Agreement betwixt the present and the former government, or, A discourse of this monarchy, whether elective or hereditary? also of abdication, vacancy, interregnum, present possession of the crown, and the reputation of the Church of England ; with an answer to objections thence arising, against taking the new Oath of Allegiance, for the satisfaction of the scrupulous / by a divine of the Church of England, the author of a little tract entituled, Obedience due to the present King, nothwithstanding our oaths to the former.

AN APPENDIX.

The Objection from the Word Allegiance considered.

AFter I had put an end to my former Discourse, I heard of the following Objection.

Object. It is said, that Allegiance being the Word in the new, as well as in the Old Oath; it seems, it ought to be understood in the same Latitude and Sense in both: Then how can we safely swear Allegiance to the present King and Queen in the same sense, in which we have sworn Allegiance to the former King, while the former King is alive?

Answ. I hear this is the Scruple of some ingenuous Persons; for whose sake I shall accommodate my Answer to their own Principles, as neer as I can: first, by shewing, that those two Oaths, though both are called Oaths of Allegiance, yet they are not of the same Latitude in the matter of them. Secondly, that though in a great measure, they are admitted to have the same sense; and though in that sense in which we have sworn Allegiance to the former King, we are required to swear Alle∣giance to the present King and Queen, yet we safely and ho∣nestly do it.

1. For the first. It is plain, that the former Oath, though it be called the Oath of Allegiance, yet it hath more in the

matter of it, than can be imported in the Word Allegiance; it hath two manifest parts of a different Nature; the first ac∣knowledgeth the King's just Title to the Crown, as rightful King; and is found in the form of an Assertory Oath.

The other is as plainly promissory; I will bear Faith and true Allegiance, &c. Now though with respect to this promissory part of the old Oath, we should grant, that by the new Oath we are to swear in the same words, and in the same sense; yet 'tis more than evident, that these Words cannot be in∣tended to assert any thing about the Title of the Crown; and in all likelihood, the Assertory part of the former Oath was left out on purpose in the new, to avoid matter of Scruple or Offence.

Yet 'tis confess'd that Argument suffers but little in its Strength, if both these Oaths agree, or are the same in any substantial matter, while Men doubt that the former Oath doth oblige them to bear Allegiance to King James, in the same sense in which we are required to take the new one. It behoves me therefore now to prove the second thing proposed, viz. That though Allegiance have the same sense and meaning in both, and we have before sworn it to King James in that sense, yet we may safely and honestly swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.

Object. The Objection, in short is this, If Allegiance sworn to King James be due to him by virtue of our Oath, it cannot be due to King William and Queen Mary in the same sense it is due to King James.

Answ. The Answer is as short; for if Allegiance be due to King William and Queen Mary, in the same sense that we swore to King James; then 'tis not due to King James, tho we so swore: For our former Oath cannot oblige us to King James, to the injury of King William and Queen Mary, it would then be a Bond of Iniquity.

We see the Objection and Answer stand both upon the same ground, namely, That Obedience or Allegiance cannot be due to two Kings in the same sense at once. Therefore if I prove that Allegiance is due to the present King and Queen, it must be yielded, that our former Oath to King James cannot ob∣lige us to pay such Allegiance to him.

My Argument is this; Allegiance is due to the Supreme Power in being, therefore it cannot be due in the same sense to any o∣ther; because the same Allegiance cannot be due to two Kings at once: but King William, &c. are the Supreme Power in Being.

To this, what can be replied, but either, that King William and Queen Mary are not the Supreme Power in Being, against all sense; or, that Allegiance is not due to the Supream Power in being, against all kind of Law, as I shall shew presently.

Object. But may it not be supposed, that there may be a King de jure, that is not so de facto? And is there no Allegiance due to such a King, especially if we have sworn it to him?

Answ. But was he not King de facto, as well as de jure, when we swore Allegiance to him? Was that Oath ever taken, but to the King, and under that very consideration, as actually our King? We suppose a King de jure, but what's that? He hath Right to be King: And doth not that very thing prove that he is not King, as he hath Right to be? And consequently he hath Right to our Allegiance no otherwise, but as he hath Right to be King, and dependently upon it? that is, remotely, and up∣on the supposition, that he obtain his Right, and be actually King again, as he was when we first sware Allegiance to him.

Here the Rule seems to have place; [Rebus sic stantibus] we owe Allegiance to the King while he is actually so: if he ceases to be so, we do not owe him that Allegiance that is due to a King in Possession: if he have a Right to be King, we do not therefore owe him actual Obedience, until he recover and en∣joy, or have that Right indeed, upon which depends our Obe∣bedience. Our Oath at first included that known Condition, Si res in eodem statu permanserint.

Object. But we have sworn to King James, and who can absolve us? or how can our Obligation to him cease, or be dis∣solved?

Answ. The strict Question here, is not, whether that Obliga∣tion be suspended only, or wholly taken off? that is, Whether there remains no Obligation upon us to King James? but whe∣ther the Obligation be such as prevents or hinders our lawful swearing Allegiance to the Powers in being? There is a Duty owing to the present Government, which must be first allow∣ed; and then the supposed Obligation to the late King, what

ever it be, must be such as may consist with that Duty.

I need not here mention how many Ways our Allegiance to the late King is ceas'd; From the removal of the Object, he ceasing to be King; From the Rule of all Allegiance, the pre∣sent Laws; the Reason and End of Government, or the like. 'Tis enough to my present purpose to prove that Allegiance is due, and consequently we may lawfully take the new Oath to our present King and Queen. And therefore no consideration of any former Oath should make us deny or delay the perform∣ance of our Duty to them.

This is the Point I am come to prove, which seems to me very easy to be done, From the Law of Nature; the Law of holy Scripture; and the Laws of the Land.

First, Obedience to our Parents, civil as well as natural, is a* 1.1 Law of Nature. Our actual Governours are our nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers: this is of moral and eternal Reason; and the Obligation thence upon us, is antecedent to any Obligation, that we can be supposed to contract by our Oath to any parti∣cular Person contrary thereunto; which, as our Law saith, is but of human Provision.

Our Law-Books ground our Allegiance upon the same Reason; Protectio trahit Subjectionem: Allegiance is founded in Protecti∣on* 1.2 upon moral Arguments of Justice and Gratitude. And the* 1.3 Casuist affirms,

Allegiance is intrinsecal, and so essential a Duty, and as it were, fundamental to the Relation of a Sub∣ject, (qua talis) as that the very Name of a Subject doth af∣ter a sort import it.

The Consequence is, that Allegiance is not due to one, that hath not Possession, and therefore hath not power to protect us, whatsoever his Right may be; but it is due to the present King, &c. that doth in fact protect us without any Consideration of his Right to the Crown.

2. Allegiance (faith the Bishop again) is a Duty that every* 1.4 Subject, by the Law of Nature, owes to his Country, and conse∣quently to the supreme Power thereof; that is, to his Country as the End, to the King as the Means of that End.

Now the End being more noble than the Means, for which the Means hath both its Use and very Being, as such; if that which is ordained to be a means of Preservation of our Coun∣try, change its Nature and proper Intention, and becomes a

Means and Instrument of its Destruction, we cannot, in the Rea∣son* 1.5 of things, be bound any longer to use it. For, as he saith in another place, Whatsoever is done for any End, is so far to be done, as it doth seem necessary and profitable for that End.

Now 'tis not denied, but that the Government in the hands of King James was used, not for the Preservation of our Coun∣try, but its Destruction; and contrary to the Ends of all Go∣vernment: Yea, such as pretend some Allegiance yet due to him, do they not rather fear than hope for his Return to the Government? which, in all moral Assurance, they know would be more pernicious to us than it was before he left us.

Besides, we are now under Powers that do actually and hap∣pily serve the Ends of Government. We must hence conclude, that by virtue of our Allegiance due to our Country, which is of first and greater Consideration, our Allegiance to our late King, as contrary, or inconsistent therewith, is dissolved, and become due to the present Government.

3. Further; By the Law of Nature, Salus Populi is both the supreme and the first Law in Government, and the Scope and End of all other Laws, and of Government it self. Now how this can be preserved by our Allegiance to any other but the Government in being, is, I think, unintelligible.

Perhaps some are yet to learn, what that meaneth, I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice: What Sacrifice? Why, God's own Service: What Mercy? Why, to save Life; either of an Ox fallen into a Ditch, or a sick Man. Now what was that Ser∣vice of God that must yield to that Mercy to Man and Beast? Was it the Observation of the Sabbath? And what was that but, as it were, an Oath of Allegiance to God? It is, saith* 1.6 God, a Sign between me and you; yet this Oath binds not, this Testimony is invalid, this Service is no Duty, when it comes in competition with Charity or Mercy to Man or Beast. The Reason is, There is a prior and eternal Obligation to those mo∣ral Duties.

Is not then the Service of the King, though sworn in the Oath of Allegiance (that Sign or Testimony between King and Sub∣ject) is not this discharg'd, or dispenc'd with, when Salus Populi, the Preservation of three Kingdoms is concern'd and in danger; and the more by the Colour of our pretended Allegiance?

I think there is much weight in the words of a late Author:

I can be sure, saith he, of nothing, if I am out in this No∣tion, That no Oath can bind any longer, than the Obligation thereof is consistent and reconcileable with Salus Populi, the Welfare (the Spiritual and Temporal Welfare of the Peo∣ple) which is the sole End of all Government.

And seeing the Safety and Preservation of the Community depends upon the Promise of Allegiance to the supream Gover∣nor for the time being; and the Subjects are under a plain ne∣cessity, either to hazard or ruine the Publick, or to transfer their Allegiance; they may certainly do it lawfully; yea, are bound to do it by the Law of Laws; Salus Populi suprema Lex.

Secondly, So much briefly for the Law of Nature. Now do not* 1.7 the Holy Scriptures warrant the same? Do we find any, either in the old or new Testament, that scrupled or were question'd for their Obedience to the Powers in being? I think the present Reverend and Learned Dean of Sarum, Dr. Pearse, hath a Sermon in print, to prove Submission to Governments, a Fun∣damental of the Christian Religion. I am sure our Saviour, and more largely St. Paul, require our Obedience to the Pow∣ers that are, without any Consideration of their Title; mere∣ly, because of their Authority and Administrations; in which the Apostle expresly founds the Duty of Subjection for Conscience sake. The Arguments to this purpose, lately urged from Romans 13. by several worthy Authors, I despair of ever seeing tolerably answered; to whom I refer my Reader: only let us meditate those notable Counsels of God by the Pro∣phet, Seek the Peace of the City, (Babylon, where the People were Captives to their Tyrannical Enemies) and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the Peace thereof, ye shall have Peace. Jer. 29. 7.

Thirdly, Lastly, Is there not sufficient in our own Laws to* 1.8 justify our Allegiance to a King regnant, without our being satis∣fied touching his Title? Have we not the Authority of for∣mer Ages? Is not our Statute-Book a clear Testimony of it? In what time was it ever denied? Who was ever censured or punished for granting it? Are not all such Kings who reign'd without Right, recorded as Kings of England, and their Laws

as authentick and obligatory? Is it not evident then, that Alle∣giance due to a King regnant (with right or with none) is agre∣able to the State and Principles of this Monarchy, and founded in the Usage and Common Law of England?

But that which methinks should put the matter beyond Question, is the known and often mentioned Stat. of 11 Hen. 7. 1. grounded, as it speaks the sense of the Nation, upon Reason, Law, and good Conscience. And though the worthy Author of Considerations and others, have with a great deal of strength, argued hence to satisfy the Scruples of our Brethren, and it cannot be expected that I should add any thing very con∣siderable; yet I shall very briefly observe a few things for our purpose from it.

1. 'Tis thereby acknowledged, that a King de facto hath the Name and Stile of a King of England.

2. We are to recognize such a one as our Soveraign Lord.

3. That Allegiance is due to such a King from all his Sub∣jects.

4. That by reason of the same Allegiance, they are bound to serve him, even in his Wars.

5. That they are never hereafter to be question'd (tho the lawful King should recover his Right) for so doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance, as the Words are.

6. That War made against such a King by his Subjects, is Re∣bellion. All these things are plain in the Letter of that Law, which hath continued unrepealed or unquestion'd for above two hundred Years; and consequently so long hath been the approved sense of the whole Nation, That Allegiance and true and faithful Service is due to our soveraign Lord for the time being, whatever his Title be.

Hence it follows, that in the sense of the Law, a King de jure only, is not King. The Statute saith, the King for the time be∣ing; and seeing we can have but one King, he that hath only right to be King, is no King in being, or for the time being. Here∣upon I suppose the great Lawyers inform us, that the King de jure only is not within the Purview of the Statute of Treason; is not, as they say, Seignior le Roy.

Consequently, if Treason cannot be committed against a King de jure, while he is out of Possession, Allegiance cannot be due to him: which is a Duty we owe to the King as our So∣veragin

Lord; and none in the Eye of the Law is so, but the King in Possession: thus the formal reason of the Oath of Al∣legiance to the late King ceasing (if he be no King in Law, because out of Possession) the Obligation of that Oath, with respect to him, ceaseth also, besides much of the matter of our former Oath is gone too, for we were sworn to bear true Allegiance to him in revealing and preventing Treasons against him; and now he is not an Object capable of Treason.

But they also tell us, Treason may be committed against a King regnant without Right; and if so, 'tis thence evident that Allegiance is due to him: against which Treason is direct∣ly contrary. Treason is an Offence against our natural Allegi∣ance; which appears from the form of Endictments; the words are, Contra debitum Fidei & Ligeantiae suae, against the Duty of Faith and true Allegiance; so near are they to the very Words in the Oath of Allegiance.

In a word, to apply it, Are not William and Mary now reg∣nant and in full Possession of the Government? To deny this, is to impose upon our Senses: Are they not our Soveraigns al∣so, to whom we owe Allegiance? This to question, is against all kind of Law? May we be guilty of Treason against them? Then, supposed Allegiance to their Enemy, seems to be a de∣gree towards that Treason, and to be a treasonable Principle, if brought into Act, it tends apparently to the Death of the King and Queen; and how far the very Opinion is from Ima∣gination; and consequently from the Formality of Treason, should be soberly considered, at least to abate our consure of the Government, that with some Severity, requires our Alle∣giance; and if it may be, to perswade us to timely Confor∣mity therein.

The Sum is, I think we cannot justify our refusing to take the new Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary, without destroying Acts of Parliament, changing the Laws of England, and razing the Principles and Laws of Nature.

The Words of II Hen. 7. cap. 1. bearing to our Pur∣pose, are these.

The King our Sovereign Lord, calling to his re∣membrance the Duty of Allegiance of the Subjects of this his Realm; and that they, by reason of the same, are bound to serve their Prince, for the time being, for the defence of him and the Land, against every Rebellion, Power and Might reared against him.—And that 'tis not reasonable, but against all Laws, Reason and good Conscience; that the said Subjects—any thing should lose or forfeit, for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance—It be therefore ordained, that from henceforth no Persons that at∣tend upon the King and Soveraign Lord of this Land for the time being, in his Person, and do him true and faithful Service of Allegiance, be in no wise convict, &c.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1. Nature.
• * 1.2

  Calv. Case.
• * 1.3

  By Sander∣son.
• * 1.4

  Case of En∣gag. p. 109
• * 1.5

  Lect. 5. de leg. S. 19.
• * 1.6

  Exod. 31. 13.
• * 1.7

  2. Scripture.
• * 1.8

  3. Our Laws,