken away This seems also the plain meaning of Allegiance following the King 's Natural Person as is declared both in the Case of Union and in Calvin's Case which would be tyed to the Politick and go with Possession if it inseparably depended on actual Administration All which to mention no more is the plain Signification of all the forementioned Attaindors passed upon Men either in Statutes or in Courts of Justice for acting against a dispossessed rightful King For Treason is the highest Breach of Allegiance and if the Law judges Men guilty of Treason against such a King it certainly judges them to owe Allegiance to him And this is still the Sense and Understanding of Publick Acts so many of the Acts passed since this Revolution having declar'd the Irish then under K. James's Possession and actual Government or Administration for all that to owe their Obedience to and for Breach thereof to be Rebels against King William And all this shows That by our Laws as well as by the Laws of God and Reason Obedience or Allegiance is due to the Rightful Authority of a King out of Possession and so is far from being tyed by our Law more than it is by the Scripture and the Nature of things to actual Administration But against this p. â—3 he objects the Opinion of some great Lawyers for Allegiance being due by Law to a King de Facto The Lawyers mentioned by him are the Lord Chief Justice Coke who is followed in this point by the Lord Chief Justice Hale and the Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman and the Allegations of Law which my Lord Coke builds his Opinion on are some Sayings in Baggot's Case not the fullest to his Purpose But what I chiefly observe is not of the Judges but only Allegations of the Council as they who please may see in the Case it self An. 9 Ed. 4. Term. Pas. Fol. 1. 2. 5. and the Statute of 11 H. 7. c. 1. which declares Subjects bound by their Allegiance to serve their Sovereign for the time being in his Wars against every Might and Power reared against him and indemnifies them for the same But how is this a Proof of Allegiance to a King de Facto Doth the Statute say they are bound to do this to the King de Facto No it only says to the King for the time being Do the Words for the time being then signifie the same as De Facto in their ordinary and legal Signification No they are ordinarily used both in Law and common Speech to seâ— off those that have Right as the Statutes when there is no Dispute of the Right of the King or of those that act under him every where mention the Lord Chancellor Lord Treasurer Lord High Admiral or other great Officers for the time being And the Statute 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. speaking of King Edward and his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm unquestionably rightful Kings calls them several times Kings for the time being If the Signification of the Phrase will not do it doth not the thing there said of this Service to the King for the time being viz. that it is against all Laws Reason and good Conscience to lose or forfeit any thing for the same determine it to the King in Fact No but on the contrary if they are true they will determine that King in being I conceive to be the Rightful King For suppose another to have the Right and it must needs be very unrighteous to hinder him of it and then he acts unrighteously that serves the King in Fact against the King in Right And what is unrighteous is against Reason and good Conscience and 't is neither against Reason nor good Conscience That Men should suffer for unreasonable and unrighteous actings For if Reason and good Conscience would have them suffer for any thing it must be for these Yea and 't is as much against Laws as against either Reason or Conscience there having been Laws enough as I have noted in several Instances for punishing and attainting Subjects that acted against their Rightful though dispossessed Sovereigns and of these Laws several in King Henry's own Remembrance some made against him by another who thought he had the Right and some made against them by himself when he came to assert his own Right And the Allegiance this Statute speaks of is the Allegiance as it had stood in his Remembrance as the Preface of it notes and as the Author himself also p. 62. 63. observes from it In all which time and before neither Law Reason nor good Conscience indemnified paying this to wrong but only to rightful Kings But mutual Attainders of each others Adherents he says p. 59. is no Proof what the Law of the Land is What not if the Law attaints Must not Laws shew what the Law is And if as oft as the Law looks upon a Man to have had only Possession it attaints those that served him it is plain That Law did not look upon mere Possession without Right to justifie that Service If Possession in Law would have justified them in serving him for such Service the Law would not have condemned them And as for that Favour of Parliaments towards the Possessor which is all as he says ibid. that such Parliamentary Attainders shew that Favour to the Possessor is favouring his Right for opposing whereof the other side may be attainted But it would not go to attaint innocent Men for following Possession if it owned Allegiance were due to mere Possession For that were to do a Contradiction But whatever had been done in this kind before Henry VII he says p. 63. was now convinced it was ill done and provides by this Statute it shall be so no more But the Statute doth not speak of this as of a new Provision but as of the Allegiance which the King called to his Remembrance and which had all this Guard of Law Reason and good Conscience aforetime Declaring therein as the Author remarks upon it p. 63. what was so before and not made so now merely by their Declaration and so I think was not thus to guard those that served against the Right For as there was Reason and Conscience so likewise Law enough if Statutes and judged Cases are Laws both in time foregoing and time following to punish them I add to this if this Service as beiâ—g a Service of the Wrong against the Right is thus against
interfere like as if Two Wills do the later will be sure to be Stronger and the other of Henry the Seventh was only a Law but this later of King James is both the Bond of a Law and such as makes a Man bind himself further and both promise and swear too So that instead of doing what that Law says he shall do having as good a Saying of Law here nay a better beâ—â—â—se a lâ—ter 〈◊〉 will rather think himself bound to do not only what this Law says he shall but also what he has both promised and most solemnly sworn he will do And whether all these Laws and judgeâ— Cases are not enough to carry the Point of Law in this Question of Allegiance to rightful Princes against the Opinioâ— of the foresaid Lawyers standing on such Foundations I leave any rational Man to judge He takes notice of the Judgment on the D. of Nâ—rthumberland for acting under a Queen de Facto viz. Q. Iane which the Statute of H. 7. would have justified haâ— that been meant of a King in Fact and argues p. 64. it could not declare thâ— Statute of H. 7. null and void as the Author of the Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession against whom he there disputes thought in effect it did Which if this Judgment doth not of it self yet the contrary Obligations laid since by other Statutes which that Author adds as he observes likewise will seem to do it For if the Act of H. 8. about Succession and the Oath of Allegiance make the contrary to the Statute of H. 7. or Serving of the Rightful King to take effect that will not differ much from declaring his Statute null in effect because it will leave it no effect But though this Judgment should not be enough in Law to repâ—â—l that Statute yet I fancy in a Question of the Sensâ— thereof especially in Words so lyable to be expounded to that sensâ— which the Court declared in his Case it must needs be allowed to be an Authentiâ—k Interpretation of it For I think in expounding a Law he will allow a Court of Justice and especially the High Court of Parliament to have more Authority than those Lawyers though of so deservedly great name whom he mentions And now laying all these Authorities of Law before us if we must presume what the Law is in this point I think we have much more Reason to presume that is Law which we hear from so many Statutes and judged Cases than what we hear on the contrary from some particular Judges and great Lawyers So as far as I see the Law in this point should be presumed to lye on the rightful King's side But Treason he observes p. 58. lyes by Law against the King that without Right is in Possession and then Allegiance must be due to him This may be true in such a King as Henry VI. of whom alone Baggot's Council affiâ—m it who for near Forty Years was King without any opposite Claim and then was so still by express Consent of concern'd Parties who had Authority to give to him and agreed That as he had been hitherto so he should still be King for his Life But as to other mere Regnant Kings against a right King that makes his Claim I do not understand how in Law it can be Treason to act for the right King against them when so many Laws and Statutes of Attaindor and judged Cases have made it Treason to act for them For Treason as well as Allegiance the Author will own can lye but one way since we can have but one King And as for the Statute of Treason it speaks of that King whose Succession the Law is careful to secure making it Treason as the Author of the aforesaid Case observed p. 8 to kill the King 's eldest Son to violate the Queen the Prince's Wife or the King 's eldest Daughter All which shew a care of the Lineal Successor and so must be meant of the Lawful King since the Law cannot be careful to secure the Succession to any other It is pretended no otherwise to favour the Successor than on account of Possession for the necessity of actual Government under him which is only for his own time And as for Law looking on the Crown as Hereditary still in his Children as he fancies p. 56. sure that is not the Hereditariness of Blood or next akin which is the Hereditariness of our Crown And the Law cannot look upon the Crown as what ought to go by Hereditariness of Blood or lineal Succession if it makes it due to another's Children who perhaps are not at all of the Blood or however not the next in Blood as the Three Henrys he mentions were not whose Reigns were a real Interruption of the due Hereditariness of Succession and who were none of them the true hereditary King I grant Treason may be committed under them As to conspire against the present Possessor to set up another Usurper or to give away the Crown to a Foreigner or other things which the Law makes Treason But that which makes these things Treason then is not as I conceive being committed against them nay Treasonable Acts may be Treason as has been shewn when committed not only for them but by them but being committed against the Authority of the rightful King For his Authority is still in his Realm though his Person be driven out and the Faith of the Subjects is still due to him and may be broken as it is most highly in all Treason which is the ground of all Attainders and makes the necessity of Oâ—livions and Acts of Grace as I formerly observed So all the time he is away the Subjects being bound in their former Faith and Allegiance to him they may break that Faith and Allegiance in the several ways of Treason only he is not here to try and punish them And the Possessor having got all his external Power must do that if it is done at all for 't is external Power that punishes But as he punishes by another's external Power so for what was acted against another's Authority not against his own And I see no authoritative way of doing it without a way can be found which some have attempted and I here discuss not to derive Authority from the rightful King But the only Reason why any Things are made Treason by Law says he p. 58. is their being against the Order of Government and Destructive to it Which the same Things equally are under any King whether in Fact or in Right But whatever be the End why they are made so yet Being a Breach of the Faith of the King must come in to make them so For the Nature of all Treason is to be a Breach of Faith and Allegiance and accordingly the Form of Indictment is that such a Thing was done Contra Debitum Fideâ— Ligeantiae suae against the Actors due Faith and Allegiance And this Faith and Allegiance is the
Due of a Person not due to the Country or to the Order of Government but to the King And accordingly in Cobledikâ—'s Case the Judges rejected a Plea as my Lord Coke notes p. 9. in Calvin's Case for saying only the Ligeance of England but admitted it when they added and the Faith of the King And therefore the King himself is not capable to commit Treason because it is only a Breach of that Faith which is due to his own Person so that the Treason lyes where the Faith and Allegiance doth that is against the rightful King's Person As to what he says p. 52 53. about Cognizance which is the right King not lying before a private Subject I grant it would not if once a Court competent had judged of it But where is that Court that is of Authority competent to sentence and give away a lawful King 's Right It seems plain in the Eye of the Law That among us a Parliament called by a Possessor without Right cannot do it because after they have done what they can the Law says he has Right and will punish the private Subject as has been shewed notwithstanding the Warranty of their Judgment for acting against his Right So there is no way that I see but for every Subject to take the best Advice and Care he can to know which is the Right that he may not act against him for though he would have no Cognizance were it a Thing that lay before authorized Courts or that the Competitors had brought into Court and there decided as H. 6. and the Duke of York did in Parliament and though where there is no Court competent to judge he has no Cognizance to judge for others yet he has to judge the beâ—t he can and at his own Peril for himself as every Man muâ—â— do I think in this Case Allegiance hâ— must pay to him that has 〈◊〉 as I have proved and so must satisfy â—imself who has it to answer the Law of Goâ— And as for the Law of the Land to seeâ— Protection from the Judgment of Courtâ— which are not legal Couâ—ts but only Cour 〈…〉 de Facto or from legal Courts if they meddle with that which is not under th 〈…〉 Cognizance will fail those that trust to shelter themselves thereby as my Lordâ— Chief Justice Bridgman told Cookâ— when he pleaded that the High Court of Justice was a Court de Facto in defence of his Acting under it But as to all this Dispute about Law for Allegiance to the King in Fact against the King in Right p. 54. 65 he observes That the Non-swearers would noâ— abide by the Decision of the Laws Which may be true as to this particular of following a mere King in Fact against the legal Right because the Laws of God as well as of the Land are their hindran 〈…〉 in this Case But then says he Why do they insist upon-Lam They insist on it because they think it one good Argument and so they have reason to think it still for any Thing that I have yet seen offered from Law to the contrary But they do not abide by it or give up the Cause to stand or fall with it because it is not the only good Argument and other Hinderances from God's Laws they think are no less than that And this learned Person knows very well That any one Conscionable Hinderance is enough to keep a Man from doing a Thing and the Lawfulness in some respect whilst 't is Unlawful in others is not enough to warranâ— him in doing it Bonum says the Râ—le oritur ex integra Causa malum ex quoli 〈…〉 Dâ—fectu Though I think as to th 〈…〉 painful Search that has been made into the Point of Law for Allegiance to a King de Facto the Non-swearers did not begin it but were driven to it The Pleaders for the New Oath pretending the Law in this Case to be for a King in Faâ—t which upon Examination they find to be a Mistake and think the Plea from Law is on the other side And thus upon all Accounts both of Scripture and the Nature of Things and of our own Laws I think it may seem sufficiently manifest that as he that has the Right has the Authority so he that has the Authority by the Laws both of God and Man must have the Allegiance though he cannot actually Govern but is Forceibly kept out of his Throne And if the Dispossessed rightful King still keeps the Authority and the Obedience of the Fifth Commandment is still due to him because of that Authority the leaving any ejected Prince to have the Right and the Regnant or Providential King to be only King in Fact without Right would leave all that take a New Oath for transferring Allegiance under as evident a Breach of that Commandment as of the rest So upon the whole I conclude this Plea of mere Possession without Right leaves all the Non-swearers Difficulties against the Oaths untouched For suppose any Man to be still ones rightful King and then what will hinder but to bind our selves by a contrary Allegiance to oppose his Right must be Unrighteous towards him or to bind our selves thereby to act against his Authority must be Undutifulness and Rebellion and binding our selves to all this against what we had promised and assured by former Oaths must be to forswear our selves So that when at the last Day all that take such Oaths come to be tryed by these Laws how they have kept Just to the Rights and Obedient to the Authority and True to the Oaths they had made to a Dispossessed King If they have no Exception to his Right nor any Ground but this of de Facto to plead to me it seems there is great Danger lest all those Laws should condemn them And however they they think this Plea of Possession without Right may bear them out before God in paying this Allegiance I think 't is visible no Possessed King trusts thereto in demanding it either before God or before the World for we never yet had a Regnant King that set up upon that Title And in the present Revolution 't is well known to all what Declarations the publick Acts have made of King William's and Queen Mary's legal Right and Title to their Father's Throne CHAP. V. Of the Author's Right by providential Possession without other Title It destroys the Obligations by Right and Wrong I Come now in the Third place to that which is more particularly the Plea of this learned Man which is the Plea of Providencâ— to give or grant Right And this though it be not a legal Right but leaves that still to go as Law directs it yet he says is a better Right than that and such as in the fight both of God and Men ought to set the legal Right aside And this he makes to be the Right of every Regnant King or Possessor of a Throne Providence that gives Success and speeds him
as every one is bound to in his Station whilst a Prince is among them How will his way exempt them from paying the same when they have an obliging Opportunity whilst he is Dispossessed of his Throne This I think K. W. claim'd from the Irish Subjects requiring them to come in to him and to return to their due Obedience whilst his Errand was Restoring or getting Possession And this in virtue of their Natural Allegiance they having taken no Legal Oath to him And more particularly as to the Legal Oath the Maintenance and Defence Swore in that is with respect to the Legal Right as is plain in the Oath and as he himself observes p. 28. And here methinks it should be harder to get off from Maintaining and Defending if the legal Right be allowed to remain which they Swore to maintain and defend him in And the Maintenance Promised was against all Attempts whatsoever against his Person Crown and Dignity Now the Crown and Dignity is his who has the best Right to them Right making Property as I formerly observed So leaving the Legal Right to any Dispossessed Kings Person will leave him the Crown and Dignity And then all continuance of Attempts to deprive his Person of the Crown and Dignity will be Attempts against his Person Crown and Dignity I think And how will this making Attempts thereupon be Maintaining and Defending both his Dignity and him against them So no way will remain but the translation of Legal Right to take off this Maintenance and Defence in my Opinion He thinks also p. 30. That we are not bound to defend a King when he illegally Subverts the Laws or Legal Religion of a Kingdom 'T is enough in Conscience he fancies p. 27. pattently to bear such an one but a little too much for Subjects to venture all to keep him on the Throne to oppress them This I think makes Kings illegal Actings a Discharge of Subject's Allegiance and Legal Defence which agrees equally ill in my Opinion with the Oath of Allegiance and with Passive Obedience For that is to be so Passive as to make no Resistance and to be so Obedient as to pay all due Service and Allegiance even to such illegal Invaders of Religion and Laws Nor is this Duty taken off by the abuse they will make of the Subject's Performance in turning that Power upon them afterwards to persecute and oppress those who were its Dutyful Supporters for no Duty is taken off by the accidental abuse which others may make of our payment of it nor was this in particular thought to be taken off by the Primitive Christians They were not without plain appearances that if a Persecutor kept the Throne he would turn or continue his Power to persecute and oppress them But yet for all this they durst never be wanting in any Part or Duty of good Subjects in their several Stations to keep him thereon either against any Domestick Rebellion or Foreign Invasion The Subject's Duty in these Cases I think is as to the illegal ways never to act under him or serve him in the illegal Thing But yet for all that to be ready in their several Stations to defend his Person and the Cause of his Crown when either Subject or Foreigner shall rise against him And 't is their Acting in the illegal Thing that the Law punishes but no Law will punish them for Acting to support his Person and defend his Crown Though a Man may be a Traytor as he urges p. 30. For Acting for him against Law yet never for Defending him when Assaulted for that is according to Law So though they are not to defend such illegal Opposer in an illegal Thing yet are they bound to give him the due Defence of Allegiance and the Legal Oath notwithstanding it And thus I have considered both the Scriptures and Reasons he has offered for this Right of Providence And as the former Proofs I think shew Reason enough to overthrow it so he has brought no good Reason to support it And therefore mere Providential Possession of another's Crown without other Title is no Right much less such as should set aside the Legal Right So that the Legal Right will stand good notwithstanding it And if he that has the Legal Right has the best Right to the Crown though another be got into Possession The Supposal of a Legal Right in another will leave all the first mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance to the Possessor For in ingaging by such Allegiance to help him in keeping out the right Owner Subjects would be very Unrighteous and ingaging also thereby to resist the Authority of their rightful Prince they would be very Undutiful and Rebellious and therein moreover to break their former Promises and Oaths they would be very Perfidious and Perjurious All which I think are not to be taken off by the Supposal of Legal Right in the ejected Prince but only by proving he has parted from it and that the Possessor is vested with it which uses to be the Principle of the publick Acts on such Revolutions and particularly is so in our present Case and which as the Author has not at all medled with so neither shall I. And thus Honoured Sir I have considered what this Reverend and Learned Person has offered on this Argument Wherein I have endeavoured to take the Freedom which is fitting with his Opinion but to shew the Respect which I have and his many Excellent both Pious and Learned Labours have so long given the Serious and Wise part of Men cause to have for his Person I pray God to enlighten and thereby to awaken the Consciences of all concerned in this Question Some may be apt to take Offence at a free Discussion of these Grounds thinking it may touch too near on Reputation But as many as prefer Religion before themselves will be more careful to keep its Duties in Credit than to keep up their own Credit And I am sure all that have a serious Sense of Christianity and reverence for the Commandments of God must needs see that they have a much higher Concern than Reputation in this Dispute The Difficulties are of highest Importance in that Account we must all one Day make before the great Iudge of the World And if the Grounds several Men satisfie themselves upon at present will not take them off it nearly concerns them to see it in time whilst there may be ways of providing a more comfortable Answer against they come to be posed upon them God in his abundant Mercy grant us all the Grace to have and keep Minds raised above this World and both to see the Truth and follow it I remain Sir Your most Faithful and Affectionate Servant c. FINIS THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF the Difficulties in the way of the Present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off The Allegiance required Difficulties against it from several Commandments All suppose a rightful Competitor to
Reason and good Conscience though there had been no Express Law against it but an Express Law for it yet would it have vacated that Law for can any human Law bind against good Conscience or authorize and bear Men out in unrighteous Actions And tâ—us this Statute would do if still owning another to have the Right it should authorize the Subjects to serve in War and assist the Possessor against him coming to get his Right But p. 65. doth not Law limit Right And may not a King limit his Right by his own Consent Yes and transfer it too if he will But if the Law has still left him the Right and he has not Consented in this Laâ— to part with his Right when dispossessed Which is the reality of the Case as p. 37. the learned Author whom he considered on this Point shewed and as it is supposed to be in this present Dispute which is for trying to give away Allegiance admitting him still to have the legal Right What then is to be said to a Statute authorizing Subjects to oppose him in seeking of his Right If the King himself as he supposes him to do in the Statute on good Considerations consents to this What Iniquity p. 65. says he is there in this Law Yes as it leaves such Dispossessed Prince still to have Right and bids Men oppose him in it there is Iniquity therein as there would be in any Law that should bid Men steal their Neighbour's Goods or slay the Innocent There is Iniquity in all Unrighteousness and this Law would this way bid Men oppose Right which is to be Unrighteous So that here God's Law says you shall not oppose any Man in seeking of his Right and this Law would say you shall do it And when any human Law bids us do that I think since God is above Men it must needs be enough as is shewed in the Doctor and Student to vacate that Law to say that God forbids it But if this Statute is meant only of the right King What need of Indemnifying None whilst the right is in Possession But that was made to cover them as far as he could against a turn of Times which it would be the more like to do especially in such Doubted and Controverted Titles because on all Sides in this Quarrel of the Two Houses they had Cause enough to be weary of the way of Mutual Attaindors Thus much I thought fit to say here upon this Statute which since this Plea has been started other Papers have more largely considered And though the Author whom he replies to in this Part of his Book had no need I think to suppose the King for the time being in that Statute to be a mere King in Fact Yet any one that will peruse what with great Labour and Skill he has laid together in that Book will see enough to shew him how far the Law is from carrying Allegiance to a mere King in Fact Now these Sayings of Council in Baggot's Case and the Statute of H. 7. being my Lord Coke's Grounds for taking Allegiance to be due to a King in Fact the effect of what he alledges from the Three Lord Chief Justices and Baggot's Case to prove this Point I think when duly weighed will only amount to this That my Lord Coke followed therein by Two eminent Lawyers upon the Authority of a Saying of Council and of some Words in a Statute about Allegiance not expresly mentioning a King in Fact but according to their common use in Law signifying one that has Right and not admitting what the Statute affirms of them to be true if meant of any other but the Right were of Opinion that Allegiance is due to a King in Fact Though for further abatement of these Authorities my Lord Coke says enough I think particularly in Calvin's Case to declare Allegiance inseperable from the Right whether Possessed or no. And I think my Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman who Sentenced Men for Treason against the Right after he was Dâ—spossessed and my Lord Chief Justice Hale who refused to sit on any under the late Usurpation that were to be tryed for their Adherence to the Dispossessed rightful King were plainly of the same Opinion And if 't is due to the Right when Dispossessed in their Opinion it is not as the Author thinks duâ— only to actual Government And if it is due to the Right out of Possession since as he says also we cannot have Two Kings or Two Allegiances there can be none due to the Wrong So this Opinion of these great Men seems not to have been their fix'd and settled Opinion for which a Saying of Council or such sound of some Words in a Statute as I have mentioned seems not to be the best Foundation But on the other side That Allegiance is all the time due by Law to the Right even when Dispossessed and broke by those that act against him in Adherence to the King in Fact yea by the King in Fact himself if he were a Subject before appears from Numerous both Acts of Parliament and judged Cases such as Calvin's Case and the Case of Union which make Allegiance to follâ—â— the King 's Natural Person and from the Iudgment on the Duke of Northumberland who gave this Plea of a King in Fact and for the Purposes it is now urged from the Statute of H. 7. for his Acting under Queen Iane against Queen Mary but was told by the Court That the Seal of an Usurping Queen was no good Warrant and the Judgment was afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament From the Iudgement on the Râ—gicides for what they acted against King Charles 1. in his State of Dispossession and the need of an Act of Oblivion for what was done against his Son whilst-kept out of the Administration From the Statute of 13 14 Car 2. before mentioned declaring Allegiance all that while due to him as another declared it due to Queen Mary and the Regal Authority to be vested in her Person during the time of Queen Iane's Usurpation And as other Statutes declared it to be due to Henry the Eighâ—h's right Heirs whilst others Usurped upon them And another Statute did to Richard the Second during Henry the Fourth's Usurping his Throne And as is declared in all the Statutes of Attaindor upon the Kings in Fact and their Adherents when the Kings in Right recovered their Thrones as has been observed in the Chap. 2. foregoing Discourse And as is declared lastly in the legal Oath of Allegiance which Recognizes the King 's Right and Swears to bear and pay Allegiance to the Right whilst he has Right to defend and pay it to And suppose the Statute of H. 7. had authorized Men to pay it to the Wrong and these Statutes of King James the First abâ—â—t the Oath of Allegiance make them Swear to pay it to the Right Which would be the Law in this Case If Two Statutes clash and