King de jure out of Possession can be to no intents and purposes the Minister of God to us for good and the King de facto may be so to all the said intents and purposes then may he also be the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God for the time being In a word the Lord Chief Justice Coke expresly saith Instit par 3. p. 7. That by the Law there is always a King in whose name the Laws are to be maintained and executed otherwise Justice should fail and if so then by the Law the King Regnant must be our King there being no other in whose name the Laws can be maintained and executed and the failure of Justice be prevented And if he be the Higher Power he must also be that Ordinance of God for the time being to which we owe the Duties mentioned in the Objection 3dly As for the first of these Duties An active execution and observation of all the lawful Commands of the King Regnant for the time being it admits no real Ground of Scruple for lawful Commands may lawfully be obeyed The Contribution of Taxes to his support and maintenance is by St. Paul declared to be due 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this very cause that he attends continually upon the Government and therefore due to him that doth so Our Assistance to promote the welfare of the Government we are under by our Prayers and Counsels seems plainly to be our duty by virtue of that Command which God gave to his own People and the continuance of the Reason of it Seek the peace of the City Jer. xxix 7. whither I have caused you to be carried away Captives and pray unto the Lord for it for in the peace thereof you shall have peace and of that Apostolical Injunction That prayers 1 Tim. ij 1 2. and supplications intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all that are in Authority or eminent Place As for our endeavours to keep them in their Station by our Arms it only can be so far our duty as it is lawful so to do Nor do I find St. Paul inculcating it as any part of our Subjection to the Higher Powers nor doth our Law since the Cessation of the Tenure of Knights Service require it personally of all Subjects At least we of the Clergy cannot be concerned in it because we by so many Statutes are exempted from bearing Arms. And lastly as for bearing Faith and true Allegiance you see our Law doth plainly and expresly make it due unto a King de facto And so I cannot fee why all these Duties may not as far as we can be concerned in them be paid to such a King for the time being It is damnation to resist the Power ordained of God in favour of any other person n. 12. Obj. 3. but can it be damnation to resist him who is only King de facto in favour of a King de jure if 2o then what just War can be made for the Recovery of his Right or why did Jehoiada not only depose but even cause Athaliah to be murthered for the sake of Joash 1. The word which we translate Damnation Answ in the Original is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Judgment Now by our Law Treason may be committed against a King de facto and that is punishable by the Judgment of Death and if this Treason be an offence against the natural Allegiance due to the King de facto as all Treasons are and I do thus offend by levying War against the King for the time being in this Realm by being adherent to his Enemies or giving Aid unto them I must be guilty of it by doing this in favour of a King de jure It therefore may be judgment to resist the King de facto in favour of the King de jure i. e. it may be an Offence which by the Law will render me obnoxious to judgment If the King de jure at his return to exercise the Government may punish me for any Treasonable action done against the King de facto and consequently for resisting such a King in favour of himself it must be an Offence deserving Judgment according to our Law thus to resist the King de facto in favour of the King de jure Nor doth it follow hence that the King de jure can make no just War for the Recovery of his Right for this he may do by the Assistance of his Allies by Foreign Aids or by those Subjects who have still adhered to him or will repair unto him only they cannot do it who have received Protection and lived for a time in quiet subjection to another Government If therefore Men will act up to their principle That their Allegiance is still due to King James they must immediately go out of the Realm and repair thither where they alone can pay it to him If they think it unlawful to own any Allegiance due to King William they must expect no Protection seek for no Justice from him pay no Taxes to him for if they repair to him as the Avenger of any evil done to them or as the Minister of Justice if they pay him any Taxes they thereby virtually own him as the Higher Power seeing these things are only due unto him and can be expected from him because he is the Higher Power and you are his Subjects To the Case of Athaliah I have Answered before §. 2. n. 17. and shall now only add That if she obtained any consent from the People it was by reason of their ignorance that she had any Competitor or that any of the Sons of Ahaziah were alive and that she could not have the Throne of Judah whilst any of the Seed-Royal lived by reason of God's manifest declaration to the contrary and therefore when the King's Son was discovered the Priests the Levites and the Chief of Israel do presently cry out 2 Chr. xxiij 3. Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the house of David Here therefore was the immediate Declaration the Promise and the Oath of God against her which whosoever in our case can shew will make this instance pertinent Moreover she who gained consent only on supposition that there was none of that Seed of David left of whom God had expresly said That they should sit upon the Throne could only be supposed to have their consent so long as no such Seed appeared The Power is the Minister of God n. 13. Obj. 4. or one commissionated and Deputed by him for the same dependance that a Subordinate Magistrate hath upon his Sovereign for becoming his Minister the same hath a Sovereign Prince upon God for being his Minister But can any one be Deputed or Commissionated by God to take away another Man 's right or wrongfully to detain it That the Supreme Magistrate is Commissionated by God to be his Minister Answ as well as the Inferior Officer
Axion That no man can serve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two Supreme Lords Matth. vi 24. Now by the Laws of this Land I owe and am bound to yield Allegiance to him who is in Possession of the Kingdom n. 2. whether he have rightful Possession or not and am excusable and free from punishment by the Law if I afford it for so the Law runs The King our Sovereign Lord 11 H. 7. c. 1. calling to his remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this his Realm and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the defence of him and the Land against Every Rebellion Power and Might reared against HIm and with Him to enter and abide in service in Battle if case so require and that for the same Service what Fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land sometime past hath been seen it is not reasonable but against all Laws Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon Him in Person or being in other places within this Land or without by His Commandment any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance It be therefore ordained enacted and established by the King our Sovereign Lord by the advice and assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled and by Authority of the same that from henceforth no manner of person or persons whatsoever he or they be that attend upon the King and Sovereign Lord of this Land for the time being in his Person and do Him true and faithful Service of Allegiance he or they be in no wise convice 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 shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chattels or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any Vexation Trouble or Loss Where Note 1st That this Service and Allegiance mentioned in this Statute is faithful Service and true Allegiance once and again and it is declared to be the duty of all Subjects 2dly That it is to be yielded to the King for the time being without enquiry whether he be the rightful King or no for it was agreeable to reason fo Estate saith the Lord Bacon History of the Reign of H. 7. p. 144. That the Subject should not enquire of the justness of the King's Title or Quarrel and it was agreeable to good Conscience That whatsoever the fortune of the War were the Subject should not suffer for his Obedience 3dly That this Service and Allegiance is to be yielded to the King for the time being against every Power and Might reared against Him. 4thly That through the whole Body of the Act he is called the Sovereign Lord of the Land their Sovereign Lord and so it seems we need not scruple the use of the said Title in our Prayers it being only that which the Law of the Land gives to every one that is King for the time being 5thly That this Statute hath continued unrepealed about Two hundred years and therefore hath been so long approved by the whole Nation and judged well consistent with the duty of Allegiance owing to their lawful Sovereign they therefore judged it not repugnant to their Oaths of Allegiance to their rightful Sovereign to bear true Allegiance and to do true and faithful Service of Allegiance to any other King for the time being who had got quiet possession of the Throne which is all that this Oath requireth of us Moreover all High Treason committed by a Native of the Land is an offence against his natural Allegiance n. 3. Cook 's Reports Par. 7. Calvin's Case p. 435. which appears from the Indictments of Treason which saith the Lord Cook are of all other things most curiously and certainly indited and penned for they run for committing this Crime contra debitum fidei ligeantiae suae quod praefato Domino Regi naturaliter de jure impendere debuit Against the duty of Faith and Allegiance which he naturally and of right ought to yield to his Lord the King or for committing this fact contra Dominum Regem supremum naturalem Dominum suum Against our Lord the King his supreme and natural Lord or contra naturalem ligeantiam Domino Regi debitam Against the natural Allegiance due to our Lord the King. Now the same Lord Chief Justice Cook in his descant on these words of the 25th of Edward the Third Instit Par. 3. ch 1. p. 7. Seignior le Roy used in that Statute concerning High Treason saith That 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 althopugh he be Rex de facto non de jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the purvien 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 afterwards the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon by a King de jure that is not also King Pleas of the Crown p. 11. de facto is void The Lord Chief Justice Hales doth also say That a King de facto and not de jure is a King within this Act and a Treason against Him is punishable though the right Heir get the Crown And sitably to these declarations of these great Men I find in Bagot's Case Pasc 9. Ed. 4. argued in the Ninth year of Edward the Fourth that it is said That the King shall have the advantage of any Forfeiture made to Henry the Sixth c. and of Trespasses made in his time the Brief shall be contra pacem H. 6. nuper de facto non de jure against the peace of Henry the Sixth late King in Possession though not of Right c. and a Man shall be arraigned of Treason done to the said King Henry in compassing his Death and it is there added Qu' si cesty qu' est ore Roy in temps le Roy Henry ust fait Charter de Pardon c ' sera void a ore car chescun qu' ferra Charter de Pardon covient estre Roy en fait That if he who is now King had given a Charter of Pardon in the time of King Henry that Charter shall be void at present because it is necessary that every one who makes a Charter of Pardon should be actually King. Now hence 1. I inferr that we cannot reasonably except
against the using of those terms Our most Gracious Sovereign our Sovereign Lord and Lady King William and Queen Mary they being only the terms which our Law gives to every one that is in Possession of the Government yea say our great Lawyers terms which belong to the King in Possession alone though he be King de facto and not de jure 2ly If Treason committed against a King in Possession though de facto only by any of his native Subjects be an offence against his natural Allegiance due to him and against that duty of Faith and Allegiance which he naturally and of right ought to yield to him then is Faith and Allegiance both his Right to challenge and our Duty to yield to him and then he by requiring us to swear it requires us only to give him his Right and we by so doing shall only engage our selves to the performance of our Duty If it be his Right because he is a King Regnant in Possession then it is his Right no longer than he is in Possession and then the Oath can require it no longer then he is in Possession and then we have no just Ground to fear that the Oath of Allegiance to King James doth bind us now he is not in Possession or that the Oaths we take unto King William and Queen Mary can bind us any longer than they are in Possession this Oath can therefore do no real Injury to King James for if he be not in Possession he hath not by these Expositions of Seignior le Roy a Right to actual Allegiance If he become again the King Regnant in Possession the duty of bearing Faith and Allegiance to him immediately returns without taking any new Oath Again if the King that hath Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act and therefore cannot be the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Statute and therefore not the King against whom Treason may be committed against this Act then can I not offend against my natural Allegiance or against any Duty of Faith and Allegiance which of right I ought to yield to him and then I do not so offend by taking of the Oath of Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary and therefore I may take that Oath notwithstanding my former Promise upon Oath to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King James because by doing so I offend not against any Faith and Allegiance due to him Moreover if the King in Possession be the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Act it must be Treason against him to compass or imagine his Death or to prepare by any Over-Act to depose him This being saith the Lord Coke Ibid. p. 12. a sufficient Over-Act to prove the compassing and imagination of the Death of the King for this upon the matter is to make the King a Subject and to dispose of his Kingly Office of Royal Government Then must it be High Treason against Him to Levy War against him in this Realm to be adherent to his Enemies within this Realm giving to them aid and comfort in this Realm or elsewhere for all these things are by that Act made Treason against the Seignior le Roy within the purvieu of this Statute This Statute therefore as it is expounded by the Lord Chief Justices Coke and Hales must oblige the Subjects of King William and Queen Mary not to assist King James against them that being Treason against the 25th of Edward the Third which they cannot be obliged to commit If King James should he come again to the Possession of the Crown might punish me for any of these treasonable Acts committed against King William and Queen Mary but could not punish me by the Eleventh of Henry the Seventh for any Duty of Allegiance or faithful Service paid to them as my Sovereign Lord and Lady then sure Allegiance and Faith will be due to them whilst in Possession and to them only for were it due to King James I might be punished for not performing it to him If lastly no Pardon now given by King James can save me from the guilt of Treason against King William and Queen Mary and that guilt only be contracted by offending against that Duty of Faith and Allegiance which of right I owe to them sure I cannot offend by want of Faith and Allegiance against him who cannot pardon me but against them only against whom I commit that Treason and therefore unto them alone Faith and Allegiance must of Right be due and so to them by Oath and Promise may be given As an Addition to n. 4. or a Consideration strengthening the former Argument let it be observed 1. Sand. de juram prael 7. §. 7. That it is agreed on all hands that a promisory Oath ceaseth to bind when the matter of the Oath ceaseth Thus if a Man swears to appear at such an Assizes if there be no Assizes kept there he cannot be bound to appear because impossibilium nulla est obligatio there is no obligation to impossibilities and of the matrimonal Vow St. Paul declareth That the Woman is bound by the Law whilst her Husband lives 1 Cor. vii 39. but if her Husband die she is at liberty to be married to whom she will because then the matter or objectof her Vow is removed Others deliver the Rule thus Ames Quum aufertur Ratio formalis juramenti juramentum cossat When the formal Reason of an Oath ceaseth the Obligation of the Oath must cease Thus if a Man swears Residence on a Living his Oath only binds him whilst he is Incumbent because he only took and only was obliged to take it for that very reason because he was Incumbent Now the formal Reason of the Fidelity and Allegiance promised to King James was this That he was our Sovereign Lord King James saith the Oath of Allegiance the Supreme Governour of this Realm saith that of Supremacy and therefore when he ceaseth in the sence and meaning of the Law to be our Sovereign Lord and the Supreme Governour of this Realm my Oath to yield Faith and Allegiance to him must cease to be obliging to me If when another is King Regnant in possession he is legally dead for that time his politick capacity being then separated from the natural Person of the King then must the Subjects of England be free from their Allegiance to him for that time for though Ligeance is due as was resolved in Calvin's Case Cook 's Reports p. 438. to the natural Person of the King and not to the politick Capacity only yet is it only due to the natural Person of the King when it is accompanied with his politick Capacity for otherwise he could not possibly divest himself of it by any the most formal or voluntary resignation of the Government whatsoever nor by any other Act whatsoever viz. the entrance into a Monastery out of his Dominions and the
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
and threaten and much less to resist their Persecutors but only to commit their Cause to him that judgeth Righteously Now if after all these Declarations they indeed allowed all Christians to resist and take up Arms against their Governors when they conceived them guilty of Tyrannical abuse of Power when they became a terror to good Works and not to Evil only when they did not act according to Justice or established Laws or for the Good and Welfare of the Kingdom but the contrary surely they cannot be excused from a semblance of Deceit and of imposing on the Heathen World. 3. It plainly seems to make them guilty of the Murther of those many Christians who when they declared themselves * Vide Tertull. Ap. c. 37. ad Scap. c. 5. Cypr. Ep. ad Deme. r. Buseb l. 8. c. 1 4. Aust de Civ Dei l. 22. c. 6. sufficient both for strength and number to resist and overcome their Persecutors at the same time declared they durst not do it because it was forbidden by the Christian Laws And whereas against our Interpretation of the words it may be objected n. 7. First Obj. 1 That it makes wicked Magistrates the Ministers of God to us for good the Powers ordained of God yea that according to it even Vsurpers if they can once obtain quiet Possession and the consent of the Nobility and of the Commons must also be the Ordinance of God for the time being This I confess is true Answ but then it seemeth to be only that which Scripture which Antiquity which Reason and the Law of this our Nation doth allow and justifie For of those wicked Enperors forementioned it is that St. Paul saith They are the Ministers of God to thee for good to them it is St. Peter doth require Subjection 1 Pet. ij 14. as to men sent for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well And even of the Power of Pilate to condemn our Saviour Christ doth himself confess That it was given him from above Joh. xix 11. And Reason saith the same for even under wicked Magistrates Justice is executed Offenders against the Lives and Lively-hoods of others punished and Peace preserved and from their Government it is that we are kept from the Insolencies of Thieves and Robbers from barbarous Assassinations and all the miseries of Anarchy For take away the Higher Powers saith St. Chrysostom and all goes to wreck Chrys in Rom. Hom 23. Tom. 3. p. 191. neither will City nor Country nor Family nor Assembly nor ought else stand the stronger will devour the weaker and all things will be turned upside down So that we do in some measure receive that good from the most wicked and depraved Governors which without Government we could not have Accordingly the ancient Christians say in General of those Kings who were not very good at least many of them in their times That they are the Ordinance of God That by his command Kings are Ordained Theoph. ad Autol. l. 1. p. 76. That they were appointed by God That they received their Government from above That the Emperor derives his Government from him from whom he doth receive his breath Iren. l. 5. c. 24. Tertull. Apol. c. 30 33. ad Scap. c. 2. That he is the Man whom God chuseth and therefore must be loved by Christians who know he is appointed by God and that he makes them Governors over the Nations Legat. pro Christianis Apud Eus H. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. Apud Athanas Ep. ad Solit. Vit. agentes Athenagoras saith of Aurelius and Commodus You have received the Kingdom from above Dionysius of Alexandria of Valerianus and Gallienus God hath committed the Kingdom to you Hosius of Constantius who laboured might and main to introduce the Arian Heresie into the Church against those Imperial Laws which had established the Nicence Faith That God had given to him the Empire Paulinus of Trier Lucifer of Calaris Eusebius of Vercelli and Dionysius of Millain That God gave to him the Kingdom Athanasius Apol. ad Constant De Civ Dei l. 5. c. 21. That God by his Word had given the Kingdom to his Servant Constantius He that gave the Government to Marius saith St. Austin gave it to Caesar he who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero he who gave it to the Vespasians most sweet Emperors gave it also to the most cruel Domitian and he who gave it to that most Christian Prince Cnstantine gave it to Julian the Apostate Tho he be wicked abominably wicked though he commit Ten thousand Evils and do the worst of mischiefs to us saith St. Chrysostom yet he is a King a Governor one to whom the Government is committed and therefore to be reverenced and not to be despised for his wickedness but revered for his Dignity But yet it may be said n. 8. How true soever this may be of an evil King who hath a lawful Title to his Government it seems strange and incongruous to assert That he who is only King de facto and so can only Exercise that Government which doth of Right belong unto another should be the Ordinance of God and it is liable to these great Objections and Absurdities 1st That which renders a man an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right can never render him the Ordinance of God to which I owe Subjection and Allegiance but that which makes him only King de facto in opposition to a King de jure makes him an Usurper of another Man 's Right without due Title or Admission to the Exercise of that Right 2dly The Precept Let every Soul be Subject to the Higher Powers cannot agree to him who is only King de facto in opposition to him that is King de jure for this Subjection doth not only signifie a Passive Obedience or Non-Resistance but an active Execution and Observation of all his lawful Commands the Contribution of Taxes to his Support and Maintenance our Assistance and Endeavours to keep him in his Station by our Arms Purse our Counsel and our Prayers our Love Reverence and Honour of him In a word our Fidelity and Allegiance to him against all others Now can all this be due to a King de facto in opposition to him whose Right it is 3dly It is Damnation to resist the Power ordained of God in favour of any other person but can it be Damnation to resist him who is only King de facto in Favour of a King de jure to whom assistance must be due de jure If so then what just War can he made for the Recovery of his Right or why did Jehoiada not only Depose but cause Athaliah to be Murthered for the sake of Joash 4thly The Power is the Minister of God or one Commissionated and Deputed by him for the same Dependance that a Subordinate Magistrate hath
upon his Sovereign for becoming his Minister the same hath a Soreign Magistrate upon God for being his Minister but can any one be Deputed or Commissionated by God to take away another Man 's Right or wrongfully to detain it 5thly By this Assertion no King de facto or in quiet possession can be an unjust Possessor or an unlawful occupant of the Throne for he that is so in as to be God's Ordinance i. e. Commissionated and Deputed by him to be the Higher Power must needs be rightly in and Authorized to execute the Government These n. 9. I confess seem to be great Absurdities at the first view Answ and such as plainly shock the whole Foundation of our Argument but yet I hope their force may be sufficiently abated by these Considerations following 1. That some of these Arguments seem with an equal strength to prove that wicked Kings are not and cannot be the Higher Powers or the Ordinance of God as that Kings in possession without Right can never be so 2. That it is plain to common Sense and the Experience of Men that a King out of Possession whilst he is so exerciseth none of the Characters and Offices ascribed by St. Paul to the Higher Powers and that the King de facto doth or may exercise them all 3. That he who in our Case is King Regnant in Poessession is not to be deemed an Vsurper in the Law Sence and Acceptation of the Word 4. That by the difference which must be put betwixt him and a meer Vsurper all the forementioned Objections may be solved And First Some of these Arguments seem with an equal strength to prove what most undoubtedly is false viz. That Princes acting wrongfully and injuriously towards their Subjects cannot be the Higher Powers for it is certain they can derive no power from God but for the good of Man. They can have no Commission Title or Authority from him to hurt the Innocent to pervert Judgment or to do Evil to his People they therefore do exert this Power without due Title or Commission from God they usurp upon the Rights of other Men for every Subject has a right to Justice every innocent person to Protection from suffering hurt or violence They cannot be Commissionated or Deputed by God to do these things for then they must have Authority from God to do them and so they must be rightly done And yet even in these Cases we must suffer patiently and be thus subject for Conscience towards God and cannot forcibly resist them without the peril of Damnation which we only can incurr because we do resist the Higher Powers They therefore in these Actions are at once the Power and the Abusers of the Power yea the Vsurpers of a Power which belongs not to them and therefore even of the Power of Pilate to condemn the blessed Jesus our Lord speaks thus Thou couldst have no Power over me Joh. xix 11. unless it were given thee from above And when Peter drew his Sword in the defence of his Innocence against men Commissionated by an Illegal High Priest he saith unto him Mat. xxvi 52. Put up thy Sword into its place for all that take the Sword shall perish by it Moreover if Subjection signifies active Subjection to their Administration of the Government if it require our Arms Purse Counsels Prayers 't is certain this cannot lawfully be afforded to strengthen and assist them in these Evil Actions but that in all these Cases we may both Counsel and pray against their Wickedness and though we may not even then lift up our hands against them we may hold them down Secondly n. 17. In Answer to the Fifth Objection in the Second Section I have proved that it is plain to common Sence that a King out of Possession whilst he is so cannot do any thing belonging to the Higher Powers to do and that a King de facto in Possession may perform all things of that Nature Thirdly I add That King William and Queen Mary being King and Queen by the consent of the Nobility and Commons the Representatives of the Kingdom cannot be looked upon as meer Vsurpers for the Reason given in Bagot's Case concerning Henry the Sixth That he was not to be deemed an Vsurper because the Crown had been entailed on him by Act of Parliament Which may be proved Secondly From the nature of a meer Usurper or Possessor Gre. p. 295. viz. That he is one who is in the place of Power without any Call Consent or Constitution of the People or that he is one that is in meerly by his own Act Whereas King William and Queen Mary are not in the place of Power meerly by their own Acts but by the Call Consent and Constitution of the Nobility and People Thirdly From the Nature and the Essentials of Government For what doth constitute it but the Subjection of the governed Party or the Resignation of themselves their wills abilities or powers to the Rule and Arbitration of some other What Title hath any Conqueror to another Man's Subjects without this Or what King now in Being can claim a Right unto his Kingdom upon any other Title What are the motives to Government but the preservation of Peace and Order and the prevention of Injuries and Wrongs When then there is after mature deliberation had such an actual Designation of the whole Community there is Government conveyed in that very way in which it always was since paternal Government ceased communicated and in which alone it can be properly conveyed And so there is no Usurpation of it in respect of him who thus receives it whatever irregularities may be in their Actions who do thus conferr it Lastly I add That by due observation of the difference which must be put betwixt Usurpers and our present King and Queen and the two Observations made all the forementioned Objections may be solved For First As we compared them before with the Case of a King injurious to his Subjects and found them almost as strong against his being the Higher Power so let us again compare them with the Case of a King injurious to his fellow King injustly Invading and so entirely Conquering his Dominions and seizing on them for himself Did not the beginning of this Action constitute him an injurious Person when he takes upon him the Government thus got doth he not take away another Man 's Right and must he not then wrongfully detain it is not the person thus wrongfully Excluded King de jure may he not justly wage War for the Recovery of his Right but yet do not all Persons own that 't is not only lawful but even necessary for the People after such Conquest to consent to take the Conqueror for their Governor to yield Allegiance to him and that by doing so they render him the Higher Power and the Ordinance of God And yet all the forementioned Objections are as strong against him as any other