IT appears sufficiently by this Time, (I suppose,) upon Re­cord, that the generality of the Reverend, Learned, and Pi­ous Clergy of this Church have actually taken the Oath in Dispute: and their Books every where extant declare, that di­vers of them have written Learnedly in Defence of themselves and their Brethren so doing: and have not been wanting in their utmost endeavours to satisfie those of them who yet refuse, by offering them all the Arguments they could think of, for it; and turning every Stone under which they could imagine any conside­rable objection against it to lie concealed, in order to the giving it a satisfactory Solution.

They have, to this purpose, unravelled all the Principles of Go­vernment, and searched into the Reason of them all, even from Adam, downwards; they have, particularly, with great industry, sifted the Legal Constitution of the English Monarchy, and the History of all its Monarchs, to evidence the Original Contract, upon which it is asserted, that our Government is founded; they have endeavoured to evince the late King to have been a kind of Felo de se, (as to his Title thereunto,) by voluntary Abdicating the Throne; to which divers Authors also have added his Legal Forfeiture, (as they sup­pose,) by breaking the Original Contract before-mentioned: they have fortified the Claim and Title of our present Sovereigns, by justi­fying the late Dutch Invasion, together with the rising of the English Nobility, and their adherents, in the circumstances wherein we then [Page 2] were, to assist it; they have pleaded the Right of Conquest conse­quent thereupon, if their Present Majesties had thought fit to fix their Throne on that foundation; and (that being waved by them, who have rather chosen to adventure themselves upon the favour of the Nation Assembled in Parliament,) they have asserted the Legality of the present Parliament, for substance, although wanting the usual circumstances of Summons, &c. (which in the present conjuncture could not be had,) to constitute them in all points formally such; and (by Consequence) have inferred the validity of those Acts for the settlement of the Throne, which they have made; and thereby, not only justified the matter of this Oath, but also, the Authority by which it is imposed: and lastly, they have (by strong Evidence to that Point, at least, if all other grounds should fail,) made out the lawfulness (if not necessary Duty) of paying our Actual Obedience to their Majesties, as actually possessed of the Government.

And yet (notwithstanding all these Endeavours of theirs,) it ap­pears also, that divers of the Sacred Function (and some of them of the highest Character, and Station in this Church,) have, rather than to comply with the rest in taking this Oath, already incurred the Penalty of Suspension from, and seem inclined yet farther to hazard the being totally deprived (which is the Penalty to which Refusers are shortly endangered) of their Places and Employments: which evi­dently declares, that all that hath been said upon that subject yet, hath not been prevalent enough for their plenary satisfaction.

The consideration whereof, I must confess, may very well dis­courage any Person who hath but modesty enough to take a just measure of himself (in comparison with those who have Written before so accurately on this Argument, as to leave little for any that comes after them to add thereunto) from attempting any thing farther of that kind; and had certainly had that effect upon my self, had I not found it necessary, in a sort, (upon the account of the un­charitable carriage of divers Persons, who, though it may be, they have not so much as looked into any of the Books before-mentioned to understand the Reasons moving us thereto, have made it much of their business to censure and condemn both my self, and so many of my Reverend Fathers and Brethren as have taken the said Oath,) to write a few Lines in Justification, (at least) of that which we have done: if not, also, to the conviction of others, who still stand out in their refusal, and the inducing of them to do the same yet, before the approaching expiration of the Term by the Act allowed, and the securing themselves in those Stations, wherein they may still continue [Page 3] serviceable to this Church; to which divers of them, (as all must acknowledge) have hitherto been, both a Defence by their learned Pens, and an ornament by their personal Qualifications.

I am sensible (I musts needs say) by Experience, that with the Assertors of some rigorous Principles of Loyalty, all the Arguments urged from the Topicks before-mentioned, except those of the last sort, are of no consideration at all: and that even those, (although they find from them some fairer Quarter then the rest, in Thesi, or in ge­neral, yet) in the present Case, are judged insufficient and uncon­cluding. And this, because they are strongly possessed with a per­suasion, that their former Allegiance is a thing of an everlasting per­manent Obligation, and in no sort or degree, upon any emergency, to be transferred from a Prince however dispossessed, (as one, who hath a Title, neither forfeitable by any miscarriage, nor voidable by any ces­sion or departure) unto any other, so long as he lives, and is not pleas­ed expresly to release it: and adhere to the Doctrines of Non-resist­ance and Passive Obedience, (as they judge them taught by the Church of England) to such a Degree, as to pronounce them utterly incon­sistent with the Allegiance in this Oath required. So that, when we have to do with Men of that strain, it is necessary that we wave all those former Heads of Arguments above-mentioned; and cast the whole stress of this Dispute upon the last, in the Issue of this single Question, viz.

[Whether, (with the saving of those Principles of theirs, be they sound or not) a Man that professeth Loyalty in its utmost rigours, may not yet be at liberty, in the present circumstances, to take the Oath required to K. W. and Q. M. as actual Possessors of the Throne?]

To this, therefore, I resolve in this Discourse, to confine my self; endeavouring to prove the Affirmative, and answer all visible Objecti­ons to the contrary, in the making good the Propositions following. The first whereof, is this,

I. [That in all Places, every one that is by Law in the condition of a Subject owes a Legal Obedience (which I take to be no other then Al­legiance) to some supreme Powers; and to some Person or Persons by whom it is exercised.] Subjection, from Subjects, is always due somewhere, under what Form of Government soever Men be, by the Law of Nature, (according to the Reverend Dr. Sanderson:) Sanderson's Case of the Engagement and that, (primarily) to every Mans Country, and conse­quently, to the Sovereign Power thereof. For the denial of this, does evidently involve a contradiction; as that which suppo­seth the same Person, at the same time, a Subject, and yet no Subject: [Page 4] a Subject, as being under the Laws; and yet no Subject, as being dis­charged from that Duty which those Laws enjoyn. Yea, more, it vertually dissolves (while it is denied) that Society (in the tendency thereof) which is established upon, and maintained by those Laws. For the Obligation of the Law at any time dissolved, leaves every Man (so long as things continue in that posture) sui juris, in the equality of Nature; so that he may challenge, without restraint, the liberty of doing what is good in his own Eyes.

II That this Legal Obedience, or Allegiance, cannot in the present juncture, be actually paid to King James, and therefore the Obligation of it so far ceaseth, as to its actual performance to him, as he is in an actual incapacity to demand, or we to give it; how due soever (according to the Principles mentioned) it may be thought to be. This Notion here assert­ed, of the Cessation of actual Obedience, (though promised by an Oath) I take to be (as to its possibility) agreeable to the Determina­tion of the learned Dr. Sanderson, in his famous Book, De Obligatione Juramenti; who therein pronounceth a promissory Oath (as to its Obligation to Performance) to cease, per cessationem materiae, when the matter of it ceaseth. Now, the matter of an Oath Promissory then ceaseth, when that which is promised, is not payable; which may happen, either by its becoming either naturally or morally impossible.

As for instance, when the Person to whom the Promise is made, ceaseth to be in a capacity to demand or receive what was so pro­mised. This (I suppose) may fall out; either totally, as (in one of the Doctors own Instances) it does, when the General of an Army, to whom a Soldier is obliged by a Military Oath is dead. Then, it is cassated, or made totally void. Or, partially, as (to keep to the for­mer instance) when the General so sworn to, though he be yet alive, is notwithstanding in such circumstances as render him, for the time, as dead; which may happen, by his being taken Prisoner, and shut up so close, as that the Soldier can receive no certain Commands from him. I could here also (if I may without offence) add another Case (which, whether it dissolve such an Obligation totally, or par­tially only, let who will determine) to wit, When such a General voluntarily deserts his Army; and especially if he do so, to joyn himself with their Enemies; so that he cannot in those circumstances be obey­ed by the Party he hath deserted, without the Breach of an higher Obligation to him, or them, from, or for whom he received his Commission. Now I am very much mistaken if one of these Cases run not parallel with ours, in the Allegiance promised to King James. For, plain it is, de facto, that we can, in his present cir­cumstances, [Page 5] have no Communication with him, nor receive any cer­tain Commands from him, how willing soever we might be to serve him; being (whether by choice or necessity, I determin not here) wholly in the power of our Nations and Religions professed Enemies; without maintaining that dangerous Intelligence which he himself can­not in reason require; and which, I hope, our most dissatisfied Brethren do not think that Allegiance obligeth us at this time, to keep with him. And I could wish that the later Case propounded, did not also run too parallel with ours, i. e. That he had not embodied himself with the sworn Adversaries of our Religion (as to his Communion) as he hath long since; and yet, notwithstanding that, we paid him our true Allegiance always whiles he stayed among us, which he himself hath more than once acknowledged. And much more, that he had not now at last also, not only deserted us, but likewise armed against us those of that Party who most thirst after our Blood; and there­by rendred it farther impossible for any Englishmen (especially Pro­testants) to pay him that further Duty which the Oath of Allegiance expresseth by Assistance and Defence; which they cannot do (accord­ing to the preceding Hypothesis) without breaking their greater antecedent Oligations to God, their Native Country, themselves and their Posterity; in consistence wherewith, all subsequent Obligations must be interpreted, to render them lawful: For, otherwise, the Rule is Prior obligatio praejudicat posteriori.

To clear up this Proposition the more fully; let us spend a little time in enquiring particularly into those Acts of Allegiance, which may by any one be supposed to be due to King James in his present cir­cumstances; and see, whether any of them be rationally performable to him, by the English Clergy particularly, to whose Case this Dis­course is chiefly aecommodated.

The main Duty of our former Allegiance is contain'd in the Words of Assistance, and Defence, as was before said. This is done, either by Arms; or otherwise; to wit, by actions more proper to our Functi­on. As to the former; I suppose no Man of that Calling will think himself obliged personally to bear Arms for him. For an entire freedom herein was always allowed us by the Law, which excuseth all Persons in Holy Orders from being required to do so in any case. So that whatever is at any time done, of that nature, by any of them, must needs be, in this case, not a matter of Duty, but a meer Super­erogation of Loyalty, a perfectly voluntary and free-will Offering. It would be no other, even to a Prince that had most highly deserved of us; and one, whom (in the prospect of the Success of his Arms) [Page 6] we could cordially trust with all our dearest Interests. And therefore it is not to be supposed that any considering Person of that Order (how militarily disposed soever he may be otherwise) will think fit personally to give one, who surely hath not so obliged us, and the Success of whose Arms at present we cannot safely Trust, this sort of Assistance or Defence, though he should call for it; and much less to offer it when unasked. For what were this indeed (as things now stand) but, out of an over-eager desire of shewing an extravagant piece of Passive Obedience to out-act the Circumcellions themselves; and assist barbarous Irish Tories, and French Dragoons, so as to enable them in the issue, to advance us to the too fondly affected Crown of an unwarrantable Martyrdom?

Is it (in the next place) supposed by any, that [Preaching and Pray­ing for King James] are Duties indispensably incumbent upon them, by vertue of their Allegiance? If so, I desire them to consider, that, supposing them such, yet they can be no otherwise such, than as all others are, that are so, by vertue of an Affirmative Precept, and so can be no otherwise obliging, (at least, as to the circumstances of their Actual Exercise) than as all things so commanded, are; and there­fore do not bind us ad semper, (as the Schools speak) That is, they are not necessarily to be done at all Times, whatever the consequences of them may be; but the actual performance of them thus and thus, and at this or that season, is to be governed by circumstances; and where those are such, that the mischief that will probably be done, is greater than the good that is likely to be consequent on so doing; 'tis then unlawful to do them, because unseasonable. This in general. But let us further view them particularly.

1. As to [Preaching for K. J.] If Preaching up his present Cause, be meant thereby; and declaring all those that are in Arms against him for their own Defence in Ireland, together with the Eng­lish Forces sent hence to assist them, Rebels, and incurring the penalty of Damnation for such Resistance; it is to make our selves Judges of a War, which we can never hope convincingly to prove unlawful, except upon the supposition of an unlimited Right in the Prince to dis­pose universally of his Subjects, as to Religion, Laws, Liberties and Lives, as he pleaseth; and the Duty of all that are within his Do­minions tamely to suffer them all to be taken from them, upon the Obligation of the Doctrine of Non-resistance. And what can we hope for upon the preaching of this Doctrine (be it never so true) at this time of Day, under such universal Prejudice against it, that can ra­tionally make amends for the Inconveniences necessarily attendant [Page 7] upon it; not only to our Persons, from the Laws in being which (un­der the highest Penalties) forbid us so to do; but also, to the whole Nation, if our Doctrine should (contrary to all rational probability) be entertained by any considerable numbers. For what could the Issue then be, but the raising of a bloody Civil War, in the bowels of it; and that War, (if it should end in a Conquest on the side which by such Preaching we assist,) consequentially destructive to all those dear Enjoyments, which, as we are Christians and English-men, are now secured to us under the Protection of the present Constitution, and the Forces raised by it? Besides, that it would be a very diffi­cult thing for us, upon clear grounds, to determine the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a War, the Justice whereof depends on so many Intrigues of Circumstances, in the first Original of it (whence our measures must be taken) which Men of our Profession cannot be throughly acquainted with the Truth or Falshood of. For which of us can demonstratively make out, against all contradiction, the Legitimacy of the P. of W. (though any of us in our own Judgments possibly might incline to that opinion, as I believe most of us once did, when he was so declared by the publick Authority then in being, and therefore, according to the direction of the Law in that case, we in­serted his Name, or Title at least, in the publick Liturgy: (which yet we must be able to do, if we will undertake to condemn the invasion of his now-Majesty (then, Prince of Orange) to preserve the Right his Princess had to the succession, who (if the Child were Illegitimate, or Supposititious) was the next in the Royal Line to whom it did be­long) as unlawful? I speak this, only to shew, how unmeet it is for us, in the Pulpit, to ground Doctrines of such great importance to Salvation or Damnation to our People, upon supposal of such things which we cannot Infallibly know to be true; or such, which (as to matter of Fact) our People (not one it may be, to a thousand, dissent­ing) will tell us to our teeth, as soon as we come out of the Pulpit, they never did, nor can believe. And undoubtedly our caution, in things of this nature, is not disallowed, but rather encouraged, and directed by our Saviours Example; who, himself, in deciding a Que­stion of Conscience in a Case that concerned Caesar, (by the very man­ner of delivering his Judgment therein) declared himself studiously cautious of giving offence on both sides: And though he determined it for the Emperor; yet, had we not an Instance of his own practice, to warrant the interpreting him that way, we could hardly gather it convincingly from his words alone. But, I suppose, I need not very earnestly press this Point upon our Brethren, who by their [Page 8] practice generally have shewn their Caution therein: and seem there­by to grant my Assertion, [That preaching for K. J. in the present Circumstances is a piece of Allegiance, the obligation whereunto ceaseth, q ^d e. d.

2. Next, as to [Praying for him] if it be a Duty, it is to be per­formed either in private, or publick, or both. And in both these, (supposing still, that [for him] imports [for the success of his present Arms] I doubt not, but to shew the cessation of this piece of Allegiance unto him too. For to do this in publick; it lies too much under the same inconveniences and disadvantages, (and much more so,) with the former [of preaching for him,] for any of us to look upon our selves, as obliged by Allegiance so to do. And, as to our private Devotions, although any of us should think it our Duty to pray for him in his personal circumstances, to wit, for Gods sancti­fying his afflictions to him; his Conversion to the true Religion, and preservation of him from evil accidents; nay, suppose some one think it his Duty, to go farther, and pray for his Restitution it self: it contributes not much to the stating the Question in hand, whether such private sentiments (as to the former sorts) be deter­mined to be branches of the cessant Duty to K. J. or no. But as to the last, (his Restitution) it will certainly deserve any Protestants serious consideration, whether in Conscience, he can satisfie himself, even in his privatest Devotions, to make his applications to Heaven, for the assisting a Person to return to his former Estate, whose Interest, and Inclinations too (except one could be certainly assured that he is become a true Convert, and so hath disclaimed them) are directly con­trary to the true Interest of that Religion, which (of all in the World,) he is perswaded, that God whom he makes his Applications to, most approves and owns; and hath made it appear that he doth so, most remarkably of late, by so strange a concatenation of Providential In­trigues throughout all Europe, for the securing it, as hardly any Age can shew the like.

Wherefore, for any Christians of the Protestant Profession, (and especially of this Nation) to endeavour, though but by a secret wish, to obstruct the progress of those great Affairs, (which in the Prospect of their probable Issue, promise the whole Protestant Cause, and chiefly in these Parts, so fair) were in all such, in my Judgment, an high indication of a too stupid insensibleness of their dearest concerns: but in any of us a too visible implication besides, of (that which is much worse) an ungrateful longing to return back again to that Egyptian bondage, from which the Lord by so many mi­racles [Page 9] of mercy hath so lately delivered us. At least, it can certain­ly, be no part of our Duty, to deprecate the continuation of that actual security from Romish Persecution, which (whiles we our selves were bound up (by the influence of the Doctrines of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience upon our Consciences,) from giving the least assistance thereto) God alone by his mighty Hand and out-stretched Arm hath wrought for us.

And now, I hope, I may take it for granted, that I have satis­factorily established the verity of my second Proposition; both in the general, and also in all the particulars included in it: and therefore may proceed to the next.

III. The third Proposition, (which I think none will put me to prove, however, for the perfecting the train of consequences in this Discourse, it needs to be mentioned,) is this, [This cessant Allegi­ance to the former King, there is none else that visibly claims, but K. W. and Q. M.] They are K. and Q. de facto, and exercise all Acts of Supremacy without any visible opposition throughout this Nation. The Forts and the Forces, and the Royal Revenues of the whole Nati­on are wholly in their Hands. There is not, (in the Proverbial Phrase of Scripture) a Dog that opens his Mouth against them. The Protection we have, in our Lives, Laws, Properties, Religious and Ci­vil Liberties, we receive from the Influences of their Government: And therefore (as a farther branch of this Proposition) it follows, [that we are to pay it to them.] For, surely, if [Protectio trahit Alle­giantiam,] (the Maxime of the Lawyers) be true in any case, it must needs be so in this; whiles, especially, our Allegiance is at li­berty (as to him, who only can have any Pretension to it else) by the force of the first Proposition.

IV. The fourth Proposition is this. [The Allegiance which I may, (and much more, which I must) pay those to whom it is proved due by the preceding Propositions, they may oblige me to promise: and what I may be obliged to promise, I cannot rationally refuse to secure to them, if they demand it, by an Oath.] This Proposition also, I think fit to menti­on, for (the Reason before-mentioned) the continuation of the threed of the Argument; but, I suppose, it likewise needs no Proof: it being a thing allowed in all humane conversation, as equitable to give such security as our word, at least, for all Debts; and that of an Oath, particularly, to those (Superiours especially) that will not take our bare word: and an Oath for confirmation, even the Scrip­ture asserts to be the way to put an end to all strifes, which in cases of that nature may arise.

And now I have done with the astructive part of this Discourse, and affirmed both the Justice of the Claim of King William and Queen Mary, to our Allegiance, and our Oath to give them Assu­rance of it, in the present Circumstances: There remains there­fore now, no more to be done, but the purfuance of the destructive part, or Demolishing the Strengths of our supposed Antagonists, by answering the Objections they do, or it may be conceived might make against my former Assertions. And this I shall endeavour by making good the Six Propositions following.

V. [That whatever Right, according to their Principles, whom we have here to deal with, may yet remain to K. J. as to their Allegiance, is not by the Oath now required of them, disclaimed; nor that of their present Majesties asserted.] Sure I am, it is not expresly, as appears by the words of it; there being nothing of Title or Right, the one, or the other way, mentioned therein. For the naming the Persons to whom it is Sworn, King and Queen, asserts only, the Factum, that they are actually so; affirming nothing of the Title, by which they are so. The Omission whereof, (it being so expresly and largely set forth in the former Oath of Allegiance) in this, is certainly a great Instance of the tenderness which the Composers thereof had for the known Principles of our Reverend Fathers and Brethren; and designed (probably) for the preventing of this very Objection, which they foresaw would with greatest Difficulty be removed out of the way of those Persons, whom they so much desired not to lay aside out of the publick Settlement, which their seasonable standing in the Breach which our common Adversaries had made in the Bulwarks of our Religion, Liberties and Properties, with their own great hazard, had given so great an Assistance to. But this Caution of theirs (as it unhappily falls out) hath not done what it was intended for. For it is still objected, That the same is done implicitely, by the very Nature of the thing required, which was, by the forbearing those explicite words, design'd to be avoided. For the Swearing Allegiance to One, denies it (in their Judgment) to all Others; and, by con­sequence, this Oath implies the Renunciation of the former Oath, wherein the Right of K. J. was asserted. To which I answer, that does not necessarily follow, if my former Hypothesis be true; [That a meer actual Allegiance to another (which is all that this Oath obligeth us to) does not involve a Negation of the Person's Right who formerly had it; but only the Cessation of the Obligation thence arising, in the present Circumstances, to act on his behalf.]

I shall close this Paragraph, with a Note, or two, out of the Reverend Dr. Sanderson, who in his Book relating to the Case of the Engagement, declares it as his Judgment, [That where the words of a Promise may in fair Construction be capable of a double meaning, so as to be taken in one sense, they shall bind to more, and in another, to less; the Promiser may make his just advantage of the Ambiguity, and take it in the same sense which shall bind to the less. Because the Faith to be given, is intended to the behoof of him to whom it is given; and therefore it concerneth him to take care that his meaning be expressed in such words, as will sufficiently manifest the Sense to the Ʋnderstanding of a reasonable Man. Which if he neglect to do, no Law of Equity, or Prudence, bindeth the Promiser, by an over-scrupulous Diligence, to lay a greater Obligation upon himself, than he needed to do.] Wherefore, if Allegiance, in this Oath, may fairly signifie either rightful Allegiance, or actual Allegiance only; if the words, King and Queen, may be interpreted in the same Latitude; though it should be supposed, that the Im­posers intended to stretch them to the more; nothing hinders the Swearer from interpreting them to the less rigorous Sense. And so, this Objection, by his Judgment, will fall to the ground of it self; and need give our Brethren no trouble.

VI. [That the Acts of Allegiance required by K. W. and Q. M. (of the Clergy at least, in particular) contain in them nothing but what they may lawfully do, during the ceasing Obligation of Obedience to K. J.] For those Acts (according to the former Distribution) must be, either, Bearing of Arms at their Command, or assisting the Forces they raise, by sending in Militia Soldiers, or Payment of Taxes imposed by them in the legal Methods, or Preaching or Praying for them. Now, the first of these, [bearing Arms in Person] no Clergy-man (as was before said) can by Law be required to do; and therefore, they may be assured, that will not by their Majesties (who are engaged to govern by Law) be demanded of them. And, as to the [fur­nishing out such of the standing Militia appointed by Law, as their Ecclesi­astical or Temporal Revenues render them liable unto] as the Law it self justifies him that, by Command, doth it; so doth it by Penalties enforce those that refuse so to do. And so, that Assistance, will come under the Consideration of the third Particular, [the Payment of Taxes in form of Law imposed.] And the Payment of such, may by the plenary Possessor of the Throne, be exacted from all Subjects, with all the Penalties incurred by refusing, in case any one deny them. So that, (besides the Liberty left any one to deny them, if he will run the hazard;) the quiet Payment of them amounts, indeed, [Page 12] to no more (in a conscientious, as well as prudent Consideration) than the purchasing our own ease, and compounding for a less Sum out of our Estates, with those who may, upon refusal, enforce from us a far greater. And we had, somewhat above Forty years since, a Case of the same nature, (though with far less colour of Law than this at present) wherein the doing of this, was universally allowed by the severest Assertors of Allegiance to K. C. I. and II. and therefore thence (in Reason, I think) be now less disputable, (as to its lawfulness) to those, who have received the strictest Prin­ciples they argue from in the present Circumstances, from them; as will appear anon more largely in the handling of the Ninth Pro­position.

And yet, withal, I conceive there is more to be said, for such Payments now, then at that Time there was; Partly, upon a Military Account; because the end for which the Soldiery are to be main­tained (though it be true, that in that War, a dispossessed King was kept out of his Throne, as in this,) is far more justisiable now, than at that time it was. For those Arms were taken against a Protestant Prince, and upon false Imputations of his Inclinations to Popery only; whereas, in this case those Fears are really made good, both as to the Person and his Designs: And those great Concerns of our Religion, Laws and Liberties, were only then concluded to be in danger, from remote Consequences of some suspicious Acts; which are now bare-facedly undermined. And partly, upon a Civil Account. The Laws have now their Free Course; whereas, then, all Law was trampled on by the conquering Party, either by Military Force, or by Arbitrary Courts. Whence, it is but meet, that that Law, and the Administrators of it, should be maintained by all those who re­ceive the Benefit and Advantage thereof. Nor is it, certainly, more inconsistent with the Obligations of any former Allegiance to pay for the Support of that Power that maintains me in my Right, than to appeal to its Courts of Justice for legal Relief against any that would deprive me thereof.

The next Particular, [Preaching for them,] as the Persons actually invested with Supreme Authority; can, (as required of us,) import no more than that which is our Duty at all Times by the Apostles Rule, Tit. 3. 1. The putting our People in mind to be subject to Prin­cipalities and Powers, and to obey Magistrates: That is, actively, or passively, to obey those Laws, with the actual Administration whereof they are intrusted by the actual Possession of that Supremacy whence they are derived. For as to the Title by which they hold that [Page 13] Supremacy, as they will not allow us to maintain that of the dis­possessed Prince in the Pulpit: So neither do they there require us to maintain their own. And it is well, this is not imposed upon us, for if it were, we might have some colour to reluct; seeing it is justly disputable, whether it were ever any part of our work, to dispute the Titles of Princes in the Pulpit, or (by asserting of them, in divided Congregations,) to occasion them to be disputed by others; whatever our private Judgment may be concerning them. For, if it were so, it is beyond all doubt to me, that our Saviour and his Apostles (or some one of them) would have left us such certain Measures, as might have governed our own, and enabled us to satisfie all other Mens Judgments, in the Resolution of such various Cases of Conscience, as on that account, must, in all Nations, be supposed ever and anon to be started, from the different Pretensions of Com­petitors.

Nor was it indeed, expedient, that our Lord should clog that Religion, which he was first to recommend to the World (univer­sally prejudiced against it at that time upon other accounts) with such a Doctrine, as would have been more obnoxious to prejudice, than any of the rest: Such, indeed, as would (probably) have ren­dred all Princes jealous of the Progress of it; seeing it would have endangered the exposing all their Titles to the Disputes of its Pro­fessors, and rendred them determinable, according to the Issue of them. A Prejudice which he hath wisely prevented, by leaving his Followers some general Rules only, for their Deportment under such Princes and Governours as they found in present Possession; (who are the [...], Rom. 13. 2.) and thereby reconciled his Doctrine to the Interests of all actual Superiors, by what Title soever they hold their Authority.

Lastly, As to [Praying for them] it seems but reasonable, that seeing we cannot expect to lead quiet and peaceable Lives in all Godliness and Honesty, while they that are possessed of Authority over us, lead unquiet and unpeaceable ones; therefore, (that being the means by God directed, as most proper and effectual to that end,) I cannot see, how it can be rationally doubted, whether we may, (nay rather, it follows, in my Judgment, that we must) make Supplications, Prayers, Intercessions, and giving of Thanks, for Kings, and all that are in Au­thority, (and so, for their Majesties, at present) which may, through Divine Grace, enable them to promote that end. And accordingly the People of God anciently, made no scruple to pray euen for the Kings of Babylon, who, by no other Claim then the Success of their [Page 14] Arms, could pretend to Jurisdiction over them, Ezra 6. 12. Jer. 29. 7. And the Primitive Christians, (as Tertullian, who also gives us the heads of the Petitions they offered on their behalf, abundantly testifi­eth,) for these Roman Emperors whose Title was never a jot better; as will anon be more fully made to appear.

But I suppose, praying for the King and Queen in being, will, in ge­neral, be allowed by those with whom we have to deal; so long as the Petitions to be offered on their behalf, do not involve a sense prejudicial to the right or safety of the Prince dispossessed. But seeing the Clergy of England, in the publick Offices of Liturgy according to the Forms established, are obliged to pray expresly for the present King and Queen, that God will give them Victory over all their Enemies] and that God will [strengthen them, that they may vanquish and overcome all their Enemies,] &c. which they suppose must necessarily involve an Imprecation against the Prince attempting to recover his Throne by War: it therefore appears to them, to be inconsistent with the Alle­giance they have sworn to him to offer up these Requests (at least) for the Princes Regnant, who keep him out of Possession.

This, I confess, seems the most difficult Objection to be answered (sup­posing the Principles of our Brethren before-mentioned to be allowed them,) in this whole Dispute. Yet, it is not, in my opinion, incapable of a fair solution, from the very design and proper Genius of all enjoyned Forms of publick Devotion. For all such, are not necessarily to be so worded, as to suit the private notions and sentiments of every person who is to officiate or joyn in them, for this were impossible ever to be attained: but only to express the sense of the Church or any other Authority imposing them; under whom the publick Administrator, in the use of them, only lends a mouth, to assist the stated Devotion of the Congregation, wherein he ossiciates, according to their appoint­ed measures. So, when in the Form for the Burial of the Dead, we seem to speak with confidence of Gods taking to himself the Soul of such an one our Brother, and profess our certain hope of the Resurrecti­on to Eternal Life, with implication of the parties share therein, concern­ing whose eternal Estate it may be we are not personally satisfied: I take it to be a fair answer to the objection thence raised; That we only utter the sense of the Church on whose behalf we therein officiate; which, so long as the Person deceased at any Time dies in her Com­munion, does by us, dismiss him out of the World, with this fair Testimony of her universal charity to such as are members thereof. And it deserves upon this account, in my poor Judgment, to be en­quired, whether such a Form, be not more expedient to be continued, [Page 15] notwithstanding that supposed inconvenience; than to expose all Ministers to a greater, by leaving them a liberty to make what di­stinctions they judge fit, betwixt neighbour and neighbour, according to their apprehensions concerning their Eternal Estate, by particu­lar distinct forms accommodated to them. But this by the by. The Prejudice of some Persons also, who are disaffected to our Litany, against the expressions, wherein we pray for [all that travel by Land or by Water] and for [all Women labouring with Child,] and for [all Prisoners and Captives,] because, (as they weakly argue,) in these general words are comprehended evil Spirits, that compass the Earth; and Pirats from Tunis or Algier that infest the Seas, and Women preg­nant by Whoredom; and Felons, and Traytors laid up in Goal for their Crimes, &c. This prejudice, I say, must be taken off by no other Answer than such as this, That these particulars, do not fall with­in the design of publick Devotions, according whereto general expressi­ons must be understood, as they are intended, with relation only to such Persons as are supposed rationally to be included in the charity of the Church composing and enjoyning those Forms: in which cha­rity, it is very uncharitably imagin'd, that Devils, and Turklsh Pi­rats, and Harlots, and Rogues, and Traitors, are intentionally in­terested.

And by the same Hypothesis, proportionably must those Prayers for Princes, be interpreted. Certainly, when our Reformers at the first, composed those Prayers for the use of this Church; they never in­tended to suit them exactly to all the Circumstances emerging in all the uncertain Accidents of Government: against which, because they could not certainly be foreseen, no humane Wisdom could certainly provide. But they had in prospect only, the successive continuation of actual Governours intrusted for the peace and safety of the Nation: for the preservation whereof, it is necessary to desire of God, that the Forces by which they must secure to us these great Blessings may be actually Victorious against all such as are real Enemies to that com­munity; and therefore in general Terms they direct us so to pray. Now, to include a particular Person disputing the Right of the Crown, in this general Petition; must suppose him to be an actual Enemy to this Nation either by a wrong Title, or an evil Design, or both: and whoever is really so, though he should be included, hath no wrong; and if he be not so, it is inconsistent with the opinion we ought to have of the charity of our Church, to imagine him to be therein included.

It is, herein, farther observable, that these clauses are such, as hath been intimated before, as were not put in now first, in particu­lar favour to their present Majesties: but are part of the same Form which hath been used for all their Predecessors, since the Reformation. Nor is there any Petition peculiar to them, required of us to offer to God, which all Princes that shall sway this Scepter to all succeeding Generations are not alike entituled to: Now would our dissatisfied Brethren, think it fit to have a Precedent made for succeeding Ages, by the permitting such an omission in the publick Liturgy in favour to the pretensions of K. J. now? For may not such an Example be urged, or is it not liable to be urged in some future competition af­ter K. J. his death, (and who knows, what may be hereafter?) upon the Protestant Clergy; supposing any future Prince Regnant shall fall out to be of the Romish Persuasion, and engaged by arms to maintain his Possession, and keep out a more rightful Protestant Com­petitor? Supposing then, the same Petitions still by Law to be continu­ed in our publick Liturgy, under such Circumstances: can we think, it would look well, for the credit or safety of our Religion, if any considerable Part of our Protestant Clergy should make it a scruple of Conscience to use them in their publick Devotions out of favour to Him whose Title they judged the better? Nay, let us bring the Pro­spect of such an Event in our thoughts a little nearer. Suppose (which was not impossible to have so fallen out) that K. J. had made the Throne vacant by Death, before his Present Majesty (then only P. of Orange) landed, and another Popish Successor, (by Conquest, or some other disputable way,) had filled it, before he could appear upon English Ground with his Army; and had been as clearly and as long possessed of it, as his Majesty now hath been; I ask, would it have passed for a fair Plea, for the denyal of Allegiance to such a possessed Prince, that we could not in Conscience give it, because we should be obliged in our Liturgy to pray for Victory against the excluded Prince, and his Army, then ready to invade us, for the Defence of his own, and the Princesses Title? Let us but soberly think, what would have been the Consequence of such a Principle in those Circumstances, and apply it to the present Case.

But to shew, farther, the fairness of my Interpretation of the said Petitions; I will try, next, whether I cannot conclude the probabi­lity of it, from the very practice of those Reverend Persons themselves, with whom our present dispute lies. It is not long since, that the whole Clergy of this Land made their Prayers, in the same Terms for K. J. Now, it is hardly to be imagined, that any Minister, yea, or under­standing [Page] Member of this Church, could offer up these Requests men­tioned for him, without great reluctancy in himself (especially in his later Days) but with some such, (and probably, in most of them the same) restriction or limitation supposed. For else, all that joyn­ed in it, must be concluded, to have prayed against all the Protestants Interest in the World, (who, it is evident, were enemies against K. J. and his Religion,) if they should at any Time, in never so just a War, defend themselves against him by Arms. Such Clergy-men therefore (who were generally, all those of this Church) who then used this General Form, cannot fairly come off, from the suspicious implication thereof; but upon an Hypothesis of this nature, that those Petitions in that Juncture intended no more, then the subduing such Ene­mies of his, as together with the destruction of his Person, should at any Time design the subversion of his Government as legally established, or the ruin of this Nation, or some other of a like import. Let then, our Reverend Brethren allow the like supposal of sutable restrictions and limitations in the present case, to these general expressions; and they will not find it so difficult a matter, to reconcile themselves to the use of them on the behalf of their present Majesties, which they (with others) used so long without scruple for their Pre­decessor.

Lastly, To give a full confirmation to my aforesaid supposition, I think that clause in the last Act of Uniformity [That in all those Prayers, Litanies and Collects, which do any way relate to the King, Queen or Royal Progeny, their Names be altered and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occasion, (undoubtedly, they that made this Proviso, mean the circumstances of the King or Queen Regnant, after any change,) according to the direction of lawful Authority;] does much conduce thereunto. It appears, that the same Form is to be used, by this clause still, whatever occasion requires the alteration of the Names: for the Proviso is only made for the alteration of these. Suppose then the Throne at any time vacant by death; and a competiti­on arise concerning the Succession, where, during this Composition, is this lawful Authority, but in the actual Successor, who enters upon the void Throne, and is so far possessed of it, as to send forth his Man­dates all through the Nation, to insert such Names as suit his cir­cumstances? Whence, I further demand, Whether the Clergy may not, yea, whether they must not take such a Mandate as sufficient warrant, to use this Form, in the very passages under Dispute, with such alterations? And if so, then though the Person excluded in the Competition, should chance to have the best Title of the two; yet [Page] the present Possessors command is valid against him; and the point in Dispute is evidently gained, That the Clergy are (according to the Law it self) to be governed by the Prince Regnant, in the particularities of these Petitions: and we may, and ought to offer them up for Him, and whom he Names, by Name, when required. But, (to put an end at last, to this long Section) and proceed. I say, Seventhly,

VII. [That the Principles of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience, so far as (for ought I can see) they are owned by the Church of England, oblige us not, in our present circumstances, to deny the giving, or swearing Allegiance to K. W. and Q. M.]

That they do not, may be fairly argued, from the want of suffici­ent proof, from those that say they do, taken out of any publick Mo­numents or Records extant, which legally include the whole Body of this Church, to that purpose. And by such indeed, and such only must all things, which are alledged to be the Doctrines of this Church, be proved to be so. For, if we admit any other Evidence in this mat­ter; we shall have much ado to vindicate our Church, in many great Points in Controversie betwixt us and the Papists, together with our other Adversaries; who, from the writings of particular Doctors in it, charge it with many absurd and false Assertions. And therefore, it hath been always in such cases, the approved course of her learn­ed Champions, to put the Adversaries upon proof, that those Doctrines which they charge on her, are her own, from her Articles, Ho­milies, Liturgy, &c. Let therefore, any of those that endeavour to fasten upon the Church of England, as her Doctrines, any of those high Notions concerning Non-resistance and Passive Obedience, which they pretend to have learned from her; first, State the Questions re­lating to them, according to their own Judgments: and then produce such Proofs of the full concurrence of this Church with them, out of those Books, or any other evidences of like nature; which must first be done, before they can rationally argue thence, the inconsist­ence of this Oath of Allegiance with them as such. And let none, (as some confident Authors of late have done) call the wild and ex­travagant Opinions of some singular designing and interested Divines, like themselves, accommodated to the gust of a Court-Faction, the Doctrines of this Church. A thing, wherein they have done their Mother very ill service, whiles (labouring to qualifie her pre­tended Principles to the humour of the disposers of those Prefer­ments they sought for) they were not only themselves made meer Instruments and Tools of a Jesuitical Faction; but endangered also the the whole Church and Nation, by raising Prerogative so high, that [Page 19] when it fell into ill hands to manage it, they took encouragement thence to trample down our Religion, Laws, and Liberties; as suppo­sing us all, a company of tame Animals, made only to bear what­ever burdens they laid on us, and withal the occasion too insolently to reproach us with our supposed Principles of Passivity, whiles they gave us so many occasions to practise them: as Julian once made use of our Saviours true Doctrine of not resisting evil, in the very In­stances whereby he explains it, in a proud Scoff to those whom he maliciously persecuted.

It is true, indeed, that in the Declaration, which the Parliament (at the Return of K. Charles II.) after their having been so long exasperated with the consequents of the War made with his Father, under colour of a Parliamentary right in the Militia of this Kingdom; (and pleaded for by those that defended their cause that opposed him, with an unusual novel Distinction, of taking Arms by his Autho­rity against his Person, and those that were commissioned by him;) re­quired all the Clergy of England, and all in publick Trust (for the greater security of the restored King, whom they thought then they could never do too much for) to condemn that Position as it had been taught, as Traiterous and abominable: and to profess for them­selves that they held it unlawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and those that are Commissioned by him: and therein, (as also in another Act concerning the Militia) declared their own Judgments in those Points more fully than had ever, by so publick a Body, been done before. But whether Acts of Parliament may be taken for sufficient Expositions of the Doctrine of this Church, all those who are unsatisfied in the matter of that Declaration, may possibly call in Question, and (for the most part) resolve it in the Nega­tive. For my Part, I will do neither: but take it for what proba­bly it was, the Doctrine of so many of the Church then represent­ed in Convocation as were consulted in the drawing up that Form: and because the whole Convocation subscribed it, (at least, after the Law passed) as did also the generality of the Clergy after them, al­low it to have been the Judgment of the Church, at that Time, in the sense wherein they that imposed it, understood it. But surely, nei­ther the Parliament nor the Clergy in Convocation, ever intended thereby to give any King of England so uncontrollable a Power of breaking down all banks of Law, as to make the whole Church and Nation meer Tenants at Will to Him for their Religion, Property, Li­berties, yea, and their very Lives themselves, and leave the Subject no legal Remedy against the most illegal Violences. They did there­fore, [Page 20] undoubtedly mean by [those that are Commissioned by the King] those only that are Commissioned as our Laws allow, and to such intents and purposes as may consist with them. We cannot surely, imagine them to be so besotted, as to resign all those dear Interests at once into the Hands of a Popish Army raised on purpose to destroy and root them out altogether: which appears by what followed after­ward, in a subsequent Parliament, where in the whole Estates there assembled perceiving that some ill-designing Persons took occasion from that Declaration to mount the Points of Non-resistance, and Passive Obedience to an extravagant height, (to which at last ac­cording to their Project, they arrived;) in hope, by a Popish Suc­cessor to bring about those evil ends: took a wise course to prevent the mischief by imposing such a Test upon all Commissioned Officers, as excluded all Papists from being in Commission; and if they should at any Time be so, declared their Commissions void, and all they did in pursuance of them null. That former Parliamentary Doctrine, (therefore) is expounded by this after commentary upon it, from the same Authority which first expresly taught it.

But as to the proper Judgment of the Church of England, declared by themselves in any Act or Record extant, it is vain to seek for any resolution in this matter. They no where, (that I can learn) give us any Determination of theirs, concerning the Titles to Crowns, the extent of Prerogative in the Prince, the measures of that Subjection which Allegiance includes, nor concerning the extent of its obligation, or the change, which upon the various Turns of Providence, may, or may not, be made therein. Only, as to Kings and Queens actually in Being, they deny it at any time lawful to Rebel against them, whatever they personally are, or what Religion soever they are of, and by force of Arms to endeavour to dispossess and destroy them. Of such Doctrines as these all the Homilies of Obedience, and against wilful Rebellion, are full. And by these Doctrines, all Princes actually possessed of the Throne are alike secure, as to any danger, from the Church of England. So that as to the Questions and Cases of Conscience, which relate to our present Circumstances, it will prove an undertaking too hard, I suppose, for any Person to make the Doctrines of this Church concerning Non-resistance, to comply with that tame submission to an unbounded Prerogative, trampling, by unpresidented Dispensations all Laws under­foot, which some Men (as I before intimated) have of late vented under her Name. And I suppose also, that the most Reverend, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the right Reverend Bishops, with others of the Reverend Clergy, and the worthy President and Fellows of Mag­dalen [Page 21] College, were not wanting to their Duty of Non-resistance, nor misunderstood the Doctrine of th is Church, when they so notably pleaded their Right in Law, against the Ʋsurpations of Pro­rogation to the utmost, and thereby, and by their Sufferings for it, stopped the career thereof from its triumphant Progress throughout the Nation, and as to what other Resistance hath since been made by a too unreasonably provoked Nation, together with the Conse­quents of it: How far, the natural Duty of Self-preservation, even by Arms against outragious illegal Violence, and the Reason of Govern­ment, and Subjection in all Political Societies governed by Laws, toge­ther with the fundamental Constitution of this Monarchy, &c. pleaded on their behalf, will justifie those that have had an hand in it, in such a case of extream necessity: I cannot find determinable from any publick Records of this Church. To be sure, it much concerns not our dissatisfied Brethrens Case; that it should be determined, seeing none of them have any way contributed to any such Resistance hitherto; and are not (as I think I have sufficiently evidenced above) endangered for the future, by any thing which this Oath obligeth them unto, to lose the Honour and Comfort of keeping the Doctrine of Non-resistance inviolate, to the utmost extent of it, as stated by themselves.

And, as to that of Passive Obedience; it can surely be no farther a Duty in this Case, than Non-resistance is: for this is the necessary consequent of that: whom I must in no sort resist, I must, conse­quently, submit to suffer under, in whatsoever he lays upon me: and on the other side, so far as I may lawfully resist, I am not bound to suffer. As in the Case of the Great and Reverend Persons but now mentioned; who took shelter in the Law so far as it would be allowed them, and then only suffered, when it would stand them in no farther stead. For otherwise, it seems too high a strain of Passive Obedience, and more than Religion or Reason requires, for any one patiently to quit the Defence which God and Law allow him, yea, and the very Laws themselves which allow them to him; that he may gain an Opportunity to exercise his Patience under illegal Violence: and to seek an occasion of undergoing those Sufferings a Mans self, which our Saviour himself allows him, if there be no other way open, at least, by flight, to escape.

Nay, I will go yet one step farther in this case; and allow the Parties, that under shelter of a Royal Commission, seek a Man's De­struction, to have, in some Juncture, all the strength of Law on their side; and withall, suppose him that is so endangered, to be, [Page 22] by Providence, placed in these Circumstances, wherein he is for the present (though by an unjust and illegal Force) preserved from perse­cuting Hands. Let, therefore, Famous London-Derry be the designed Scene of a Popish Persecution; where a Protestant, by his Habitation, and the Obligation of his other Circumstances, resides: And is, by the making the City a Garrison (without his contributing thereunto in the least, that we may lay the case as wholly and intirely Passive as may be) safe, while he remains there. This Man is so far possessed with a Conscientious Principle of Passive Obedience, that (even in these Circumstances) he dares not take up Arms with the Garrison when Beleagured (as lately) to maintain the Walls, and therein, his own House, &c. against K. J. and his French and Irish Army, as thinking the Defendants Rebels, and the Law entirely on the Besiegers side. I would fain learn, now, whether in this Case, it be not law­ful, (even for a Man so Principled) to accept of the Protection, which (without his seeking) his Habitation gives him; be the Hands which defend it what they will, even whatever K. J. himself would call them, may he not, for the present, exercise the more Beneficial sort of Patience, by suffering himself, though sore against his Inclination, to be protected (againg suffering more grievously by the Popish Be­siegers, if they could get him into their hands) by the supposed Rebel-Governour, and his Garrison? If not, what is he obliged to do? Is there any, who will judge it to be his Duty, by the obligation of his Principle of Passive Obedience, to endeavour to raise a Tumult within against the Governour, or to betray that Power that illegally protects him, by entertaining Spies from the Besiegers, or sending them Intelligence? You will say (it may be) this is more than Passive Obedience, this is Action rather. But still, this is in order to the Passivity he thinks he owes the Law. Or is he (to take a shorter course to it) to withdraw himself out of his Protection, and deliver himself into the hands of the Loyal Besiegers? I confess, I should think (to the contrary) that he should rather thank God, and even Rebels, for his Protection, lye quiet under his shelter whilst he may; and content himself with his dispositive Preparation to undergo what­ever may befall him with others, in case the Garrison come at last to be taken; and so expect the reward of his Patience from that God, whose call of unavoidable Providence, and no Procurement of his own, exposeth him to it.

But suppose, (after all this is said to weaken it) that our highest Brethrens Notion, concerning Non-resistance and Passive Obedience, should stand firm, in reference to K. J. and those Commissioned by him: [Page 23] yet am I still at a loss, how (according to a Paper lately Printed, containing the Dying Declaration of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Chichester) even that can rationally be improved, to the rendring the present Oath of Allegiance to K. W. and Q. M. unlawful. Seeing, upon the Hypothesis I have before laid, do, and I hope, sufficiently proved the Allegiance promised by it, includes nothing which (according to it) a Man, even of those Principles, may not law­fully pay: and binds him not to contribute more, to the hinderance of that Power from being Paramount, under which he thinks him­self rather obliged to suffer than to obey this that protects him, then what may by legal Process be forced from him: And what Force in such Circumstances causeth, it doth withall excuse; as you will see more anon, when I have dispatched one Proposition more, which is this:

VIII. That the Law of the Land, justifies the Subject in the Payment of his actual Allegiance to the actual Possessor of the Throne, though wrongfully, whilst he continues to be so possessed,. though at the same time there be another rightful K. out of Possession.] This, I confess, is not within my Province to prove so strongly and convincingly, as some learned Men of the long Robe have undertaken to do, and (most think) have done beyond Contradiction. Nor will I enlarge this Discourse to such a Bulk, as the Transcription of what hath been said by them to that purpose would swell it to: But I shall content my self with the bare mention of one Famous Statute (that of 11. Hen. 7.) which highly Indemnifies all Persons that assist the King in being (even with Arms) against him that is King de Jure. The reason whereof must needs be, that the Makers of that Statute looked on such Persons, either as Innocent, supposing them under a Force; or as doing their Duty, if voluntarily complying with the Divine Providence placing him on the Throne, while he sits there. This, in the next Proposition, I shall farther evince from Practise.

IX. [That the stoutest Assertors of the Principles of indispensable Alle­giance, Non-resistance, and Passive Obedience, formerly have so far complied with the Supream Powers in actual Possession, as this Paper pleads for now; and been justified in so doing, by the most learned and judicious Casuists then living.] For, as to the Payment of Military Taxes to the Long Parliament, and the several Models of Government that succeeded or interloped with them in K. C. I. and K. C. II's time; appearing at their Bars on their Summons, compounding for their Estates at the Rates they imposed, Suing and being Sued in [Page 24] their Courts; Addressing to them, upon occasion, in the Terms they directed, and by the Titles they assumed; yea, and (more than all this) subscribing an Engagement, to be true and Faithful to them, that is, to pay them all that which we call Allegiance: Who is there that lived in those Times, who knows not, that the generality both of the Clergy and Laity, who went under the Name of Cavaliers, and high Royalists, did comply with the prevalent Faction (by what­ever Name they exercised the Sovereign Authority) some more, and some less, as their Circumstances obliged them, through all the Varieties of that Government? All which Acts are judged to be, in themselves, and in ordinary Cases, Treasonable Acts; and (by conse­quence) high Breaches of Allegiance; and were no way justifiable, but by the Words, or Reason (at least) of the Statute before men­tioned. And yet he is a great Stranger in our Israel, who knows not also, that they were justified in so doing, by the Determinations of the ablest Lawyers and the most eminent Casuists; and especially (of the later sort) by the Writings of that incomparable Master in Theology, Dr. Sanderson, afterwards (for his Loyal Service in those times to his Majesty, K. C. II.) advanced to the Bishoprick of Lincoln. Now, these things they could not have done, (especially with the allowance of such Spiritual Guides,) had the Principles of the Church of England been then understood to be so rigorous in. Matters of this Nature, as those of our present dissatisfied Brethren, in their Casuistical Divinity, are. The very Engagement, but now mentioned, which was then generally swallowed by those that would have taken it very ill to have been thought no true Sons of the Chureh of England, (and divers of whom, were notwithstanding, even when rigorous Conformity was at the highest, after the Return of K. C. II. thought worthy to be advanced to some of the most eminent Bishopricks, and other Dignities of the Church of England;) was thought then (by those that by it lost their Places, out of Con­science of their Duty to the King) to be unlawful, as being a new Promise of Allegiance to Ʋsurpers: and if it were so, (as they appre­hended) was certainly such an one, with a witness, (as we use to speak) in comparison of that which the present Oath requires. For the Obedience by this Oath required, is expressed by its proper Name, the Notation whereof imports a limited legal Obedience only; whereas the words [True and Faithful] in the Engagement, ran so large, as not to insinuate the least Intimation of any legal Bounds to the Duty promised. This is, to a K. and Q. that, to a Common­wealth; this, can only (at the worst) be supposed to be Injurious [Page 25] to the Right of one King by transferring it to another: Whereas that, overthrew the Throne it self; and destroyed the Right of all future Kings, yea, and Parliaments too, by excluding out of the Go­vernment them, and the whole House of Lords. And, by consequence, it is probable, in an high Degree, that those who allowed and de­fended the taking of that Engagement, in the Circumstances of those Times, as not inconsistent with the Principles of this Church, would, if they were now alive, do no less, in favour of the taking this Oath; especially, by such as are of our Brethrens Principles, and so can­not be supposed to take it in the more rigorous, when the words will fairly bear a milder and more moderate Sense; which the said Dr. San­derson allows to the takers of the Engagement, even though the Imposers intended it, (so long as they declared not that they did so) in ano­ther of a more disputable nature, and higher Obligation. And now, having dispatched this Proposition also, I proceed to the Tenth and last, which is,

X. [That the Primitive Christians, not only in our Saviours, and his Apostles days, (as had been made evident by many learned Pens;) but also, for several Ages after them, have governed themselves, in point of actual Allegiance, by these Measures.

That our Saviour and his Apostles did so; even when the Titles both of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors Bishop of Sa­rum his Pa­storal Letter. were either notoriously Faulty, or (at best) suspicious enough; is abundantly proved by the learned Pen of a reverend Bishop of this Church lately. And for the Christians of sub­sequent Ages, if what Tertullian says of them be true, [That through­out the Empire, the Christians were so numerous, that they filled the Cities, Isles, Castles, Camp, Senate, &c. to that Degree, that (as he tells the Persecutors) the very Secession or Departure of so many Persons from the Societies to which they belonged, into any place out of the Roman Terri­tories (though they did nothing else to their prejudice) would have made a vast Solitude, such as would have endangered the Roman Empire.] Sup­posing (I say) this to be true; it is a great Evidence to me, that in all the Contests which then fell out (sometimes every other, or, at least, every third or fourth year, betwixt several Pretenders to the Imperial Throne, so that divers times the several Armies in several Provinces, set up Two or Three at once) the Christians, who inhabited those Provinces, did take the Military Oath, and pay their Allegiance, each of them to that Person who was invested with the Imperial Robes in the Parts where they severally lived, when once he assumed that Dignity; and did not trouble themselves to enquire whether any [Page 26] that was set up in any other Province, had a better Title, than their own Emperour had. Which is that (as I conceive) which Tertullian elsewhere means, when he tells Scapula (the Lieutenant of the Em­perour) who then lived in Africa, that none of the Christians were ever convicted to have been Albinians, or Nigrians, or Cassians; in all those Turns which fell out under those Competitors for the Crown, from whom their Partisans were so named. He means not, certainly, that none of them were in the Garisons or Armies of Claudius Albinus, or Pescennius Niger, who strugled with the Emperour Severus; or of Avidius Cassius, who contested with the Emperour Verus; (for this had been contrary to what he asserted elsewhere, that they filled their Garrisons and Armies, as before;) but only, that they were none of the Contrivers or Plotters of those Wars which were by those Competitors set on foot; nor active Sticklers for the Parties then made; for those (says he) that were upon that account called Albinians and Nigrians, &c. were the Men of their own Heathenish Religion, that Swore by the Genius of their Emperours, which Christians refused to do. And when any of the several Competitors conquered, (though possibly, his Right were more disputable then that of the Pretender who was overcome; yet) they adhered even to him, when once setled upon the Throne. And for this, I think, I have evident proof, from the view of the Emperours, whose Cause Tertullian owns in that Defence of his but now quoted: especially one of them, (Severus) who raised the Sixth Persecution against the Christians. It is evident that Tertullian commends the carriage of the Christians in their Obedience to Severus, because he mentions Pescennius Niger, and Claudius Albinus, as the Heads of those Factions, which for opposing him were then odious to Severus; and denies the Christians to have been their Partisans against him. Whence it is plain, that they ac­quiesced in Severus his Title; although it be evident, that his Title, (till Conquest confirmed it) was the worst of two of his Competitors. For Herodian tells us, that immediately upon the Death of Per­tinax, Julian First, and then, Pescennius Niger, were chosen Emperors, and set in the Throne by their Souldiers, before Severus his Title was set on foot by his Troops. So that Severus himself was, while the Contest lasted, more truly a Rebel against Niger, then Niger against him. But whilst Niger delays and revels at Antioch, Severus coming to, and mastering Rome, the Senate confirmed him Emperour, and then all the Christians acquiesced in him, and became peaceably his good and loyal Subjects. Whence it appears plain, that the Principle of the Christians then was, That they were obliged to be Subjects [Page 27] to whatever Prince God by his Providence had actually at any time placed on the Throne, though his Title were none of the best: At least, they made it not a Concern of theirs, whether it were so good as it should be.

And indeed, (to draw to an end of this Discourse) what should a Christian do, in dubious Circumstances, but determine his Actual Allegiance, by the Issues of Divine Providence? For, does the great Governour of the World take it for his sole Prerogative, to rule in the Kingdom of Men, and give it to whomsoever he will? to change times and Seasons, to remove Kings and set up Kings (in the places of those he removes) as in Daniel he affirms; and shall we Worms, say to him, what dost thou? Or, is it requisite, that he should be obliged to comply with our various Opinions, in making such Changes? or to tye himself to such limited Methods in the ways of bringing them about, as best suit our Models or supposed legal Constitutions? Where were then this his Super-Sovereign Prerogative, if so sub­mitted for its Regulation to this or that Party of Christians, and not to be put in Execution, but where and when they please?

But, you will say, Is Christianity then so flexible a Religion, as to be able to accommodate it self to all Turns and Changes? This looks like a safe Principle, taken up rather from the Writings and Practices of some worldly Politicians, then from the inflexible Rules of Divine Verity.

It were, indeed, so, if Christianity had given us any such inflexible Rule in such Matters: or (seeing it hath not, as before you are told) taught us to change Designs, and Interests, and Parties, as oft as we see God by his Providence making way for the change of Persons; and in order thereto, as Politicians do, to forecast by Humane Con­jectures, which is likely to be the strongest side, and then (without respect to Honour, Honesty, or Conscience) to accommodate our Sails before-hand to every Wind which our Political Almanack tells us is likely to blow; that we may, by our forward appearing, merit the more from those whom we oblige by our assistance in their Settle­ment. That Compliance, therefore, which I plead for, as Christian, is not of that Nature: It suffers Gods Providence, first, to determine, and then follows it: it is not forward in making, or assisting Changes, but only submits to them, or rather to God in them, when made to its hand. Nor is it hasty to strike in with the first (like those that strove to get in before others to the Pool of Bethesda) when those changes are made, as if it feared to lose the Opportunity of a Market for its advantage: but allows it self convenient time for due Consi­deration, [Page 28] wherein, and to what Degree, the present Circumstances may be complied with, in consistence with the just Measures of Reli­gion, the Rules of Decency, and the Security of a good Conscience towards God and towards Man. And then (so far as it may, with safety to all these, and not a jot farther) accommodates it self to the present State of Affairs; quietly acquiescing in the Events wherein God declares his Providential Will, though never so much against the Grain of a Man's own Inclinations or Interests. There is, indeed, a superior Degree of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience due to the Almighty, beyond all that can be challenged by any Mortal from us; and we must sit down under the shadow which he hath spread over us for our Protection; with great care, that no Discontent at personal Losses or Disappointments, or any other unquiet Passion, hurry us into any Designs or Actions, which may involve us in the Guilt of fighting against God, by striving to build up again, what he hath pulled down, or to pull down what he hath built.

And, in this case, when God providentially rejects a Saul; though personal Affection, and the Hand he himself formerly had, under God, in raising him to the Throne, and supporting him in it, may excuse an Holy Samuel, in the condoling Resentment he shewed at the Change, and the compassionate Mourning which he inwardly put on for the unhappy Prince: Yet, even He, must thenceforth look upon himself, as discharged from any farther (at least publick) owning his Inclina­tions towards him. And it is evident, he did so. For, otherwise, so great a Courtier as Samuel had been, through all Saul's former Reign, could hardly have dispensed with himself for the seeming Incivility of not so much as giving him one Visit from the Time when he received the notice of his Rejection from God, and (by his command) delivered the unwelcome Tidings thereof to him, till the day of his death. And even that Humane Resentment, which for a season is excusable in such a case, yet must be managed with great Moderation, and not lodge too long in his Bosom. For God himself takes him off from it at last, when he saw it excessive, with a Repri­mand. How long (saith he) wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him? Now, if the bare antecedent notice from God to his Prophet, that he had sententially rejected Saul from the Kingdom whilst yet he continued in the Land, and actually exercised his Rega­lity still, and for some years after) might lawfully so far lessen the Obligation of Samuel's Allegiance, as to warrant his absenting him­self so long from Court, (which very withdrawing of his, could not, in so eminent and conspicuous a Person as he was, but argue a great [Page 29] Dislike, and therefore, in the Judgment of the common People, have a very ill Aspect upon the Kings Affairs;) it is not difficult to imagine how much farther he might have concluded himself dis­charged from it, in case Saul had, upon his Denunciation of his Re­jection from God, and the change in the Countenances, and suspi­cious carriage of the chief of the People (plainly intimated, 1 Sam. 15. 30.) actually withdrawn himself out of his Kingdom; and from his native Subjects of Israel, retired to Nations in Enmity with them; (especially, if he had applied himself to the Egyptians their old Masters, and to the Philistines, their most spightful Bor­derers, and therefore the most dreaded Adversaries they had,) and moreover sollicited their Assistance, to restore and resettle him in his Dominions by Conquest.

I am not ignorant, that some Learned Men (and among the rest, Peter Martyr, particularly,) in this Case of Saul, conjecture that Samuel, went somewhat farther yet, in shewing his Duty to the re­jected King, during this his retirement from Court, by his continu­ing to pray for him still. This is begged, I must needs say (with the leave of those learned Authors,) for it cannot be proved. But how­ever, if granted, we must suppose it only done where he mourned for him, that is, in private. And for the matter of his Prayers; it could not be, That God would restore him absolutely, but only, conditio­nally, upon his Repentance: and so, as no considerable damage might accrew to Gods Church and People thereby. And, in such secret De­votions, and so cautioned, there is none, who will (I suppose) forbid any one, even now, to exercise the Remains of his former Loyalty, who thinks himself obliged so to do.

And, as far, to the utmost, as Samuels Loyalty is supposed by any one to have gone in Sauls Case: I doubt not, but divers (at least) of the Reverend Persons this Paper was in a great measure meant for, have followed his Example, in this present Juncture. They have, as long as K. J. was on the Throne, and exercised his Regality, born with di­vers harsh and uneasie encroachments of Prerogative-Power; and some in an eminent and exemplary degree, practised the Passive Obedience they taught, to the no small credit of our Church and its Loyal Principles; (and I am assured, upon my own knowledge, that not a few of their Brethren, both of the Episcopal Character, and of the Inferiour Clergy, (who in the present Case, differ from them) were ready, if like occasion had been offered, to have followed them in the same steps, wherein they led them by so good an Example: they have also (as most of the sacred Function have likewise done) kept them­selves [Page 30] within the bounds of Non-resistance, that is, free from contri­buting towards the effecting of that great change which God by un­usual methods of astonishing Providence hath made: they have, (those of them, at least, whose high Stations gave them a consider­able Influence upon publick Affairs,) conscientiously endeavoured, by their Counsels to hinder things from arriving to that Extremity to which they are now reduced: and since, (for 'tis no news, nor, I think, will they themselves think it a disparagement or disservice to them to have it here published) they have sat down under them, not only, with a Samuel-like condolency with the dispossessed King, but also, with some uneasiness to their own circumstances, under some publick Acts wherein they are dissatisfied: they have also shewn their dissatis­factions, by their slowness to comply with the present Establishment; even to the suffering a suspension from the Execution of their Eccle­siastical employments: and it may be, they do secretly pray for (what they wish, if it might be) the retrieving of things into a state more suitable to their own Principles; whiles God, by his Providence seems still to say nay, to all such Desires, and attempts; except we will be content to purchase them (as matters now stand) upon such Terms, as (in all humane Reason) must be destructive to all that is dear to us and them too, both in our Civil and Ecclesiastical Ca­pacities.

Now therefore, seeing (as I have already shewn) there can be no more lawfully done for him, whom Gods Providence hath thus exclud­ed: I cannot imagine, what should farther influence our Reverend Fa­thers, and worthily esteemed Brethren, to adventure the exposing themselves to the extremities of the Law: and not rather exercise their Passive Principles (at least) under the present Authority (for surely, there is a kind of Passivity in it, when one submits to what he is not pleased with) which the Primitive Christians, and the most Eminent Divines of our Church too, in the days of K. Ch. I. and K. Ch. II. (by our preceding measures taken of them,) would certain­ly not have stuck at, in our case; by transferring that Actual Allegi­ance which they cannot pay elsewhere, to those to whom Divine Provi­dence hath transferred the Crown.

I shall not here (as I told you at the beginning) to add farther strength to my Cause, urge the Arguments which many other Wri­ters have chiefly insisted upon, (to reconcile our Brethrens Judg­ment thereto) from the rationality and legality of the Circumstances relating to the production of this great change. And yet I find my self strongly inclined (in the close of this Discourse) to offer one [Page 31] (to debate at least) from one of the often-mentioned Dr. San­dersons Principles: which if it prove sound, (and I have not yet met with any one that hath attempted to overthrow it,) will, (for ought I can yet see to the contrary) do much, toward the clearing them in both respects. It is (in a word) this, Among the other Cases, where­in the Reverend Doctor tells us, the obligation of a Promissory Oath ceas­eth; he makes this one. [When the state of things is so altered betwixt the Time of a Mans taking such an Oath, Sanderson De Juramenti obligatione. and that, wherein the performance is expected; that if such a change could have been foreseen by the swearer, he would have forborn to take it:] to which I would add, [or would, at least, (if he could have apprehended it but possible, and much more, if likely to fall out, beforehand) have made the falling out of what he so apprehend­ed, an express exception to the obligation thereof.]

I must ingenuously confess, (with all due deference to the Judgment of so profound a Casuist) I think my self not necessarily obliged to as­sert the verity of this Hypothesis, universally, in all Cases that might be put of this nature. And yet, I am apt to think, the special Instance which he there gives, hath more in it, then will easily be disproved, in any Case parallel to it. The Case he puts is this. [A Father swears to his Son, that having by his avowed Will and Testament, bequeathed all his Estate when he dyes, to him: he will never revoke that Deed. But in some Time after, he finds by undoubted Evidence that this Son of his hath attempted by Poyson to destroy him.] In this Case, (says the Reverend Doctor) He may, (notwithstanding his former Oath to the contrary,) re­scind that Will, and by a consequent one, is at liberty to make a new and different disposal of that Estate.] The Reason of which Determination, suits his preceeding Thesis: to wit, because the case is now so altered to the Father, that if he could have foreseen it, he would never have taken that Oath. For the Father swore it to a Son, a Son, then supposed to be dutiful, and one from whom he expected the continuance of his filial Duty (especially he knowing himself to be so highly obliged to continue so by so late a Demonstration of his Fatherly kindness,) until the day of his natural Death. And little could he imagine, (much less foreknow, that his Son would so far deceive his expectation, as to become in stead of a Son, an Enemy; in stead of a dutiful Son, a mortal Enemy to such a Father: in stead of one that would pati­ently expect his natural Death, had endeavoured to hasten it, by Violence.

Now, if the Doctors resolution in this Case, be good, and solid: it seems to be, no less, in the Reverse of it; that is, supposing the [Page 32] Son by a like Oath also obliged to the Father. Lay we the Case thus, with the due variation of circumstances. [The Son mentioned, upon his Fathers Oath so passed, not only to maintain him as his Son, whiles he lives; but also to leave him at his death, a fair Estate derived to him from his Ancestors, and entailed to him as his next Heir: and whatsoever of his own he hath by his industrious improvements added to it likewise: doth re­ciprocally engage (by Oath also) to his Father, to remain under his Go­vernment, and in his Family, and assist him in the preservation and utmost improvement of that Estate, while he lives: and in a word, to be deficient in no Duty, incumbent on him by vertue of that ne'ar relation, and obliging kindness. But the Father, after these mutual Engagements thus passed, (not provoked by any undutiful Demeanour of his Son, but out of an irre­gular affection unto some stranger, who hath insinuated himself into his favour by sordid slattery and false suggestions,) doth not only carry himself towards his Son, in a strange unfatherly and unnatural way of rigour, and useth him more like a slave, then a child; but also, (even openly, and bare­facedly) attempts to disinherit him at his death, by cutting off the legal entail of those antient Lands from him; and (to make the injury more re­mediless) endeavours in his own life time, to possess that Person whom he hath entertained this new kindness for, of the whole Estate, by surrender­ing all his Deeds and Evidences relating to it, together with his own Person also, into his hands and absolute Power. So that now, the Son can no longer either perform the matter of his Oath to him, or, indeed, come at him, in the circumstances wherein he is, without inevitable danger of his own life, from the malicious attempts of his competitor, (too much encouraged in them also by his Father) whose Interest it is to destroy him, as the only Person from whom he expects, at the Fathers death, to be disturbed in his ill-gotten and unjust Possessions.] Now here, I would fain know, why (upon the Doctors Grounds) the Son, notwithstanding the obligation of natural Duty, though confirmed also by an Oath, may not think himself at liberty, (under such unexpected and surprising disappoint­ments from his Fathers alteration towards him to such an high de­gree of unnatural and unjust dealing, which he no way foresaw, nor could foresee, when he made that Oath to him) and why he may not accept of the tendred Protection and assistance of some other near Relation, (or any one, indeed, who hath so great a kindness as to afford it him, and is able probably, to support him against such an outragious Injury) both (as to the safety of his Person,) by re­moving into his Family, and also, (as to the Estate,) by strengthen­ing him so far as lawfully he may, by all the assistance he can give, for the securing, (at least) of that Inheritance, (which is rightful­ly [Page 33] his in the Reversion, and cannot legally be alienated from him,) even while his unnatural Father is yet living. Yea, why he may not, if demanded, (for the security of him, who adventures so far on his behalf, to create himself so great Enmities) also, give his generous Protector and Guardian the utmost assurance that he can require, (even that of an Oath, like that which he gave his Father himself,) con­cerning the performance of all that Duty, (whiles he thus continues under his Roof, and enjoyes the benefit of his Guardianship, which had continued due to his Father, if he had continued a Father to him, to his dying day.

The Case, if I am not much mistaken, seems thus far, very fair on the Sons side: especially, if (in the mean while of the necessary cessation of his actual Duty to his Father,) he perform no positive Act of undutifulness to him who hath so disobliged him, by way of retalia­tion: and be dispositively ready to return to all that duty again, which he formerly paid him, in case he change his mind towards him, restore him to his former Circumstances, and give him that rational security that in such a case is requisite; to assure him against any future re­laps into the like unnatural designs and attempts against him.

Let now, this Case be seriously considered by those who are most dissatisfied, (provided, they be not over-byassed by contrary Inter­ests,) as it makes too unhappy a Parallel to our late and present Cir­cumstances: and I am in great hope, that they will (at least) see cause to judge tenderly concerning some ambiguous actions of those, who have by extraordinary methods (even against their Inclinations) hi­therto sacred to them (yea to all of us, and our Posterity after us too) those dear Enjoyments and Reversions, which were lately even upon the Point of being lost for ever: if not also, farther, to thank that great Deliverer, whom God hath gratiously by extraordinary Providence, sent them and us: and last of all, to give him all that legal security, which he hath reason to expect; that whiles they sit safe under his shadow, they will not undermine the Tree from which it comes; but demean themselves with that fidelity to him which so great a favour deserves.

The obtaining of which fair and reasonable things (as till I am otherwise convinced I must judge them to be,) at the hands of our yet unsatisfied Brethren, is that which I have all along endeavoured in this discourse; which now I think it time to end, being afraid, that I have too long exercised my Readers Patience with its prolixity. But I must not dismiss it, without sending this short Prayer along with it. That God will vouchsafe to speed it with a success answerable to the since­rity [Page 34] of my Intentions therein; for the satisfaction of all those for whom it was designed, (whether exceptious Friends, or serupulous Brethren, or prejudicated Enemies to the Cause I plead:) and make us all, ei­ther cordially unanimous in it; or (whiles we cannot be so) more charitable each to other, in our differences of Opinion, then (according to the unhappy Fate which amongst us in England, too commonly at­tends all Controversies) we are wont to be: That our common Ene­mies may not have the pleasure of seeing us do that by our own im­prudent, unseasonable, and unchristian Divisions, which, without them, all the Intrigues of Hell it self, in conjunction with the Designs and Arms of France, and its Adherents, (I hope in God) shall never he able to do.

Amen, and Amen.