1. THE Oath of Allegiance is the Expression of our Natural Duty to the King, (as the Coronation Oath is of the Regal; which in Nature is antecedent to it) 'tis especially signifyed in these Words, He must be King before we can be bound to him as such. I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend against all Attempts, which shall be made against his or their Persons, their Crown and Dignity.

2. If the King do manifestly separate his Person from, and en­gage it against his Crown and Dignity; so that we cannot Defend them both: I mean, if his Personal Actions, contrary to Law, [Page] [Page 1] [...] [Page 2] do directly and openly tend to the prejudice and spoiling of his Crown and Dignity, by his voluntary subjecting them to a Foreign Power, contrary to the plain and primary Intention and Letter of the Oath; subverting the Legal Constitution, and e­nervating the very Laws by which his Crown is supported, his Prerogative is measured, and the Dignity of the King, as such, hath its very Being, as well as the safety of his People is main­tained; certainly, in such a Case, none can be bound by this, or any other Oath, to defend the King's Person, in attempts so con­trary to the very Reason and End of all Government, with the neglect of the other part of our Duty, which is to defend his Crown and Dignity.

3. The Oath of Supremacy seems to direct us more clearly in this difficulty; the Words are, I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness; but how? It follows, and to my Power shall Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions, Privi­ledges, Preheminences and Authorities, Granted or belonging to the King, or annex'd and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm; that is, thus we are to bear Faith and Allegiance to the King.

4. For if we should be bound to Assist and Defend his Per­son, when it is, and as it is engaged against his Crown and Dig­nity, we seem bound, toto posse, & totis viribus (so far De­fence is expounded) to Assist and Contribute to the Ruine both of our King and Country, and perhaps to the cutting of our own Throats.

5. If any should imagine, That the Oath will not suffer us to consider the Person and Crown of the King, thus divi­ded; but that it binds us to assist and defend them together: 'tis true, while they are kept together. But if the King himself divide them, and 'tis become impossible for us to Assist his Person but we must betray his Crown; nor Defend his Crown without forbearing to Assist his Person; to say, now we are bound to Assist and Defend both, makes a [Page 3] plain Repugnancy in the Oath, and in our Duty (to do and not to do the same thing) and consequently the Obligation ceaseth.

6. That we are bound by our Allegiance to Assist the Per­son of the King, to the prejudice of his Crown and People, seems not only to be against the light of Nature, the primary End of it being the safety of his Kingdom, and the safety of the King, but the secondary end of it; but most agreeable to the sense of our Ancient and Learned Lawyers, and also, Bract, Fleta Ei fraenura ponere. of the plain acknowledgment and profession of Ancient Kings and Parliaments.

King Henry I. five Hundred Years agone, told the Pope, whilst live, the Authorities and Ʋsages of the Kingdom shall ne­ver be diminished: But if I would so Debase myself (which God forbid) Magnates mei & totus Angliae populus nullo modo pate­rentur: The Lords and People of England would by no means suffer it. And Edward I. wrote himself to the same pur­pose. Besides, with his consent, the Lords and Commons in Parliament, in their Letter to the Pope, have these Words, We do not permit, or in the least will permit (sicut nec possumus nec debemus) though our Soveraign Lord the King do, or in the least wise attempt to do any of the premises (by own­ing the Popes Authority, touching his Right to Scotland) so strange a thing, so unlawful, prejudicial, and otherwise un­heard of, though the King himself would. Once more, on Re­cord in the Fourth of Henry III. the Commons Declare; Si Dominus Rex & Regni majores hoc vellent ( Adomer's Revoca­tion upon the Popes Order) Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam, nullatenus sustineret.

Now what's the meaning of all this? but that the King's Personal Will, contrary to Law, however expressed (for it must be signifyed by his Word or Actions) if the perfor­mance of it would prejudice his Crown and Dignity, may be resisted. Much less are we bound by our Allegiance to Assist or [Page 4] Defend him in so doing, in Reason, Law, or the sense of our Ancient Kings or Parliaments.

Objection. But we Swear to Defend, not only the King but his Heirs and Lawful Successors.

Answer 1. T [...]ue, but Haeres non est viventis, and the Suc­cessor, in Law and Common Sense, is the Person that doth actually succeed, or is in possession. Now if the Actual Succes­sor be the Lawful Successor, we are bound by our Oaths to Defend him; but if he be not the Lawful Successor, none else is so, because none else is the Successor, and consequent­ly, so far the Object and Reason of our Oaths ceasing, our Ob­ligation by them ceaseth, and we are bound to none besides the Person in Possession.

2. 'Tis farther remarkable, That though the word Law­ful be once in the Oath of Supremacy, 'tis only there, where we Swear Faith and Allegiance in General: But, as if it were intended, that the Subject should not trouble himself about the Title of the King in Being, where that Allegiance, is explain'd with respect to practice, the word Lawful is left out in that Oath. It follows there in these Words, — Shall assist and de­fend all Jurisdictions,—Granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his Heirs and Successors, without the Word Lawful. And agreeable hereunto, we find the word wholly left out in the Oath of Allegiance, both in the same place, where we Swèar Allegiance in General, as well as in the other place of our more particular Duty; and it looks as if this was done de Industria, for the same Reason, namely, that such as take the Oaths, might not think themselves bound thereby to be Sollicitous about the Title of the Crown.

3. The Holy Scriptures seem not to involve the Consciences of private Christians about Princes Titles; but expresly require their Subjection to the Powers that are, as a great and neces­sary Instance of that Humility and peacable Behaviour which their Religion teacheth them.

[Page 5] 4. In the same Holy Books, we are farther most plainly admonish'd that (by what means soever obtained) 'tis God that puteth down one, and setteth up another; and upon that ground too, Rom. 13. we are strictly charged to Submit to the Powers that are, because they are Ordain'd of God. And tho' the Apo­stle use the word [...] I think, none can Imagine he intended by it, to determine the Lawfulness of Angustus's Title, who was admitted by the Senate; but rather, to inforce that Obedience that he presseth the Christians to yeild, by this Consideration, Imporatore; Rom. saten­dum est, non optimo Jure Imperium a­dep [...]os. San­derson.That all Authority is from God; and in its true Nature, and by God's Ordinance, intended for our Good.

5. The known Statute of 11 H. 7.1. is of the same import, and grounded, we find, upon the like Reason and H. Scripture, it gives us way to this plain inference, that the same duty which we owe to a Lawful King, is to be performed to the King in Being; that is, to the King in Possession; and that no other King or future Parliament can in Reason, Law, or good Conscience, upon any pretence of Usurpation in the Possessor of the Crown, or any Disloyalty in the Subject, charge us with guilt, for Ser­ving or defending the King in Possession. The Subjects there­fore, might Lawfully sight for him, and consequently take the Military Oath; in Reason (by the Law of Nature) in Law, by the Law of the Land; in all good Conscience, that is, by the Law of God, in the H. Scriptures.

6. Hereupon, my Lord Coke's words are notable: This Act, saith he (meaning 25. Ed. 3. about Treason) is to be under­stood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdome: for if there be a King Regnant in Possession, altho' he be Rex de facto and non de jure, yet is he Seignior le Roy, within the purview of this Statute; and the other, that hath Right and is out of pos­session, is not within this Act.

Nay, saith he, if Treason be commited against a King de facto, and non de jure, and after the King de jure come to the Crown, he shall Punish the Treason done to the King de facto; [Page 6] and a Pardon granted by a King de jure, that is not also de facto, is voide, Inst. 3. l. p. 7.

Now if by the Law of the Land, which I think is our only guide in such cases, Treason may be committed against a King that is so only by Possession, without Right; and cannot be committed against him that hath Right, and not Possession: seing he is not within the purview of the Statute, sure, we can­not reasonably be thought to be intangled in such a strait, as to be bound by our Allegiance to commit Treason, which we cannot presume the King in Possession will Pardon, and the Law tells us, the King that hath Right only, cannot. Who there­fore would question our Liberty to be true and Faithful to the King in Possession, so far at least, as not to resist him, or to be Traitors to him? or to give him assurance thereof by our Oath. The renown'd Casuist Bishop Sanderson would not declare the very Engagement to be unlawful, Case of Engag p. 111. taken in that lower Sense, to the pretended Common-wealth without any King or House of Lords.

7. Since we have mentioned that excellent Casuist, whose Loyalty, Judgement, Fidelity, and Authority, is unquestionable, 'tis fit for us to observe what he hath frequently and without the least hesitancy delivered as his premeditated thoughts a­bout the present case.

Having suppos'd a King in Possession only, by Power, if the Query be what is to be done by the Subject that hath Sworn Allegiance to the rightful King: he answers, 'tis not Law­ful to obey the King in such Possession; but it often happens that not doing so, [defuisse Officio] we are wanting to our duty. Yea, that we owe Subjection to a King in Possession, upon the grounds of Justice, Equity, Charity, and Gratitude, while we enjoy our Liberties and are Protected by him.

Exigit hoc a nobis (Optima aequi boni lex) vetus illa commuta­tionum formula, [...]. & profecto, perversissimae mentis, sub illius dominationis patrocinio, velle vivere cui parere nolis: [Page 7] & cajus protectione gaudeas, ejus imperium detractare.

8. His third Argument for the Necessity of Obedience to the present power, however obtained, is taken from the Charity we owe to the publick, whether Church or State, of which we are Members, and for the good of which we are Born; in quantum igitur illius Societatis, cujus ipse Membrum & pars est, Salus & tranquillitas exigit, eatenus Civis unusquis (que) im­periis ejus qui de facto praeest, obtemperare tenetur. Words worthy the most serious reflection of the present Church of England. Read at large his 5th. Praelect.

But as to the Argument from Gratitude, when we seriously reflect upon our late forlorn and ruinous Condition both in Church and state; when we call to mind that all our Foun­dations were put out of Course, and our Pillars even broken by the Late King's own ill guided hands; and that the Heroick Prince hath been at so great Expence, and exposed himself to so many hazards, in his own Country, at Sea, and here in Eng­land, in Compassion both to our Miseries and Infirmities; when our Land was weak, and all the Inhabitants thereof in an utter disaiblity to rescue or save themselves; and none under Hea­ven, within the reach of humane apprehension, besides that one Prince, could possibly effect it; that Glorious Instrument under God, put his hand to support and strengthen, and bear up our Pillars: To Redeem and secure our Religion, Laws, and Liberties; and when our late King, either for fear of his Per­son, or rather of the Issue of Affairs in our Re-establishment, had deserted or abdicated his Kingdom, and left us in confusion to shift for our selves; whose return now cannot be thought of with­out Horour: And the present King and Queen, being therefore first Petitioned, to take the Government, have Graciously ac­cepted it, upon terms answering all mens desires or Interests. I say, when all this is well pondered, the Ground and Ar­gument, for our quiet and chearful submission, taken from Gratitude, is indeed too big to be contained in a sheet or two [Page 8] of Paper, or the mind of Man: And Prodigious, beyond the credit of Posterity.

Lastly, One would think there was no place left for any farther Scruple. The late Change was urged by extreme Necessity, and carried on with a wonderful Providence, and perfected with Ʋniversal Consent; it was eminently the Lord's doing, and our own too; the Government was unhing'd by the late King himself The present King &c. was put into posses­sion by our selves in our Representatives; who were as freely chosen by us as ever any Parliament was: The Convention had nothing wanting but the previous formality of the Royal writs, which could not be then had; that Punctilio of order, cannot reasonably be supposed to go into the being of the Representative Body; the want of it, cannot well be thought to prejudice our Election or Consent to what they have done, whom we chose and entrusted with our Politick Reason and Interest, and in whose Acts, we ought to acquiesce as our own doings, in every thing or matter of Expediency for the Publick good, not evidently contrary to our duty to God.

In short, The Possession of the Throne, by the Act of the People of England, is now unquestionable; we have no liberty left us, either to dispute the King's Title, or deny him our Duty. Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, &c.