An examination of the scruples of those who refuse to take the oath of allegiance

speciAL
coLLecrioNS

t)OUQLAS
LibRARy

queeN's UNiveRsiiy
AT kiNQsroN

kiNQSTON ONTARIO CANAt)A

yv^^^

A N

EXAMINATION

O F T H E '

S C R U P L E S

Of Thofe who Refiife the
OATH of ALLEGIANCE.

LICENSED,

Aprit Fd,
1689.

fames Frafer.

A N

EXAMINATION

OF THE

SCRUPLES

O F

Those who Refufe to Take

THE

■jSatI) of allegiance.

By a Divine of the Qnirch of Englxmi,

LONDON,

Printed for l^i'cljartl ClJiCtedi, at the Role
and Crown in Sz.'Pauts Church-yard,
M DC LXXXIX.

r

^c^ii'/i^r^^m^L^

\ y

f. ]/\ \ if A V V •

2

:j}il\ o: :))ljic

1 Ao ^VytacH e^f!j '\r

1 CI f: vfl

I i

, v'v pi cr H 0 a

,T

A N

EX A MINATION

icr

O F T H E ,i„,

hfrrnj, .3- vi.n 01:; ■..-.- r* r /- r^ »

Scruples ot thole who Retuie to Take ''

■ nri
THE

IF thofe who have protefled againffc the Proceedings of thef
ConvemioNj hzd publifhed their Reafons for fo doing, it:
would have been an eafie matter to have fatisfied the Pub-
lick, by examining whether the Grounds inducing them to
this RefolutioD, were folid, or no : But forafmuch as the greater
part haveacquiefced in the Judgment of the Convention, whereio
wehavereafon to believe they proceeded according to the Light
of their Confcience^ and the other Party hath not thought fittd
publilh the Grounds of their difTcnt^ we have,in the matter before
us,nothing to examine, but what fome of them may have alledged
in their Converfations with their Friends, to juflirie their Proteft
^nd Reful^l to follow the Senfe of the Convention and Parliamenr,
Scarcely was the Project of the Houfe of Commons for fetling
the Government, publickly known, but fome moft Ir^verely con-
demned their propofing of it to the Houfe of Lords, as offending
them in all its parts. They could not endure to hear of an Origi-
«4/Co»f/-<?i'^ between the King and the People; they found fault
with the word ^bdicated^which the Commons had made ufe of to
fignifie that the late King Jams II. had abandoned the Govern^
ment of the State : And lafi: of all they could not bear with their
declaring the Throne vacant. To make void this Vote of the Com-
mons, fome Members of the Hcufe of Lords propounded a quite
different way of proceeding in this Affair ^ they agreed with the
Commons, in declaring King James IL uncapableof AdminiHring

1 Ah ExaffthatJoH of Scruples

the Government i as well becaufc of his Religion, which engageth .
hmio the ntmoit of his Power xo deltro.y. a .Protellant States
as for the care beiias taken, fincehis coming to the Crown, to evi-
dence to all his People, that he was refolved to overthrow the
Government ellablilhed by Law, to make way for Popery ^ but
that noiwithltauding all this, they could not declare that he had
broke the Original Contrad between him and his People, lor de-
prive him of the Roy ^:1 Dignity.. —

Sec9ndly,That his retiring oun of England mto France^ could
not be'-atcountedavoluntary and lawful Renunciation of the Go-
vernment y and confequently that it could not prejudice the Right
he has, during his Life, to the Crown, as being a Right devolved
uponhimbySuccedion. , r , . -•

Thirdly, That feeing the Throne could not be faid to be vacant,
the Prince o^ Orange could not, without injuftice, be advanced to
the Dignity Royal i becaufe thereby the Right of Succellion
would be overturned, and the Conllitution of the Government
changed, by making the Kingdom Eledive i nor the Princefs nei-
ther,'' becaufe this would be an invading of her Father's Right,
whom Death alone could dived of the Soveraignty.

£ut being fenfible, as well as the Commons had been, that thcfe
^uppoHtionsadmittedjWOuld fubjed the Kingdom to inexprelTible
Confufion i they pretended to remedy this Inconvenience, by de-
claring the Prince oi Orange Regent of the State, by reafon of the
King's incapacity to adminillcr the Government ; to grant him
all the Rights of Soveraignty, except the Title of King, and to
fwear to him the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, under the
Title of Regent of the Kingdom i which provifron feemed to them
fnfficient to fettle the Government on afureand lafting Foundati-
on, without (baking of any of thofe Maxims they oppofcd to the
Rcfolveofthe Houfeof Commoos, as being maintained by the
generality of the Divines of the Church o{ EngUnd. It was vi-
ilblc enough,thatthis expedient of the Lords was not fufficient to
prefcrve the Fruit of the Deliverance God had fo lately afforded
ojs i and it had been already rejeded-, as an ttnprofifahle Device,
by the IVvftminfter and O.v/or^ Parliaments, Amro 1580. Neither
did It at all anfwer the fii ft fteps the Lords made, after the Retreat
of y^wc.f II. for they immediately took upon them the Go-
¥ernment, as being wholly abandoned , and afterwards put it into
thy bands of the Prince of arrf/;;;^' , tliey defired him to call aC(w-

vemion.

alout the Oath of Allegiance. 2

vetuhn. All which Adls of theirs, made it as clear as the light, that
they no longer owned the Authority of King James 11. who had
quit the Throne: For fnppofing the continuance of his Authority,
none of thefe Ad^s could be accounted lawful, as being fb many
Attempts againffc the Soveraignty.

Ajid forafmuch as neither tlie Commons,nor the greater part of
the Houfe of Lords, did ever agree to this Expedient ; but fol-
lowing their firft Refolutions, have, proclaimed .he Prince and
Princefs of Orange King and Queen of England , and have ordered
the Oath of Allegiance to be fworn to them •, it appears that the
Scruples of thofe who propounded the Regency, as an happy Ex-
pedient for fetlingof the Government, were only founded upon
the Maxims before mentioned, which they confidered as an un-
moveable ground to build upon. Wherefore to deliver them
from theHelitations which the proclaiming of the King and Qjieen,
and the necellity of taking the Oath of Allegiance, have railed {^
their Spirits i we mufi: enquire, whether the Principles they go
upon befo immoveable and incontcitible, as they fuppofe them to
be^ or whether indeed they have not built upon falfe Suppofiti-
pns. I know there are already feveral Difcourfes publiflied upon
this Subjeit , wherein the Proceedings of the Convention are
ilronglyaflerted, and many thereby freed from their Scruples,
by difcovering the Prejudices they laboured under. Yet foraf-
much as it is of ufe to treat [till of Subje(fts,asloDg as the necellity
of further clearing of them continues ^ i prefume 1 fhall not lofc
my pains in examining them afrefh, in hope of propounding fome^
thipg that may fatisfie the Confciences of thofe who have Itarted
at the apprehenfion of thefe difficulties, which is the maindciign
of this Writing.

The firit Queltion, 'v'lz,. Whether there be an Ongmd Contra^,
between the King and People i the Suppofal of wiiich, the Conir
monsmade their Foundation, is the eafieft thing in the World
to be determined > To convince any rational Man hereof, it is
enough to put him in Mind only of the Oath, the King fwears,
to his People, aiid the People to their King at his Coronation i
which is the Seal of that Original Contra(ft. There are two
Sorts of Oaths, according to the Confent of Divines ^ the one-
Judicial, taken at the Command of a Judge; the other Extraju=
dicial, which is taken by the Agreement and Confent of two Par-
ties, who agree mutually to take it •> which is therefore alfo (;aK

■ led

U 'An Examination of Scruples

ltd Conventional, Syheflj'rile Jnram. c.i. §. 3. This being
granted, it cannot be denied, that there is an Original Con.
traEi in all Kingdoms, where the People t^ke an Oath of their
Princes i the Oath on their Part being nothing elfe, but the fo-
lemn Confirmation of the Obligation they enter in, to perform
their Part of the Conditions, which are impofed upon them by
the State. 'Tis very ftrange, that in a Matter thus clear and
Self-evident, as this is, fome fnould have exprefs'd themfelvesin
k flouting way. That theHoufe of Commons would have done
well, to have fent the Lords a Copy of this Original Comraff^
drawn from their Regifters, wherein they ought to have pre-
ferved it, if any fiich were. They (hewed fufficiently with
thefe Words, That they never had a right Notion of the Go-
vernment oi EngUnd^ nor of the Nature of the Coronation^
Oathi which, toa Demonftration, proves this Contradl. They
blight have learnt this Point, from the notsd Mirror ofjufiices,
Chap. I. SeB.i. where after having fhewed, that God had fub-
dued the Ancient Britaim , becaufe of their unjufl; Government,
to the Power of the 5^A-o;7j, who conquered £;7^/^w^, there be-
ing no lefs than forty of them, that were Companions in theSoi
veraignty*, Thefe Princes (faith he j after ^eat' Wars ^TribttW-
timis arid Troubles ^ fnfered'for a long t'me^ chofe themfelves ont
^ing to reign over them^ to govern God's People , and to nuiintain
ii}id defend their Perfons, and their Goods in Peace^ hy Rules of
Law. And at the Beginnings they made the Kingtofrvear, That he
fhoiild maintain the Chrijlian Faith with all his Power ^ and govern his
People by Law^ without having regard to the Perfon of any one, and
that he fl:ouldbe obedient to fff^r Right, as well as his Petp'le. Thah
which a more true Notion cannot be given of the Government
of England, its Original, and the Obligation that lies upon thofe,
who take the Coronation- Oath.

I know there be fome Men, whofe Skulls are thick enough to
maintain,That the Oaths Kings take at their Coronation,do not at
^1 oblige them to their People-, but only their Confciences, with'
Refped to God. But the four following Confiderations arefuffi-
cient to difabufe them of this Illufion they put upon the Stat-e and
Kings themfelves. Firft:, It is falfe,that Kings do not fwear to the
People-, 'tis to them they precifely direiH: their Promife,with the
Oath that confirms their Promife and Obligation, i5rrf<:7o« Lib^,
Caf- 9. Secondly , If this Divinity will hold, Why then are

not

ahout the Oath of A/Iegiance. ^

not the People ns well difingaged from the Obiigatior; that is up-
on them, to perform the Promifcs they hpvemsdc to tjicir Kings,
and confirmed by their Oaths, as being only obliged in Conlci-
ence to God, but not to the King-*

Thirdly, They may be convinced of their Errour, by the plain
fence of the Oaths that Kings take in Eleillive Kingdoms, theie
beingthe exprefs words ofthe Oath taken by the Kingsof /'o/.z^^.-
Jf I flhill violate this m>f Q.uh ^ the Inhdntants of my Kingdom jh.tll
not he botifid tojhew m^any Obedience.

Fourthly,lf itbefaidjthatthisindeedis fo inElciflive Kingdoms,
but that it cannot take place in thofc where the Crown def^.ends
by Succellion ^ this Suppofition of theirs, that Saccellion alters the
nature of the King's Oath, is alcogetner falfe and ungrounded:
We have an iiillp.nce hereof, in the Kings oiSoaw \ who when they
are Crowned Kingsof^'T^^ow, which they po He Is by Right of
Saccedion, the People, after that the King has taken the Corona-
tion-Oath, fpeak in theie terms : We why are as poiverful as Yon^ but
are rr.ore confidcrable •, conftitute Ton onr King , for to preferie our
Laws .:/;d Liberties ^ Trhich if Tcndo not doy tl}<.s goes for no'.hitig. And
certainly it is a very pretty Ideathcfe Men trame of the Royal
Oath : A King obliges himfeif before God, in the moll folemn
manner imaginable, to keep the Laws •, but for ail this, fr^y they,
there is not the leaft tye upon him to his People. If thiS were
indeed the cafe with Kings , they had much better , afrer ha-
ving performed this Ceremony, openly protefl, That wh^t they
had done, was only in mockery and mafqiierade \ for ch.5t though
they fhould violate the Laws and overturn the Government,they
only in ^o doing, ad according to their Power and Right ; and
no body can of right fay to them, any more than to the Pope,
If^hy doft rhoufo ? At leali, this v;ould be of ablolute necelfity to
difabufethe People, who, upon therefped they have foranO.an, .
are apt naturally to conclude, (wichout doubt by an eHed of
Stupidity common to all Mankind)That Oaths oblige the Parties
that take them, not only towards God ^ but alfoto thofe to Vvhom
inparticular they are addreflsd.

1 grant, that the Governments which require an Oath from
their Kings at their Coronation, have not been careful to uihioin
to it the fame Declai-ation the S:ates of Arragon have thought fie
to do : However, it is evident that the leaving oi-it this Clame,
does not at all alter the cafe. Thus we fee, th:t in MaLiimorial .

B Con.

6 ^it Esawination of Scruples

Contra(fls, though the Claafe of Divorce in cafe of Adultery, be
not exprefs'd', as indeed it is ufnal to omit Claufes that are odious;
yet cannot we inferr from thence, that that Condition is not as
exprefly to be underftood, as if it had been declared in plain words
and £t large. We read in the Laws of SuEdward^ which were af-
terwards rati'fied by King William the Conquerour, and which are
to be fworn to, by all Kings at their Coronation, That if the
King do hot Govern according to the end for which he was con-
Jvfc iiofncn-RepTs ^i^^ced, He jluill not fo much as retain the Name of
mcoconitnb:t,ve- a iCing^ but fofeits that Title. So that wefee how
run noaiea Regis the tundsmental Laws of the Nation do decide
P^""^'^- the point. The famous Foneyc^e, Chancellor of

EvgLwd^ wpsfofcnfible ofthis Co;7rr^c?, thit he lays down in his
hook de LandthM Lf^«w,That the Power of the King of England^
is a Power limited and bounded by Laws, which he cannot change
at his ownpleafure, and by fuch Laws as his Subjeds tbemfelves
defire j andthishecalh a Poiitital or Civil Government, and a-
fcribes the Original of all Forms of Government only to the vo-
luntj3ry Confcnt of the State.

Taking for granted then (as Tndeed it cannot be denied) that
there is an Original Contra^ between the King and People, the En-
quiry will be, Wherher King JamesW. did not violate that Con-
trail:, by breaking the Oath hefware to the People ? That he-has
l)roken his Oath in all the parts of it, is a thing fo evident, that
even tjiofewho were for his keeping the Title of King, though
they thought fit to take from him the Adminiftrationof the Roy-
al Dignity, never durlt call it in qucftion. The matter of fad
was but toonpparent,and thcefFedsof it too fed and fenfible.Now
t his fu])pofcd, for it needs no proof, Can we rationally conclude
that janies \\. has not forfeited the Right and Title of King ? If
on his part he has broke all the Ties he had engag'd himfelf in, to
his People, Who fees not that in fo doing, he has dilTolved the
Original Contracl wiiich he had confirmed by Oath ? To fay that
aContrad m^y ftill fubfif], though one of the Parties break the,
C^onditions by forfwcni ing himfelf, is a meer Contradidion ; be-
ciufe a Contrajft cannot fubfift ,but by performing th« Conditions
for which it was made at firft: So that we cannot doubt, with-
out confounding the nature of things, but that James \\. by break-
ing the Engagements he had taken, and confirmed by Oath, has
iet free his People from their Oath of Allegiance,by which they en-
gaged

ahout the Oafh of Ad'eghwfe, ^

gaged thcmfelves to him, only'bn condition of his [vzrforming the
Promifes he had made to then?. In this cafe it is that Maxim
takes place : With him that breaks hi: Fnith^ Faith nuy Fnnnenti f^-'
kbroksn. The King promifes to Govern according dcm,' fitjcs
to Law, and upon this account he enjoys the Rights fnn.qitur ci-
andPrerogatiyes annexed to the Crown i the People ^^''"•
on their part promife Fidelity and Allegiance to him according to
the Laws : As foon therefore as T^wcj 11, began to overturn th$
Laws, as he has done in the moll profefs'd nianricr imaginsble, he
at the fame time alfo diflblved the Original Contrail, by which
alone he could demand Obedience from his People, who ftand no
longer engaged to him by their Oath of Allegiance. What I here
alledge, is confirmed by all the Divines of the ^o/w/jjj Church, who
have not facrificed their common Senfe to Court Flattery. See
what Jbneas Sytvim fpeaks to this point, Lib. i. de Cejhs ConciL
Bi%fil. where he relates the Difcourfe of the Billiop of Burgeos .•
The Pof€ is in the Churchy us a King in his Kingdom •, hnt to fay ^ that
the King has more Power than all his Kingdom^ ts abfurd : Wherefore^
as fonietimei Kings^forAfak-AdminifirarionandTyranny^ are vcholly
excluded and thrned oi.t of their Kingdoms ^ fo neither can it he doubt -
ed, but that a Popd may be depofed by the Chkrcit ^ that is.^ by a Go-
veral Conncil. Nor de f give any heed to thoje rrho attribute to Kiitgj
fitch an Hnlimitted Povrer^ as not to be tied to the Laxvs ^ thcfe bein(r only
aforffFlatterers^thatfpeakcontrary to their ovrn Senfe and judgment.
And afier having proved that Kings were originally condituted
by the Confentof the People, and that they are fuhjccl: to the
■Laws,whereofthey are only the Executors, hef;dc!s,^/<r tfrrcfee a
King that contemns the Laws ^ takes away h:.s Subject Goods by force ^
forces f^irgins^abitfes married Women^ ftitjc^inr all things to his Luji
^nd m^} humour ^ WiMnotthe Stt^aes in this caje^ being tret togethtr^
depnfe fnch a Prince from his Throne^ placing another there^ vtho f.iail
fwear to Govern well^ and obey the Laws ? Sftrely^ as Feafon tcl's pu^ it
ought to bet hw: So vre fee tk-it P;aclice in fnch c^zfcs ^ ionjiyms it.
Ithe rather quote this Authority, bxcsufe it ccnftrrr.s a M;jxiin
acknowledged by all the AmbalTadcrs, Bifnop?,. rnd Deputies of
the WeRern Church, and by thofecf England in p;?rticnJar, who
were prefent at that Council, and did rot in the lc.:ft qneftion the
pointy whereas, it is very probable, the AmbaiT^.dcrs of Ei.glard
would have oppofed it, if they had thought it centra! y to the
■ Laws and Cultom of their "Country. But indeed, vs ith v, b'dtfc<^c

B 2 .could

8 Jyj Esamination of Scruples

could they have ob}e€led any thing againft the trnth of this
Maxim , when batfifteenor fixteen years before, EnaLnJ had de-
pofed Rtchard 11. laying down as an unmovable ground, That he
was fo far engaged to keep the Oath he had fvvorn to his People at
his Coronation^that having broke feveral Articles thereof, and be-
ing confcquentlyconvicnipd of Perjury, they were no longer ob-
liged to own him for their King. We have in Knighton the whole
procefs of this Uepofition, which deferves to be conlidered by us
in its Principles and Conclullons, as being fuch, which I fcarce be-
lieve any dare deny \ and the Examples thereof have been fo fre-
quent in other Kingdoms, that Mdnana in his Book de Rege^ Lib. i .
C 3. Dedic^-tcd to King Phiiif 111. examined by his Order, and
printed with his Privilege, by his printer^\Nd.% not afraid to alTert ,
If a Prwceby his ill Government^ brings the State into danger ^ if he
ke a Cofitemher of his Country and Religion^ and will admit of no Remt^
dy^ that then he ought to he j^bdicated, and another to be Jubfiitnred in
his room^ as has often been d me in Spain ^ and mufi jnftly fiffer as a
wild and ravcno;u Beaf^expofed to the Darts of all; becaufi diveBtng
himfef of humanity^ he is turned Tyrant.

1 know. there ijre a fort of People, whofuppofe they can knock
ofT thefc Exampl.s and Authorities all at once, by boldly alFerting
thatthefeCuftoms and this DocHirine, are only theeffed of Popiih
find Jefuitical Errors : But pray, let fiich conlider, 1. That thole
of the Reformed Religion in all places, and particularly iu Eng.
Lind^ have always approved them, as I fhall make appear in the
fcqncl. * 2. That the contrary Opinion ought rather to pafs for
a Popifh nnd Jefuitical Opinion ; becaufc it is certain, that thofe
who firfl: maintained it, whatever avcvlson they might pretend to
liave againd- the Jefuics^did defend it in favour of the Jefnits, and
to promote their Pretenlions \ who without this Opinion, could
never f) fcciirclv have advanced their Dcllgns, 3. If this Opini-
on be once admitted, it will inevitably follow, that neither in
England^ ncr any other part oi Europe^ tlicre is, or <an be, any la w-
fuf Sovcraign whom the People arc bound to obey, thofe who
Reign at prefcnt having no other Right but what they have deri-
ved from Princes fubllit'itcd in the room of thofe that have been
depofed by the State.

This being pr^iifed, 'twill be ealie to fee through the Objeifti-
or.s fomc have made a^ainft the word j^bdicne^m^iknCc of by the
Convention. It plainly appears, that the Commons by that tcrrn,

mcc^nt

ahout the Oath of Allegiance. p

meant nothing el(e but to exprefs King 7.t;;?ej his actual Renunci-
ation, by abandoning the Government , rathet than confent to
thofe equitable Conditions offered to him, if he had been willing
to return to his Duty, and keep his Oath, whereby he flood enga-
ged to his People, it cannot bealfeited without extream impu-
dence,That J^wall.was ignorant of the occaiions of complaint he
bad given to his Sul}j ds, lince his coming to the Crown, lince the
Trial of the feven Bifnops, the Prince of Or^w^e's Declaration, had
in general touchMa: the Breaches made upon the Law. TheBi-
fliops alfoprefented a Memorial to the King, wherein they menti-
oned the chief Grievances the Siatelabour'd under,inten Articles;
and he was fo far convinc'd of the Equity of theiTDem3nds,t!'wt to
reconcile thofe whom he had made averfefrom him , he began in
appearance tore-eftablilhfomeofthe Laws he had over-thrown,
andtoundofomeof hisunjuflandarbitrary Proceedings. Butafter
all, it appears but too evidently,that in all this, there was nothing
ofiincerity; for he did not think fitting to give any fatisfa(ftion as
to that point, which was the greatelt Grievance of all \ but conti*
nued in theRefolution of challenging to himfelf a Power to di(^
penfe with the Laws jfo that whatfoever he had,duringthepreirure
of his Affairs, repaired, might as ealily afterwards be overthrown
again, as foonas the danger whichthreatned him was blown over:
And all the Laws flnce HtmySiW. which are the foundation of the
Government, were always in the flmie danger of being repealed,
at leaft difpenfed with, at his pleafure. If this had not indeed
been his cale, it had been ealie for him to have calmed the JTrou-
bles he had raifed, and continued in his Kingdom in peace and fafe-
ty. But having fixed his Refolution, and Necefiity prefling him
to alter his meafures, he chofe rather toq'utthe Kingdom than
his RefoluLions. Now that all this is not fpoke by Conje(fture,
appears from his own declared and avowed Principles \ for after
his return from Feverjlja^jj^ was it not fie he fhoald immediately
have declared, that he had changed his Refolution, purpoling for
time to come, to Rule according to^Law, and openly renouncing
the Arbitrary Power he had arrogated to himfelf? Was not this
the time for him, in purfuance to the earneft follicitations of his
People, to declare he would referr all things to the Decifionof a
free Parliament, and to fend out the Writs for their Eletflion,
which he had kept back ? Surely, a fmall flock of Prudence, had
lie inclined this way, had been fuii'cient to have fiiewn him, that

ihis

{f^Q Aft Exar/ihiat'ton of Scruples

this was the nick dftime to put ^n end to the Fears and Complaints
or his Pcople,and confirm himfelf in the Throne : Whereas inftead
oftakingihis natural and ready way, and inftead of acquiefcing
in thofe equitable Conditions, which the Comnnii^oncrs he had
fent to the Prir.ce oi Orange had brought him, and which he feem-
ed to have approved as both jult and advantageous to him ^ he
Hill continued in the defign of retiring himfelf, and to leave £w^-
land rather than to change the reieafures he had taken to opprefs
them. If we judge without prejudice of this his Retreatjit is na-
tural forusto concludc,Thatnot feeing any poiTibility ofefFedling
his defigns in EngUnd^ he thought belt to retire to France , and
from thence to invzdt JreUf?d or Scotland^ there to profecute his
firft-fix'd defign j hoping that after a more eafie inducing of thofe
Kingdoms, ( intheftate he had put them]) to arm againft £»^-
/ nd^ he might eafdy opprefs that Kingdom alfo, and reduce them
to that condition, as nothing more fhould be an Obltacle to his
Arbitrary Government. When a Prince has overthrown the
Laws, and employed unlawful Arms to maintain this his Ufurpa-
tion, if thofe, who by their Rank and Intereft in the State are en-
gaged to oppofethemfelves to his Violence, oblige him either to
betake himfelfagain to the waysof Jullice, from whence he has
departed, or to quit the Government ^ is it not evident that he re-
nounces the Governmerj:,by refnfing to change his former unjufl
and illegal Courfes? Whether he departed cut of fear, or any
other motive, is not material to this Enquiry, but certain it is,
thatj^wejll. having done both, rather chofe to retire himfelf,
than to part with the Refolution he had taken to overthrow the
State •, being fo far from acquiefcing in the Remonftrances that
had been made to him, and from calling a Parliament , to which
hehadbeen foearneflly follicitcd, and for which he had engaged
his Word) thaton the contrary, he abandons the Government,
and calls himfelf into the .^rmsof a Prince that is an Enemy to
the Goveinment, and who has always endeavoured to fubvert
their Laws and Religion : It follows therefore, that he has really
^Wic^rf^ the Government, as the Parliament have declared.

Neither can any difficulty be raifed here, concerning James 11.
his abandoning of the Government, becaufe his Retirement was
rot altogether voluntary, but rather by a kind of force and con-
flraint : For as it is moft true, that the elTence of Things doth not
depend on their Formalities •, and that it cannot be denied, but

that

1^

ahoat the Qath of Allegiayice. X r

that he h?.s always retained, and flill doth , his defign of overtur-
ning the fu idamental Laws of the Government, having to tiiis end
kept up a (landing Army, contrary to the Laws j and not being
able to bring about his end, has call liimfelf into the Arms of the
Fremh King : All which being evident beyond difpute, the circum-
ftanccofhi> (in fome fort) involuntary retirement, which withfo
much Afteilation is exaggerated by fome, will be found of no mo-
ment. If the People h.-ize power to corfiitHte a Ki»g^ they who have
Pindehimfo^ may rrirho/tt nny in jt^fiut cither lay him ajide ^ or cur b
his Exoriitamy , in cafe he attempts tyrannically to abufe the
Porrer Roy J : Which is the Opinion of Thomas u4cjuinas , in his
Book Dedicated to the King of Stctly^ L i.e. 6. Neither are we to
believe^ that the Pcople^in Aepofing of aTyant^ are guilty of any breach
of Faith orVtJljyalty^ though they had formerly by Oath obli'^ed them-
fllves tohim^bccanfc he dcferies th^r his Subjetls jljonld ??ot Iseepthe Faith
they had promt ft d him^ furc.fmtch as he hath not carried himfelf faithful-
ly in Rilling his People, as the Ditfy of a King recjnires i as the fame
Author continues in the fore-cited place. Cardinal Anreolm teaches
the fame thing,in i.D<,ft.j^^.e]jin.j4rr.^. We perceive from hence ^ that
a King may play the Tyrant ovtr his SubjetlSy its having no Superior to
vehomthey tan appeal from him : Wherefore if it happens in a City or Com-
munity^ that the P^rince turvs Tyrant, if he have no Sftperior, in this cafe
tljf whole Community m,ay jiifily, and according to right Reafon, join to-
gether to reduce him to Reafon ; or if he prove incorrigible, for ever de-
fofe him. Grotitts clearly alTerts the ferine Oodl'ine, de Jure Pads
& Belli J /;>. 1 . C. 4. §, 1 3. Jfa King., faith he, have one flure in the
Sov(raignPo':vcr^ and the People or Senate another j if the King entrench
ttpon the Power oft he People, he may bejitflly opfcfcd, as extending his
Power beyond its bounds ; and this ] judge ough' to take place, notwith-
flanding what hathbeen laid before, that the Power of waoina War is if
the King', for th.^t is to be underfrood with refpe^ to foreign War;it being
fclf evident, that he who has af.wre in the Soveraignty,mnfi needs have a
l^ijot to defend and fecure the fame: And where this happens,itu as plain
that the King may lofe hi^ fliare in the Coiernmentby the Law of War,
This Dotlrine not only Ihews that the £?/^//;7j have jallly taken
«p Arms to oppofe tlie Invafion of their Rights and Privileges,
Initalfo that James 11. who had invaded them, under Covert of
an Army railed contrary to Law, perfevering in his defign of
abufing the Royal Power ; and chufing rather to leave the Govern-
ment, tlifin to return to the bour.ds of Law and Juftice^ we can-

fiOCy

fi Ah Examhation of Scruples

not,without incurring the cenfureoi*^ Vanity,troubleour felvesany
further about enquiring, whether this his quitting of the Govern-
ment, was more or kTs voluntary. When King £^(P^r^Il.being
tai^en Prifoner, and depofed for following the Counfel of che5/jc«-
ccn^ was obliged by the Parliament to abdicate the Crown, which
theybeftowed upon his Son f^ip^r^, Hiflorians tell us, that he
refulld to confent to any fuch Abdication j however, becaule he
cxprefs'd hinifelf as beholden to the Parliament for conferring the
Crown onhisSonf^B'^y^ 111. the Parliament either fatisfied them-
fclves with the Acknowledgment, as a kind of Abdication ^ or for-
ced him to agree to a formal one ^ as indeed fuch an one was for-
^merly to be feen amongfi: the Rolls of Parliament : Shall we be fo
weak to think , that the Parliament did much concern thcm-
fclves, whether this Abdication was more or iefs voluntary ? It
appears it was done in a Prifoa \ and after fo much repugnancy
on the King's lide, that it was but too evident he would never have
confented to it, had he been at liberty to have made his choice,
but would havealways continued in his defign of confounding the
Government, as he had done before. It is therefore apparent,
that whatfoever wasdone on this occafionby the Lords,who went
to the King to demand this Abdication of him,was only for to fa-
tisrie the Queen', and his refufal would not at all have hindred
them from pafling the Adjby which he was afterwards depoled.

The third point concerns the/^^^c^wcy of the Throne ^v^\]iz\\ feeras
to overthrow the Notion of Succelliop, and that common faying
in fucceflive Kingdoms, That the Kmg dies not. To which may be
anfwered, i. That this Saying has neither all the Trurh , nor all
the life which is commonly attributed to it: Sure it is, that it
is founded on anew Notion, 'viz.. That rhe Coronation of a King
isonly a limple Ceremony i whereas in ancient times, the Reign
of Kings bore date from the Day of their Coronation ^ Du Tillet
the French-man, affirms it was fo in France: Recbcrches.^ L.i.p. 1 5^.
and the Learned avow the fame concerning the Kings oi EngUmd ;
of which,if any defire to be further fatisfiedjthcy need only ccnfulc
the publick Records of this Kingdom. Beiides,we know that the
Death of a King puts an end to the Authority of Judges derived
from hisCommiflion^which could notbefo,if the Royal Authority
did not die with the King, 'and revive again upon the declaring of
his SuccelTor. However it be,it cannot be denied but that the Com-
mons have exprefs'd themfelves with a great deal of Prudence

and

alout the Oath of Allegiance. t 3

(and precaution ; and it is matter of wonder, that thofe who have
cenfured this Expreflion, did notconiider, that it was not ponible
to make ufe of a more proper term, in thofe circumllances : It pre-
fer ved the Notion of Kingly Government, which they thought
necefPary to preferve \ it implied that thctThrone was to be filled
fome way or other, whether by placing the next Heir upon ir, or
to place the Prince 0^ Orange with the Princefs, as afterwards was
done. We may alfo obferve, in Juftification of the wife Condu<St
of the Commons, that the pretended Prince oiWaks^ was fo gene-
rally taken for a Suppofititious Prince, that even amongft thofe
that declar'd themfelves for a Regency, there were very few
-that were not for rejecting him; fome of them, for that fappofing
he were Legitimate, yet being educated in the Popirti Religion, he
would be no lefs incapable of the Government, than his Father
Jama the II. and others, becaufe the Jealoufiesof his being fup-
polititious, were much encreafed ilnce his being carried into a Fo-
reign Land, and Enemy to the Government. Now what more
rational Conclulion could iw this Cafe be refolved on, than to de-
clare the Throne vacant ?

But, fay fome, fuppofe the Prince of Wales ought to have been
excluded as Suppofititious, which was in the Power of the Con-
vention to do, had it not been more natural to have followed the
Law of Succerfion, which fuppofe th that the Throne cannot be va-
cant, as long as there are lawful Heirs, whofe Rights we have
fworn toobferve, by fwearing Allegiance to Jaunts II ? This Ob-
jection, tho' at firft Sight it may feem of fome moment ^ yet,nar-
rowly lookM into, is of no Solidity at all. For, Firfl, it is certain,
that a King who forfeits his Kingdom upon the Account of being a
Tyrant, at the fame time forfeits his Rights, both as to himfelf
and Pofterity. Indeed, common Scnfe afTures us, that a State,
which has been opprefs'd by the Tyranny of a Father, ought to ap-
prehend nothing more than the SuccelTion of his Children. Rsme
was very fenfible of this, when Ihe deftroy'd the Family of the
T^^«/w, for their Father's Crimes, notwithftanding they had cho-
fen that Family to be their Sovereigns. Tyranny cannot be exer-
cifcd by one alone ^ wherefor^ a Goverment that would fecure it
feif, from the Evils incident to the Succeflion of a Son, defcend-
ed from one fo dangerous to the Community, areobliged,at the
fame time they free themfelves of the Oppreffor, to exterminate
a great Number of thofe, who by Intereft, Compliance, or other

C Motives,

1 4 ^fi Examination of Scruples

Motives, have been the Inftruments of the Fathers Oppreffion,and
w'ho>ight probably introduce it again,having a Sovereign difpa-
fed that way.

Secondly, It is not true, That the Oaths whereby we ftand en-
gaged to the Kingand hisSucceObrs, are abfolute Oaths, and fuch
HS fiiffer r.o reilridtion : For it is evident they are conditional^ and
that they imply, thst the Father, to whom the Oath is fvvorn,
ftiali govern the Kingdom according to the Laws prefcrib'd to
him. Thefe Oaths are an Expreffion of the Confidence the Peo-
ple have in the Reciprocal Fidelity of their Prince, to whom they
fwear Allegiance j but cannot be of any larger Extent, than the
Oath fworn to the Father, which Oath is conditional. The Pro-
mife made to the Poilerity of a Man, fuppofeth the Father's faith-
ful Performance of his Promife, and his Pofterities Capacity 'to
govern the State j for they may become uncapable of governing
leveral ways. Bilhop Bilfon, p, 24.0. agrees,that extreme Weak-
nels and Folly, orPhrenzy, are fufiicient Caufes to deprive Prin-
ces of their Right of the Sword. He maintains. That if the law-
ful Heir of any Crown be a Fool ^ or if he, who is crowned after-
wards becomes diIlraLn;ed and befides himfclf, the Kingdom may
proceed to the Choice of another by common Confent and Advice-
Ke doth not fay, That in this cafe it is neceflary to fet a Tutor o-
ver him, but to fubilitute another in his Place." Let ns take a
view of another cafe, that is yet more confiderabie. If a Prince
hath during his Fathers Life, engag'd himfelf in a League with
the Enemies Of the State, and left his own Country with Defi'n
toinvadeitacthe Head of its mortal Enemies, Shallwefty, that
tecaufe he is the EldellSon, the People are obliged by their Oath
-^taadmit him tor their King, to refign themfelves to his Condiia'
'and ackno-A'ledge his Authority ? I aliedge this Example (which by
'the wayjnllifiesthe Prcccedmgs of ih, IVefim.jIcr 2nd Oxford
ParlismeiitsabouttheExcluflonof theD.of 2>/^j on.ytoma.ke
It appear how far we are rniftaken in m.iniainin^, Tnat the Oatiis

which include tne heirs of the King,towhomAilegiance is fvvorn,
£re abfolute Osth?, arid fuch as admit of no Reih idion

Thirdly, Thofc '.v.ho gre acquainted with the Hillory of £^f-
/W, mufl needs confefs the Truth hereof. We know that IfV/i
,^/;.tne Conqueror leftfouvfeveral Sonsachis Death, the Eldefl-,
Kohen Duke oi A^rWj^ who had been then five Years in the
Holy Land 3 and [>';///^,v; the Third Son, who was at that time ia

about the Oath of Allegiance. i ^

England^ and whom the Parliament chofe, to the PrejndiVe of his
Elder Brother^ for their King, upon his folemn Promife to re-
form the Diforders his Father, ^;//ww, had caufed in the Govern-
raent, and which he had kept up, by his being almoit continually
in Arms. Shall we fay, that in this Interval between the Death
of ^F///V<?/;; the Conqueror, and the Coronation of William W. tlie
Throne was not vacant ? If by virtue of the03thfworntof^i//;.?/«
theConquerourfor him and his Heirs,the Throne were filled, How-
could ths Engliin be ft^id to fear the tmmng Cotidmon of dIu fine Re-
heinglongVDuhoHt a Govemmcnt} 2S M.itthev? of Paris eiaiine vaal-
exprelles himfelf And if they thought themfelves en- ^'''''^•
gaged to Robert by Oath, how was it ihey fo unaiiimoufiy procee-
ded to the Eledion of W^/iif^i/;3 II. It is apparent that they aded
thus from this Perf\valion,That though they were engaged to take
one ofU'l/Iuuns Race to be their King, yet were they not bound to
take the Eldeft^ as fearing from his former Behaviour, that he
would follow the fleps of his Father, and continue to opprefs
them. There be two forts of Vacancies j one which the Canonifts
call True^ 2nd ihQOthQT FalfeoY Imirpretative. A Biinop that is
turnM Heretick, the Fad being fo notorious, that it is not necelTa-
fjTy to proceed to a Trial, his S^e is thereupon, without any more
a-do, declared Vacant ^ according to which Rule, the Vacancy as
to James II. is evident. But in Cafes where there can be no Sue-:
cellion, without a mutual declaration of Engagements, whereby •
the Succeflbr binds himfelf to his People, we muft of necefiity own
that there is a kind of interpretative Vacancy during that inter-
val. The Condition of a Kingdom ,is very different from that of:
a particular Inheritance : For though it be in the hands of a Prince, 1
yet it is not in his power to alienate it ^ neither can he polfefs it,'
but under certain Conditions impofed upon him , and for the per-
formance of which he takes a moll folemn Oath •, he cannot en-
joy the Crown, with the Prerogatives thereof, without perform-
ing the Duty he has bound himfelf to : And in cafe he fnould reli
his People, that he doth not think himfelf bound by his Oath, and
openly declare,that he is refolved to break the Laws and opprefs
his Subjeds, I don't believe any can be fo ftupid as to imagine, that
after this Proteftation, his Subjeds are ftill obliged to acknow-
ledge him their lawful Soveraign. This being io, we muft ac-
knowledge that the Convention (efpeciallyconfidering that the
abfence of the Princefs of Orange^ who therefore could not,during
. C 2 this

i6 An^ Examination of Scruples

this interval, take upon her the Care of the Government) had alt
the reafonin the World to pronounce the Throne Vacant.

Fourthly, We find that after all, the Convention have carried
it with that moderation, that they have very little or not at all
entrench'd upon this prejudicate Opinion \ tor they placed the
P.of Or^;2^e,with the Princefs his ConfortjOn theThrone^ i.Wirh
the Conlent of the Princefs her felf , who could never think
to fit fo fure there, if (he were not aflifted by the Valour and He-
roicalQiialinesof the Prince her Husband. 2. Without entren-
ching upon the Right of SucceiTion, which they have kept in the
fame Channel > fo as the Princefs Anm has all the reafon in the
World to be fatisfied, with the regard the Convention has had for
herlnterefts. 3. They have given another mark of the Care
they had to preferve the Succeflion, becaufe they poflpone the
Children of the Prince of Orange by another Wife,if he fhoald out-
live the Princefs his Confort, to the Heirs of the Princefs Anne,
Let us compare the great Care of this Convention, with the Pro-
ceedings o( that Convention which made choice of Hmry VII. to
the prejudice of the Princefs ElizjiUth^ who was the next Heirefs,
and fwore Allegiance to him, before he was married to that Prin-
cefs, and we ihall find that the prefent Convention has made ufe of
itsRight with a great deal more moderation, than was done at
that time, and in Circuraftances that bear a great refemblance with
ours.

Thefe Proceedings of the Commons having been approved by,
thegreateft part of the Lords, and thefe two Bodies which repre-.
fent the whole State, having agreed in maintaining the Maxims
1 have laid down, it would be a hard thing to imagine how any
Scruples could be left in fo eafie and evident a matter, did not
we know the fbrange efficacy of Prejudice upon the Minds af Men.
It was proper forthofe who have propounded their Sentiments in
either of thefe Bodies,vvhereofthey are only Members, to conform
themfelves to the Relolves of their Body, there being no other
means to give peace to a State, than that the leifer Number in all
Aflemblies, give way and fubmit their Judgment to a plurality. It
is lawful indeed to oppofe a Refolution before it be determined,
hut there is nodifputing of a Refolution carried by a Majority :
If any will needs proteft to fhevv that they have no (hare in tiie Re-
folve, and thereby lignifie to Poflerity, chat they forefaw the ill
Confequences of it, they may do it \ but after all>tliey ccultfub-

\ mic

ahout the Oath of Allegiance-^. i j

mit themfelves to the Law the Plurality has ratified. I do not fee
how any other way can be thought of, to preferve the Government
under which we are refolved to live. To fay that we are willing
to own the Gcvernment, and obey it, but cannot for all that fwear
we will do fo, is a thing repugnant to common fenfe : For how can
vve refufe to promife to do a thing in the prefence of God, w hlch we
are refolved ro do ? And to ray,that we luppofe we may live under
a Government, without promifing Obedience to it, is the molt
monflrous and incongruous thing in the VV^orld : And I queltion
whether any Man can be fo flupidly ignorant in the Affairs of Life,
as to imagine that any Government fliould be iatisfied with fuch a
difpofition in its Subjcdls.

1 doubt not but thofe who by their Scrupulofity have fuffered
themfelves to be drawn in not only tt» protellagainfi; thefe Procee-
dings of the Convention, but alio to exprefs their backwardnefs
to take the Oaths required of them, think themfelves to have good
reafon for their fo doing \ tho indeed it appears that their Scru-
ples are fupported by nothing but raeer prejudice. Some think
the Church of England entertains other Sentiments concerning the
Rights of Soveraignty, than all other Divines, whether Papifts or
Protcltants, do \ and that according to her Hypothelis, it is ne-
ver lawful with Arms tooppofe the Entcrprizesof a King, who,
in all his Condud, fhews himfelf for arbitrary Power , or to lay
him afide. Others again believe that this their Dodrine has now
obtained the force of a Law,(ince the Long Parliament was pleafed
topafsan Ad fomewhat to that purpofe. Yea, there are fome
who maintain , That the Allegiance they have fworn to James \\.
does in Reafon and Equity hinder them from engaging their Fide-
lity to K Wil/iam 2nd Q_. Mary^ as the Parliament has decreed :
Thefe are the moll conlideraDle DitiicHl:ics which hinder fome
fcrupulous and nice Perfons from acquiefcing in the jjft and wife
Determinations of the State : We may jijftly fay this in favour of
them, That they propofe thefe Difficulties with all the Modefty
iniaglnable,and feem very far from condemning the Senfe of the
Publick, or from the lealt inclination of troubling the Peace of the
Government, which gives good hope they will be the more eafily
f^dsfied.

That the Chwxcho^EngUnd does maintain Opinions concerning
the Rights of Soveraignty different from what are received by aU'
tbg reft of Chriflendom, whether Papifts or Reformed,rs a ftrange

fup-

tSi An Examination of Scruples^

ftippofal.' What proof can they Ihew us, to make us believe,
that the Church of England^ in a matterrelating to Policy,(houid
undertake to oppofe the Definitions of all the wifell Lawyers, in
condemning the Ri^ht which People have to rid Themfelves from
the Oppreliion of Tyrants ? Whilft all others of the Reformed
Religion, agree with the Divines of the Church of Rome in this
ppint, which depends only on the knowledge of the Conititution
of Governnients, and about which the Gofpel affords us none but
ye<y general Rules \ for, as Dr. Hammond ^2\i\\]Q^us ChriH does
notmeddlewiththe Temporal Government of this VVorld,. on
I (.0^.7- 22. What rcafon had the firft Reformers in EngUnd^io main-
tain this Paradox, in favour of thofe Princes which Govern tyran-
nically? None but Flatterers and fawning Courtiers have front e-
n'ough to undertake the defence of a Caufe, and Maxims, that ,
change Free-biorn People into ijieer Slaves, as zy£mcis Sylvitu oh- ^
ferves very well ^ arid fhall we dare to put fuch a mark of Infa- .
ray upon thofe iiluftrious Reformers of this Church, by fathering
upon chem fo ilrange and degenerate an Opinion? I readily ac-
Js.nowledge, that with other Reformers , they have highly main-
tained the A Qthority: of Princes, againfl the Popes .pretended Au-
thority, whonow',rfor'thefe fix Centuries, has arrogated tohim-
fclf a Right ofdeppling Kings ^ but tvho fees, not, what a vail dif-
ference there is, between maintaining that the Pope has no fuch
Power, and alTerting the Right of Kings, in oppofition to thatun-
jult Pretenfion \ and holding in oppoiition to \sh2t Banoliis^ and
all others learned in the Law, fay, ifhat a People who are opp'ref-
fed by a Tyrant,under the venerable Name of a King,have a Right
to deliver themfelves from Slavery ? The Oaths of Supremacy and
Allegiance, were at firfl prefcribed only in oppoiition to this Do-
ctrine of the Romijh Churchy and if we find any where that theif;/^-
lijh Reformers in the foregoing A.2,e,have Vv^rit That the People can-
not break the Oath of Allegiance fworn to their King,it was only to
teat down the unjult Power the Pope pretendsco, ofabfolving
Subje<n:s from their Oath of Allegiance, upon their being depofed
or excommunicated by him. What I here affirm, isfo true, that
B.Jewel\, in the Defence of his Apology, p. 1 6. takes the part of Lh-
ther^ Melan^on^ and other Reformers, who were falfly accufed of
fomenting the Rebellion of Subjects againfl their Princes j and
maintains, that the Example of David^ fighting againfl Saul, for .
thefavingofhisown Life, did juflific their Opinion in that point, .

as '

ah out the Oath of Allegiance, i ^

as w-ellias the proceedings of the Proteltant Nobles in f n^rw^, who

)iad .taken up Arms in defence of the Laws and their Religion, fj

^:;>^7/o;!?,Bi.»hop of o.z/M/r/^v highly ailerts, Thsc it is Lawful to

j€(iijt a. Prjxice., who changes the form ot Govermrifint into Tyran-

•ny^t or who difregards thc.Laws.en2dted by the confent of Prince

and People, in profccuting of his Lull; he maintair.s, I fay, in

thiscale, and fome others, Thatif tlie Nobles 2nd Commons join

themielves .m defence of their Ancient Liberties, their Laws and

Gpvernment, that they cani:ot be accounted Rebels. , He aflerts

alipjn the fame pjace, .That the People may preferve the Liberty,

Fundamental Laws and For njbf their GovernmeRt,ir/7;f/7 rk^/orft

.j^rijed, vchen tbeyfirjf cc^iftntcd. it is clear then, that if our Learned

Bilhop were yet alive, he would not at all be offended at that

principle of the Commons, That there is an Original Contrsd ber

t^ween the King and. his People, ^///y^^/'.52o.lalbEdit. Bifhop'.rcirf/

and bifhpp Bjlfotr indeed were only, private Perfons, buJ: what is

,fai; nipre confiderable, the whole Body ofthe Clergy in tbeRejgn

of Qjieen i.lizc.httky confcnted toa Subiidy towards fupporting the

Scotch Froteftants, opprelfcd by their Qtieen, aflifteu by France-^

and relieving the States of Holl.jid^ when they fncok ofFthe Yoke

■f^f Fhilfp the Second, as well as the Proteftgnts in France^ who

^were^upprelTcd and perfecured contrary to the Laws, ard.the Faith

of Sqlernn Oaths i as appears from fc vera! Ads ofthe Clergy, in

-the Convocations held Hnder Qu,een EUz^abeth. Shall any oneTay,

that the whole Clergy were then of Optniop, that it was Lawful

to contribute to the sn'ftarce of Rebels, agp.irll their Lawful

Princes? Or is there any other wsy left to jiftiGe them, but by

fuppo;iing, that as it was"Lawful for.the 5£,!://c^, Fra'c^and ^0/-

Undtrs to defend themfelves againlt Opprelilon and Tyranny, fo

was it alio to alllic tiiern wiih Money in thisiheir j ill defence.

"Thirdly,- ^cUrt Ahht], the King's Profehbr at Oxford^ •2nd
afterwards Eifhop of Salisbury ^ publifhed in i(;03 his Trea-
tife, entitled, DuKOnjlraiio yirnichrifri cc-f?tra EdUrni'iraun. In the
'jr/j. Chapter of this piece, to refute ^fZ/rfr/yi/we,, v^ho msintai.r>
ed^ That the Proteilants of Fruf^ce :h?.d befrrdellrcycd j>y the
Eftcds ofthe Civil War, which their RebelHon was tfecaijjc of,
and not by the Pefecuiionof. Papids, after having -pr.pvei^l that
the Papiits had in time of Peace deuro^ed afl infinit.e nOjiiiherfof
them, who could not be accufed of having ^:8 ken up Arms, he
lays down, Firft, That probably this their Barbarous dcaliiig

\fich

ao Aft Examination of Scruples

■with the Proteftants, might be the occafion of the Civil War-, but
that the Proteftants had not taken up Arms tooppofe the violence
of their Perfecutorsi but having been fo barbaroufly and cruelly
dealt with, againft all Law and Equity, they judged they did no-
thing but what they were allowed to do by the Laws of their
Country. 2. That the Papifts who perillied in that War, had
been juflly killed, hecaufe they had taken up Arms againft the Pub-
lick Faith, againit Edids and Covenants, againil the Laws of their
Country, againft the Prerogative of the Nobility, againft the
Immunities and Privileges of Cities and Corporations j and all
this either by reafon of the unjuft Ufurpation of Princes ^ or by
the licentioufnefs of fome faftious Perfons. 3. He aiTerts, that the
right of a Prmce over his Subjeds, is a Political Queftion, which
muft be difculled by the Fundamental Laws of each Government \
according to which we are to judge whether the Prince has an in-
finite and unlimitted Powers or fuch as is tempered and allayed
more or lefs by the will of the Lords and People. 4. He lays down
alfo, That the Roman Eraperours having an unlimitted Power, in-
fomuch that the Lives and Laws of their Subjeds did depend on
their Will and Pleafure \ this was it put the Chriltians under a ne-
celhty of fuffering, without being able to take up Arms againft
them •, but that the cafe of the Dntch,Fremh and Efi^Ujl} Proteftants
was very different, whofe Princes had only a Power bounded
by Lawj which bounds whenever they tranfgrefs, the Nobles
and Gentry judge they may lawfully repel an unjuft force, and
caft off the Yoke, which by Violence, andagainft Law, has been
put upon them.

He maintains alfo, that the King of Spain holding the Principa-
lity ofthe Low-Countries only by Agreement and Covenant ^ upon
his breaking off that Covenant, and ading proudly againft his
plighted troth, it was judged that by fo doing, he had divefted
himfelf of that Principality ^ and that confequently the United
Provinces were free to take up Arms againft him, and deliver thera-
felves from his Tyranny. 5. He afferts the fame thing, with
refped to the Proteftants of France, grounding his afiertion upon
the Conftitutionof thatGovernTnent,where the King's Power was
at that time limitted,and reftrained within narrower bounds than
now it is, fince the abolilbine, of the Eftates General. 6. Con-
cerning England heexpreffts himfelf in thefe terms : h/lih^e manner^
QHY Chmxhy after that p}€ had continued a ^reat whik in bondage under

yintichrifl^

alout the Oath of Allegiance, x,i.

'j4ntichri(^yX0uhoMt any worldly ajfifiance^ andhegitn ^through the JHercy.
ofGad^to lift her head above iVater^ and had obtained a fecurity by Laiv:^
the Nobles and Gentry taking her part ^ Jhe note began to mak^ nfe ofhe^
ownfirengthj and by takjng up Arms^ to vindicate her Religion now fe-
cured to them by Declarations^ Laws and Privileges^ from the unjufl
opprejfion of Tyrants,

It feems to me that if any one (hould have entreated this famous
Dodtor, who,from the Chair of Kings Profeilor, was promoted
to the See of Salisbury^ to give his judgment concerning the matters
now in queflion, he could not have fpoken nsore to the purpofe,
or more Iblidly and ftrongly overthrown the ungrounded pre-
judices of fome Divines, wiiich we cannot b'Jt look upon as the
only foundation of the Scruples, that at this time difquiet the
Minds of fome good Men. 4. We fee clearly our Hookerin his Ecclef.
Policy^ L I.e. 10. maintains, That all Civil Governments are de-
■riv'd from the Deliberation, Gonfultation and Confentof the Par-
ties concerned, and that confequently the Power of making Laws^,
belongs to the Body of the Community ^ and that it is meer Ty rari-
ny for any Prince to arrogate this Power of impofing Laws, ex-
cept the fame beexercifed by Virtue of Divine Authority perionaf-
ly and immediately granted to the Prince (which never had place
but in the Kings oilfrael) or by the Authority at firll: derived from
the confent of the People. The fame notion we alfo find in Peter
Bertrandy Cardinal, concerning Civil and Ecclefialtical Power,
which (hews that Reafon always fpeaks from the fame grounds j
and all put together is an evident proof, that there is nothing in
the Articles or Canons of the Englijli Church thst is contrary to
the Opinion of other Divines in this matter. It will be to little
purpofe to Objed againft what I have now faid, the firll Canon
agreed upon by the whole Clergy in 1640. For Suhjicls to bear Amis
againji their Kings ^ offenfive or defenfive^ upon any pretence wh^.tfoevery
is at lea ft to refiji the Powers which are or darned of Cod. And though
they do not invade^ but only refiji ', St. Pad tells them plainly, They
Jhall receive to themflves damnation : But this Canon though in-
deed it be couched in very general terms \ yet it doth not reach the
point in queftion (not to fay that it is not allowed, and therefore
of no Authority.) For Firft, it fpeaks of a King, that has not
diverted himfelf of that Charader, by a Defpotical management
of the Government, whereof all his Subjedts are Witnefs. 2. It
makes no mention of -the Body of the Government, but limply of

- b • ■ ' ''Subjeais,

it An Exawhation of Scruples

Subjeds \ that is, private Perfons, wha may oft alfedge fpecioiis
pretences for their Rebellioit, and who may have jaft Occafionto
complain of the Power which opIprefTes them. And certainly,
whatever may be the Judgment of fome Divines of the £»^/i/fc
Church, who have, thefe fifty Years lalt pall, writ concerfting
thefe Poinis, in a different Manner from what the firfl Reformers
of that Church have done \ it is evident, beyond difpute, that the
Body of that Church have never been carried away with the Mif-
takes of thefe new Divines ^ as may be made out by the following
t^ir^e Reflcciions upon the Conduct of the moft famous Members
of .that Church.

Thus we fee, that whft K.James II. having underllood the Ar-
rival of the P. of Orange at Exeter^ fent for the Archbiihop and Bi-
fliops that were then in, ornearLo;7^ow,for to engage them to pub-
lifh an hd of Abhorrence of the Prince's Undertaking, and againft
the Union of the Lords, w.ho had follicitcd his Aid and Affiftance^
thofe Prelates very generoully refufed to publifh any A<ft of that na-
ture. What other Reafon can we conceive they had for juflifying
their Refufal,but thisj That being perfwaded in their Confciences,
that the King had carried himfelf with much Injuftice towards the
State, and that the Prince, and Lords that joined \vith him, might
of right oppofe by force, a Violence armed for the deftrudion of
the Laws and Government;, they could not give a publick Tefti-
■ mony of abhorring this their Enterprise ? Who can qoeftion , but
that they were well acquainted, that the Laws of £»^/^»^ were
not oppofite to the Dodrine of their Church ? Now the EngHflj
Learned in the Law read in Bra^on^ I. 2. c. 16. and in Flcta^ I. i .
c. 17. theie memorable Words, In governing of the Peofle^ the Kin^
^ has above him the Lave ^ by which he is conftitnted King^ and his Parlia-
ruent^ viz. the Earls and Barons ', the Earls in Latin being called Co-
' mites, that is. Companions and Fellows : Now he that has a Fellow^ has
a Mafler \ wherefore^ if the King become lawlefs^ they mufl give him.
^Law^ and curb him. When we fpeak of curbing a King who is in
"Arms, in order to opprefs the State, it is evident, that it imports
Ian obliging him by force,' either to renounce his tyrannical Cour-
"fes, or force him to leave the Land.

The fecond Step of the fame Prelates makes it appear, that we
Ihave not drawn an undue Confequence from their refufing to pub-
lifh an Atl of Abhorrence •, for no fooner had JamesW. quitted the
,Goi^^rjam"tnt, but they accompanied the other Lords at C?///^ hall-.,
* '"'' • where

alqut the Oatl\ of Alhgt^^ce, tj

where they returned publick Thanks, tp the P.of Oraft^Cy for ha-
ving delivered the Government from Popery and Slavery. ^,6vy
*tis apparent, they could not have done fo, without fiippoling,
1 . 1 hat the Arms taken up by the P. of Orange and Lords, againit
Jofnes II. were jufl. 2. That he might be lawfully attacked, and
forced to Reafon, by the Arms of thofe, to whom they addrefsM
their Thanks for having taken them. 3. That his withdrawing
out of the Land was an open Proof of the Charader of a profefs d
Enemy of the State, which he had evidencd to the lafl, and was
now going to give the Marks of it abroad, by making ufe of Fo-
reign Arms,wlien other Means failed him. 4. That they were ob-
liged of Right, and in Duty, to join with the P. of Orarrge^ to re-
pel the force of a fworn Enemy to the State :, whom neither Rea-
Ion, nor the Mifery to which he was reduced, could withdraw from
the Deiign he had formed, to ruin the Laws, and his Subjeclis, in
order to eRabliHi Popery. I referr it to the Judgment of ali equi-
table Men, to confider w hcther I wrong thefc reverend Prelates, in
drawing thefe Confequences from their Proceedings, and by fup-
pofing that they are diredly contrary to the Opinions fome will
needs alTix to the Body of the Church of England ^ wheu it is ap-
parent, that they could not have more folemnly dif-avowed them,
than they have done by thefe their Acftings.

Nor is this all ; but thefe great Examples given by the Prelates,
have been almoft generally followed by the inferior Clergy j fome,
and thofe the moft confiderable amongft them, having engaged
themfelves in Ads of Alfociation ^ others having exprelied to the
King and Qiieen the Marks of their Duty and Fidelity, both pub-
lickly and privately , as well in Ads of Religious Worfnip, in
which it cannot be thought they (hould difTcmblc, as in political
and civil Adions, as far as their Fundion permits them to have a
Ihare therein. This appeared more efpecially, in the Choice ;of
Members for the Convention, in the publick Prayers for the King
and Queen, and by the Writings fome have publi bed, in defence
of the Proceedings of the Convention and Parliament: x'\!i which
Teftimqnies being To publick and general, make it clea.r as the Sun,
that it is an Impofing on the Church of Englarid^ to fay, that Hie
has embraced an Opinion, which a fe a- of her Members have main-
tain'd, without confider ing, that it was a fure Means to cnconrage
and eitablifh Arbitrary Ppvycr, and promote the i)c(igns of pope-
jry- which could never, hope to fucceed,'Bm by ArbitrarinefSvand
^\.. D 2 'an

^4 -^^ Examination of Scruple r

an Overturning of all the Laws made in thefe Kingdoms, for the
iPrefervation of the Government, and the Proteflant Religion. I
acknowledge, that for thefe laft fifty Years, divers Writings have
appear'd in publick, which fpeak very differently of Sovereignty,
and its Prerogstives,from.whattheformer Divines of that Church
ever did. It hath been pretended, that Kings were fuch Jure Di-
■vim, by Divine Right ^ that their Power in the Kingdom was un-
limited and abfolute ; that they could not offend againft theLaws,
as being above them j that in fucceffive Kingdoms, as England h^
Kings, as foon as born, are poflefs'd of all the Royal Rights and
Prerogatives \ that the Heirs of a Crown have as real a Right
to it, as a private Perfon has to his Father's Eflate. In a word,
they have proceeded to that Excefs, as to maintain the Right of
Kings, to be a Right immediately conferr'd by God himfelf i as if
Commonwealths were no lawful Governments, nor the Emperor
of Germany a lawful Prince, becaufe he is made fo by Election. But
as we ihould much wrong the Englijh Learned in the Law, (bould
we fufpe^H: thim to be the Authors of thefe Maxims, when we find
Chancellor For/ e/c;/^', c. 13. ailerting. That the Khigis rmftdtothat
Dignity, to deftnd the Laws, his SitbjeHs^ their Bodies and Eftates ; and
• that to this end he is ifTtrtifted with a Power derived from the Peoplcy fo
that it is ?7ot lawful for him to lord it over his Subjects, by any other
Power -^ as it was reported in Calvin's Cafe, Coke, jRep.fol. 5.
which agrees very well with the defcription of the Duty of a King,
which we find in the 1 7th Chapter of St. Edward .- So the Authors
of rhefe Books will not take it ill, that we cannot impute their ex-
'travagant Opinions to the Church of England: For, 1. We find,
-.that Charles \. wlio undcrflood the Tenets of the Church of Eng-
land, as well as any Prince could, did confefs, that his Power was
hounded by Law, in oppofition to what Dr. Feme had maintained
concerning it. Charles \l. bis Son, owned the fame thing, upon
occafion of difpenfing with the Laws^ notwithllanding that E.San-
dcrfon, in his Treatife of Confcience, attributes that Power to the
King, who (as he faith) is the Maker of theLaws, and whofe
'Power confequently cannot be reftrained by them. 2. The feven
Bilhops, by their Remonftrance made to the King, openly avowed,
that the King had no power to difpenfe w ith the Laws,for as much
as that Power had been declared illegal,by the Parliaments of 1662.
and 1672. whichfhews their renouncing of that Notion, That the
Lav/Sj being of tha.Kin5's own making, he may, when he pleafes,
^-* ' ^^ difpenfe

ahout the Oath of Allegiance, ic

dilpenfc with them. This may be ealily gathered from the ten
Proportions they offered to J*wf/ II. in the Beginning o{OU:ohet^
\'6%%. freely reprefenting to him the Excefles he had been guilty
of, and exhorting him to amend them. Who fees not that this Re-
monftrance is founded upon Principles diretftly oppolite to tliofe
of thefe Novice-Divines^ and is as proper to confound them, as
it did Jamts II. to whom they repreiented, . with much fweetnefs,
the Mifcarriage he was refolved to maintain by f:>rce ot tliofe Arms
he had taken iip, ggainll Law? 3, I would iiiircrfCthefe Modern
Divines to compare a little thefe their Notions concerning Sove-
reignty, with thofe the Canonifts have advanced in favour ot the Pa-
pacy i for I have fogood an Opinion of them, that I believe they
will blufh as foon as they have made the Parallel. If we may be-
lieve the Canonifts, they have tl>e Scriptures, the Fathers,. the Ca-
nons of the Church, and Reafon on their fide ; and yet it is cer-
tain that G^-^^^ri^'^, and fome flattering Monks, are the only Au-
thors of all the pretended Divine Right, of all this Superiority
to Councils, of the Right of Difpenfing with the Canons, and of
that Superiority to all the Laws of the Church, as has been of kte
very folidly proved by the Divines of the Church of Englmid.
rs it poffible for any one to imagine, that of all the World, none
but fome few Divines of; the Church of £a/_^/^w^, could ever
find in the Scriptures, in the Fathers, in Reafon, in the Laws,
•t4ibfe Rights which they advance, and which they propofeto
us, as bellbwed upon Kings by God himfelf ? Is it pollible, it
ilioHld never come into their Minds, to compare their Opinions
-with thofe of the Dotftors of the foregoing Age, whofe Hypo-
thefis is fo contrary to thofe they have endeavoiir'd to obtrude
thefe fifty years laft palt? Is it pofllble they fliould not blufli,
to be termed by Mmas Syhw^ the Flatterers of Kings ^ it being
notorious, that a Flatterer imports a Man who has a Delign to
deceive others, and to profit by the Folly of thofe he deludes by
his Flattery ? I heartily wilh they may confider of it, if it were
for no other Reafon, but to prevent the Application might be
made to them, from the paralielifm of their Opinion concerning
Soveraignty, with that of the Canonifts concerning the Papacy ^
ofthejudgmentof Pope Adrwi'^X. who,»afterhe hath fet forth
the Vanity of the Proofs and Reafons of the Canonifts for the
Pope's Superiority to Councils, could not think of any other
tranfcendent Reafon , why the number of Canonifts that hoifted

the

2<; Ah Exam'ina tion of Sorupks

the Popes Power, was fo vaftlyenGreafedibut this: Becaufe, laith
hv, Councils meet but feldom, and bellow no Benefices^ wherea?
the Pope coiuinues always, and has Benefices ready to gratifi?
thofe tnat ejideavonr to pleaie him.

The fecond difficulty that gravels fome fcmpulous Spirits ,
proceeds from an Ad of Parliament under KingCW/wlI. con-
ceived in thefe terms : That it is unlawful for both, or either of the
Huufes o[ Parliament-^ to rdfe or levy any War, of en five or defenfive^
againji the King, it feeais indeed a hard matter to reconcile
the Proceedings of the Convention with this A(ft of Parliament ;
yet if I may fpeak my Judgment of the matter, I think this Scru-
ple alfo may be eafily fatislied, i. We mull remember that the
Law fpeaks only in favour of him, who prcferves the Title of
a King, and not of one who diverts himfelf thereof, by his unjuft
and ar'bitrary Deportment. The Oath of Obedience, which the
Biftops fwear to the Pope, is couchM in as binding terms as may
be^ and notwithllanding, they do not think themfelves thereby
obliged to obey the Pope after he is turned Heretick. And as
G'ro«/^ has obrerved,in the place before qnoted,W here the Sove-
rajgn Power is fhared, as it is in England, it is always lawful
for the Party whofefhareis invaded, to defend their Right by-
force: And though the Kings are invefted with the Power of
waging War, yet this cannot deprive the Body of the States of
the Right of defending the Laws againft him, when he makes
ufe of his Power of levying Arms to oppr^fs the Laws j with-
out which, the Peoples Rights and Privileges cannot be prefer-
ved. 2. The terms of this Oath are tobe underflood, by com-
paring them with other Oaths, made in oppofition to thePre-
tenflons of the Popes of i?o/«e, to a Power of engaging Subjects in
Rebellion againlt their lawful King, in cafe the Pope has thought
good to excommunicate him.

But fome will Ay, That Charles 11. had quite another end in
promoting this A(fl, and paffingit : If that be all, I am willing to
grant it: for Popery was engaged at that time to overthrow all
the Law's of the Land, in order to fet up her felf; neither could
arbitrary Power (whereof he laid the foundation) ever beeflabli-
flied, without taking away this Curb from Kings, and that fear
which the Conllitution of the Government had oppofed to their
illegal Enterprizes. For it has always been accounted lawful in
England, to oppofc the overturning of the Laws : Wjicrcfore I do

not

ahout the Oath of Allegiance, Vf-

ii<5t in the leaft doubt, biitthat the Papal Party iiefignd this Law
for their own proper ure,-w hen time-and place (hould favour them,
to the end they might the more fecurely dcftroy the Laws that cur-
bed their DefigQS. We find another Ad calculated for thefame
Meridian of Rome -, whereby it was declared High Treafon lor
any one to fay thatCW/e^ ll.was a Papifti wbkh notwithftanding
was fo ereat a Truth, that in 1670. he entred into a League with
the FremhKu^z, to re-cftabli(h the Popiib Religion in kis King-
doms, and to overturnthe Laws. Sec here the account Abbot
Trimi i^ives us thereof, in bis Book printed in hdmi TiW^Frcr.ch
2tParis with Privilege of the King, under the Name of Count
deSt. Mayole: After that this Abbot had related the Endeavours
o( Colbert deCmJfy, to engage King Ckir/e; 11, to make War with
//o//4^^,headds. That he at the fame time figned a Seem i re^^
wkh Frar^^e ; and to make it the furer , the Dutchefs of Orle^is
his Sifter, came over to EnaUr^d, and propounded to him, in the
Name of the moft Chriftian King, to ailiit hun tn see the printed
fednwT to himfdf an Ahfolute Authority over his Par- Relation of this
iarnenl andto eflablt?^ the Roman C MtcK^fgt- J^'^^^^^S"?
on in the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ire- l^te^P^Wil^d.
land. She propofed alfo the reducing ot the States General , to
the only Province of Holland, wt^ich would be gee the M.mvr.
aneafie matter for two great and powertulKmgs, uollandoisM-i'
united together, to accompliih-, and that by this
meansthe King of £^^/^^Wlhould have 2e^/^«^ for his fhare, to
ferve him for a Retreat in cafe of need. Seeing then that we have
reafon to fuppofe that this Ad was one of thofe which were fug-
gelled and promoted by the Favourer of Popery, whofe intent
was to fubvert the Laws fecurely , and without the hazard of
ever being call'd to an account for it^ and that we ought be-
fides to obferve, that the Claufe here alledged,is only ^ prelimma-
rv Introdudionto the Aft concerning the Militia, which thereby
wasputinto thehandsof the King', and that after all, the Prelum,
naries of a Law are never fo narrowly examin d, as the Law it lelf
is, nor confequentiy of the fame Authority : It is evident that we
cueht alv^'ays toreltrain the Terms of the Law totne Intention of
the Lawgivers. Let the Court then -have defign'd, as far asjthey
could,to allow the King an unlimited Power,by exprellingthisPre-
amblein indefinite and very general terms,Will it follow that this
isTufficient to exclude a natural Gare,w-hichis^lw.2ysfuppofed.to

r be

28 An Examination of Scruples

be excepted? I mean the ruin of the Government and its Laws,
without which, it cannot fubfift. Let the generality and com-
prehenfivenefsof the Terms be urged as much as they can, it will
neceflarily follow, That thofe who allow them fo great a Lati-
tude as to except the Cafe now mention'd, muft acknowledge.
That they have abufed themfelves in palling this Acfl , or that
others have abufed and impofed upon them. Now it is evident,
Thatan Oath that is drawn from me ^o/o malo^ by fraud and de-
ceit, iuaCafethat is in it felf altogether unjuft, and which I can
never keep without deftroying all the Laws that arenecelTary for
the fuppoitof Juftice,isof no force to bind me^ which is the De-
cifion Divines and Lawyers give in this cafe. 2. It is yet more
apparent, that this Oath willftill be of lefs force to oblige me,
when it concerns a Cafe directly oppofite to the Conftitution of
the Government^ which being regulated by the Laws, cannot pre-
fervcit felf under Tyranny and Arbitrary Power, if the fame
may not be reilfted. 3. It is certain, that the Proceedings of the
Convention havefufficiently made it appear, that this Exception
is in nothing repugnant to this Ad of Parliament of the 13th. of
Churles 11. no not if we (houid fuppofe, that the terms in which it
wasexprefs'u, might have been capable of abufing thofe, who
had not. fufficiently apprehended the defign of thofe Expreflions,
.Let no body objed here. That this Claufe is neceflarily excluded,
becaufe it was never excepted againfl in fo many words : For to
tTiakc this Objedion of any validity, it would be neceflary to
fuppofe, that the Parliament could be able to grant a Law to
CharlcsW. whereby he might furelyand fecurely overthrow the
;Governmert •,, and moreover, that Ckirles 11. fhould have been
bold enough to require fuch a Law of them. Now either oif
thefe SiippofalsarefofoobHi, that the mentioning of them is fuf-
ficient to make out to any, that have never fo little Wit orReafoiip
how groundlefs this Objection is.

1 proceed now to the lall Scruple fome make to fwear Alle-
giance to King Wtlluvn z\-\(\ Queen Aiary^ vi^. That they do not
think themfelves freed before God of the Oath they have taken
to be true to >wfj II, They feem to ground their Doubt thus :
Suppofe they have been deceived by the Oath they have taken to
obey this hCt of Parliament of the 13th. o^Charlesll. What
though they have been maliciouflyimpos'd upon? Yet certain it
is, That they have fworn Obedience to it in good earnell, by
- ' which

ahout t he Oath of Allegiance. 2 ^

which means their Confcience is become fettered, and obliged to
perform what they have fworn to *, whence it follows as they
conceive) that they cannot derogate fo far from their ( former
Oath, as to take this new one. 1 acknowledge that this Scruple
feems to havefome ground \ for many Divines affirm,That Oaths
extorted by force, do not for all that ceafe to oblige the Confci-
ence. Thus they determine,Thatif a Man,fallen into the hand of
Robbers,for the faving of his life,fwears to pay them a fum of Mony,
he is obliged to pay it honeftly. But thofe who would make an ad-
vantage of this their Decilion, mull obferve for their own fatisfa-
dion,That the fame Divines who maintain,that the Religion of an
Oath fworn to God,obliges a Man to pay to Robbers the fum he has
promifed by Oath to them, do notwithflanding, in cafe of like na-
ture, Reafon after a quite other manner, becaufe of tbe Con-
fequences it draws after it. If a Robber has forced a Perfon to
fwear that he will notdifcover the Robbery, or declare it before
the Magiftrate, Is he obliged to keep this Oath? Here they de-
fine peremptorily, That he is not obliged to keep his Oath \ the
Reafon is evident, becaufe his Oath in this cafe is unjuft : If he
keeps it , he hinders the courfe of Juftice •, he encourages the
Robber in his Crimes', he expofes his Neighbours to the fame
danger, he hinders the Publick from delivering her felf of an
Enemy , whom it is her Intereft to deflroy. This Decifion
therefore makes it apparent, that thofe who might keep their
Oath, in a cafe only concerning their particular Intereft, may
notdofor when the publick Intereft is concern'd. Whatfoever
force an Oath may be fuppofsd to have, yet it muft beacknov/-
ledged,

Firlt, That an Oath about a thing unlawful, doth not oblige;
otherwife //ero^^ would have defcrved Praife for beheading Joib^
the Baptift. Now an Oath whereby I engage my felf to fuffer
the overthrow of Religion and Government, without oppofing
the fame, to my Power, by prefervin^ the Laws and Religion,
is an Oath to a thing unjuft and unlawful, as being deftrudive to
the Government, and to Religion.

Secondly,That the State of Things and Perfons being changed,
necelTarily carries along with itachange in the Obligation of the
Oath. Common fenfe taught Seneca^ De Bcmfic. L. 4. c. 3+. That
for the obliging of any one to ferform rvhat he has fromifed^ it is necef-
f$iry th(U things <:omimte in the fame efiate they were^ when he made

E the

JO ^» Examination of Scruples

the promife , hecanfe no body fromifes^ hut upon certain Condithns ;
which being changed, he is neither a Lyer, nor unfaithful, for not per-
formingu. Siippofe then that we have promifed to Charles \U
all that the Ad of the i yh. year of his Reign does import, be-
caufe Charles II. had declared that he would obfervethe Laws,
and not opprefs either the Liberty or Religion of his Subjeds,
does it follow that therefore I am bound to keep that promife to
a SuccelTor, whofe carriage all along has evidenced, beyond a
poflibility of doubting, that he was refolved to overthrow the
La.vs of the Kingdom, and the Proteftant Religion?

Thirdly, That Reciprocal Oaths are diilblvedand made void,
by the non performance of one of the Parties : Now it is apparent
that this Ad of Parliament of the \yh. of Charles 11. is no other
Oath but what is taken at the Coronation, though the Papills
have endeavoured to biafs i'c,in favour of their defigns, and to make
it a fupport for Tyranny,which they were refolved to introduce,
as appears from the Letters of Co/ew^w, and feveral other attempts,
which have cleared it to all the Worlds butthis Oath, fuppofeth
the King ought to keep the Coronation Oath ^ which Oath he
having violated, it follows that this Oath can no longer oblige
thofe who have taken it ^ this being a thitig I have already ob-
fei ved, 1 (hall no longer infift upon it. To what has been faid
may be added, That they that harbour thefe doubts, do not fuffi-
ciently conlider the Party wherewith they engage themfelvcs,
and by their example, thofe alfo who rely upon their honefty.
I. How can they think it Lawful for them in this cafe, to con-
demn thofe, who reprefent the Body of the State, if they think
themfelvcs bound by the Authority of the Parliament of the lyh,
oiChurleslU How is it they do not perceive that the prelent
Convention and Parliament being veiled with the fame Authority,
are fufficienc to difcharge them of an Oath they have been made
to take by any preceding Parliament ? 2. Is it not a thing dired-
]y oppofite to the Spirit of Chrillianity, for any to arrogate to
themfelvcs the examining of thefe matters, or to engage every
private Perfon in the ventilating of publick Declarations, which
eftabliih the Authority of Temporal Superiors ? Suppofe we that
the Prince of Orange had invaded England, and that by Conqueft
be had obtained ihe Royal Authority, would not they have been
obliged to fubmit to him, in cafe they were refolved to llay in
the Land, and to fwear Allegiance to him, if they would enjoy his

procedion.

alout the Oath of AH extant e. jj

proteclion. If they will not own this Truth, miifl it not follow-
that all the Bifhops and People that have ever lived under Ufur-
pers, hqve thereby made themfelves liable to Everlafting Dam-
ration? Where doth God command every Chriflian upon pain of
damnation, to examine the Titles ofthofe, who make ihemfeJves
Matters of a Kingdom? And how much lefs ofthofe, who have
been exalted to the Royal Dignity by thofe, in whom the Autho-
tity and Truft of the whole Body of the Community did relide ?
What I here propound, is a matter fo inconteftable as well in the
Commonwealth as in the Church, that on the one fide a Pardon
granted to Criminals, by a King who is only fo de ficio^ is ac-
counted irrevocable, when the King de Jnre^ recums to the
poITeffion of the Government he had loft j as we find it deter-
mined by Cok^ 3 In flit, c.i.f. 7. The reafon for it is demonltra-
tive, becaufe this pardon proceeds from the Authority Royal
wherewith he is invefted. We have a like cafe decided by
Lawyers, and 'tis this, That thofe who affift a King de fr,clo, are
exempt from any punidiment, when the King de Jure is reftored
to the PofPelTion of his Kingdoms, which is fo determined by Coi^
in the fame place, Coi-^ 3 inHit. c.i.f. 7. On the other fide the
Englijlj Divines, who are moft employed about the like Notions,
as Biihop Sender/on, have clearly decided the cafe of Confcience.
B'i(hop Sanderfon has writ a fmall Treatife on purpofe, wherein,
upon occafion of the Engagment impofed in Cromxrel's time, and
conceived in ihefe terms : / dofromife to be trm and Faithful to the
Common-Wealth of England , as it is now efiablijlsed without King or
Lords'^ which raifed Scruples in fome, like thofe we meet with
at this time, he exhorts his Friend to take it, ftrongly maintain-
ing and proving he might do it with a good Confcience. I would
advife our Scrupulous Gentlemen, to read that fmall Treatife
with attention, though 1 cannot diflemble a palpable contradidion
it contains, when the Author fuppofes, a Man may take that
Oath, and yet preferve the obligation he was under before, ziz..
of being Faithful to the King. For my part I freely profefs, I can
no way comprehend how any Divines can icruple taking the Oaths
of Allegiance to the King and Qjjeen, when they attentively re-
flet on our Saviour's behaviour. The Jexvs believed and that
truly, that they were under a Monarchy, immediately inftituted
by God himfclf : The Law of Sovcraignty amongft them was, that
theThrone could not be poirefled but by one of their Brethren^thac

E 2 is

i^kM^i

^2. ^n Examination of Scruples

is of their own Nation and Religion.The Pharifees building on this
ground , rejeded the Authority of the Roman Emperours, whom
they loolied upon no better than Ufurpers. Let us fee how our
Saviour decides the Controverfie, wherein the Pharifees differed
from the Ejfemans, who fubmitted themfelves to that Foreign
Power: He declares himfelf in favour of the Efjenians^ not-
withftanding all the fpecious pretences wherewith the Pharifees
endeavoured to defend their Rebellion. It is therefore evident,
that though we fhould fuppofethat James II. had been as imme-
diately pppointedtothe Throne of EngUnd^ as any of the Jewiflt
Kings, as long as the Throne at prefent is filled by the King and
Queen, we are obliged to obey them , and confequently to Swear
Allegiance to them. What, did Jefus Chrift our Blefled Saviour
think himfelf obliged to own him for a Lawful High-Prieft,
who was made fo by one of the Emperour*s Commiflioners,
though againll Law, which ordered the eldelt Son of the High-
Prieft to fucceed in his Father*s place, only becaufe he was put
into that Station by him who reprefented the Soveraign Power in
Jewry at that time^ and fhall any one offer to difpute the lawful-
nefs of owning the Authority the King and Qaeen enJDy by con-
fent and agreement of the State? Surely whatfoever notions any
may have concerning the Original of Soveraignty, we cannot
rationally imagine any thing more advantageous in favour of it
than this, That it was inftituted by God for the Government and
Prefervation of the People. And as to the Perfons invefted with
the Royal Dignity, I don't believe any Wife Man can pretend,
that there is an immediate Grant of the Soveraignty, to any one
Prince at prefent in the Worlds much lefs that God has marked
out any Family,for to fettle upon them the Rights of Soveraignty :
let them fhew this Grant or a tranfcript of it if they can \ it
would be great fatisfadion to the Houfe of Commons. The
reafon therefore why any Perfon is invefted with this Dignity,
is only the choice that has been made of him, by the confent of
the People : This confent of the People, or of the moft conll-
derable amongft the People, has conilituted the Forms of all
Lawful Governments, and has legitimated thofc Empires, that
were at firft obtained by Conqueft or Violence. And we may
in particular add, that after this manner things have been carried
m England J as we may fee Ih the Mirror ofjajlicesyc, i . §. 2.

Ngv7

alout the Oath of y^llegiance, V^

Now this being once granted •, forafmuch as the Peoples Con-
fent cannDt be fuppofed , without the Condition of keeping
the Fundamental LaA's of the Government, which are of abfo-
folute NecefTity to the Subfillence of the State, it is inconteila-
ble. That when a Prince has endeavoured the Overthrow of all
the Laws, the Obligation of obeying him muft needs ceafe and be-
come void. This is a thing fo felf-evident. That a Papift who
has lately publifhed the Remonftrance and Proteflation of all the
good Prottfiants of this Kingdom^ declares, that if JamesW. were
once convicted of fuborning the Prince of Wales^ of the League
with France^ of the iMurther of the Earl of Ef[ex^ and of Charles
U. we had done with him forever. It is notorious, that with-
out putting our felves to the Trouble, to lay open thefe particular
Actions, whereof he pretends James II. ought to be convicted,
there are but too many others, known to all, v/hich are fufficienc
to render him convicTt of h<iving overturned the Laws of the
Government, and the Conftitution of it, and to acquit his Sub-
jetHiSof their Oath of Allegiance. Nay, 1*11 go further. That it
is impoflible to keep the Faith we havepromis'd to an Arbitrary-
Prince, without involving our felves in an Infinity of Sins and
Crimes ; for as oft as we render him any M\. of Obedience, we
make our felves Partakers of his Irregularities, and we foment
and encourage them, we become the Enemies of our Country,
Traitors to the State, and Community of which we are Mem-
bers, and draw down the Curie of God upon us. I ardently de-
fire. That thofewhoare unealie under the Scruples I have here
examined, would ferioully confiderof it. The Diviiions the7
may occafion, cannot but prove very tragical. Their Scruples
are only founded on Prejndices,and fomented by thofe who would
deftroy them ^ thefe their Prejudices are condemned by all Di-
vines in general, whether Papifts or Protellants, who without
Lntereft have writ on this Subjed. Here can be no dallying in
the Cafe, if they think themfelves bound by their Oath to James
\\. to anfwer this Obligation, they mufi: pay him Taxes and all
his Dues, and oppofe themfelves to the Eftablifn'd Government;
they muft exhort others to do Ehcfan:>e \ for no Governraenc will
harbour Neuters in her bofom : Their fufpended and doubtful
State, deferves no better Characfter, than that of a Spirit of Dif-
content, which politickly fmothers its Averfion, till it have an
Opportunity of raifingfo powerful aFa<ftion, that it may bare-
fac'd own its Obedience^ Wo

"- " ~ .^^— ^-*-^^>-^-~^ - - -^ ^—^ ^A— .,^-i.

J

%^ A» Examination of Scruples^ &C.

We may pity thofe^who by their Writings have defended thefe
kind of Maxims, lo pernicious to Society, and the firft: caufes of
thcfs Scruples, becaufeweare willing to believe, that they have
been trapann'd by the crafty wiles of a Court, who made Tools
of them unknown to themfelves : But it would be a thing moft
unworthy of Divines , of Chriflians , and of honefl and wife
Men obftinately to efpoufe fuch Maxims, as are good for no-
thing but to encreafe Arbitrary Power in the World; efpecially
at this time, when God has delivered us from its Rage and Fury.
The efficacy of thefe Maxims is fo apparent in France^ that we
may eafily apprehend what they are capable of infpiring proud
and haughty Spirits with. Our good God be for ever blelTed, for
thatthofe Divines, who have fo far been impofedupon, as to de-
fend thofe Maxims which haftned their own ruine, and made that
of the State inevitable, have now an opportunity to undeceive
themfelves, by a fofter and cheaper way than thofe of Popifh But-
cheries and Arbitrary Power, which without queftion would have
openM their Eyes wide enough,and made them hate thofe Maxims
only foraewhattoo late for the good of the Church and Common-
wealth.

FINIS.

Books lately printed for Richard QhifwdL

ScriptoTum Ecclefiajiicorum Hiftorsa Liter aria a Chriflo nato vfq-te ad Sacu-
/urn XIV. Facili Methodo di^ejla. ^a de Vtta illorutn ac F^ebia ^eftts, de
Secia, Dogniatibus^ Eiogio, Stylo j de Scriptis genuinis, diibiis.fiifp'ofjtttiis^
ineditis^deperdittj^Fragmentts ; deque varus Opertim Editionibns perjpicue
agttur. Accediint Scnptorei Gentiles, Chr'fltatix I^eligionis Oppugnatores ;
Q cujufvis Saxuli Brevtarium. hiferimtur [tits hcis Veterum aliquot Opuf-
ctila ^ Fragmenta^ turn Grxca^ turn Latino, haciefius incdita. Pra/niJJh de-
niqiie Proiegomena^ quibui plurima ad /imtquttatis EccUjhflica ftudittm
fpetlantia tradumnr. Opus Indicibns neceflariis inftrinilum. Autore GV I-
LI ELMO C A VE, SS. Tbeol. Proftf. Canomco n'mde/orien/i. /Iccsdit
ab Alia M.vm Appendix ab ineunte S^culo XIV. ad Annum iijque MDXVII
Fol. 1689.

Dr. B V F{KET [nov; Bifhop oi Salisbury'] his Life of Dv.TViI/iamBedeli
Bilhop of Kj/more in Ireland; to which are annexed the Letters betwixt him
and Wiidfworth, about Religion.

Two Letters written upon the Difcoverv of the Popifh Plot ; together with

a Colletflion of fevenil other Tradts and Difcourfes .- Written by him
betwixt the years 1 67 8, and 16S5. To which is added, a Letter written
to Dr. Burnet^ giving an Account of Cardinal Pool's Secret Powers. The
Hiftoryof thePowder-Treafon, with a Vindication of the Proceedings
thereupon. An Impartial Confideration of the Five Jefuits dying Spee-
ches, who were Executed for the Popifh Plot, 1679.
— — A Vindication ot the Ordinations of the Church of England ; In which h
demonitrated, That all the Eifenti.ils of Ordination, according to the
Pradt ice of the Primitive and Gteek Churches are ilill retained in the
Church.

Pcefiedlions on the Relation of the Englifli Reformation lately printed at

Oxford. In two Parts. ^to>

Animadveriions on thePve'^eJLions npoti Dr. B V t{^E T's Travels. Sw,

Refledtions on a Pajier, intituled, His Majcfty's Reafons for withdrawing

bimfclf from I^chejier.
— ^-Enquiry into die prefent Stateof Affairs, and in par'icuLir, Whether we owe
Allegiance to the King in thefe Circum!tanccs.> And, whether w c are
bound to Treat with Him, and call Kim b.ick, or no ?

. Sermon preached before the Prince of Orange, i-^d. Decemb. 1 683.

Thankfgiving Sermon before the Houfe ot Commons, 3 1 . Jan. 1 688.

Eighteen Papers relating to the Aflairs of Chinch and State, during the

Reign of King James II Seventeen whereof were written in HolLmd, and
hrft printed there j the other at £jff rfr,foonilter the Prince oi Orange's
Landing in England.

' Letter to Mr. Thevcnot ; containing a Cenfure of Mr. Le Grand's Hiftory

of King Henry the Eighth's Divorce. To which is added, A Cenfure of
Mr. De Meaux's Hiliory of the Variations of the Proteliant Cliurches.
Together with Ibmc further RePicdlions on Mr . Le Grand. 1 689.

Dr.

^^^

Books lately Printed for Richard Chifwel.

Dr. PATI{^ICKji Sermon before the Prince of Orange^ 20. Jrfw. 1688.

■ Sermon before the Queen at Whitehall March 1. 1688.

Stnnon at St. Paiifs Covcnt-Gardcn^ on the tirft Sunday in Lent, being a

Second part of a Sermon preached before the Prince of Orange.
A Letter written by the Empcrour to the late Kjng Jams fettiog forth the True
.Occai;on of His Fall, and the Treachery and Cruelty of the French.

King iVilham or King Lewis, wherein is fet forth the inevitable necefllty
thefe Nations he under, of fubmitting wholly to One or Other ofthefe Kings,
and the matter in Controveriie is not now between K.JVilliarmnd K.James,
but between K. iVilliam and K. Lewis of France for the Gorernment ofthefe
^Nations.

Books lately PHhlijhed.

A Letter Written by a Clergy Man to his Neighbour, concerning the pre-
fent circumifances of the Kingdom, and the Allegiance that is due to the
King and Queen. 4^^.

The Cafe of Allegiance in our prefent circumftanccs confidcred, in a Letter
from a Minifter in the City, to a Minifter in the Country. 4°.

A Sermon preached at Fiilham, in the Chappel of the Palace, upon Eafler
Day, 1 689. at the Confecration of the Right Reverend Father in God Gilbert;
LordBifhopofS'^rz/m: By Anthsity Horned^, D.D. 4°.

The Judgments of God upon the Br^man Catholic!^ Church, from its firft
Rigid Laws for Univerfal Conformity to it, untn its laft End. With a profped:
of thefe near approaching Revolutions, vi:^. The Revival of the Protefiant
profeflion in an Eminent Kingdom, where it was totally fupprefled. The lalt
End of all T«r/j//fe Holtilities- The general Mortitication of the power of the
i(oman Church in all parts of its Dominions, By Drue CreJJener., D. D. 40.

A'Breviatc of the State of Scotland in its Government, Supream Courts,
Officers of State, Inferiour Officers, Offices and Inferiour Courts, Diftri(fls Jurif-
■didlions, Burroughs Royali and Free Corporations. Fol.

An Account of the Proceedings of the Convention oftheEftates of 5"cof//««^,
from their firft fitting down to this Time ; which will be continued weekly.

An Account of the Reafons which induced Charles IL King of England to de-
clare War againft the States General of the United Provinces in 1672. And of
the Private League which he entred into at the fame Time with the French King
to carry it on. And to Eitablifli Popery in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
As they are fet down in the Hiftory of the Dutch War ; Printed in French at
'Paris, with the Privilege of the French King in 1 68z. Which Book He caufed
to be immediately Supprelfcd at the Inftance of the Engltjh Emh^i]adour. Fol,

A Difcourfe concerning the Worfhip of Images, Preached before the Univer-
nty of Ojr/br^ the z^th.o^ May, 1686. by GeorgeTullie Sub-Dean of 26r/(;^j
LFor which he was fufpended.^ 4°-

Some Coniidcrations touching Succe/Iion and Allegiance. 4°.

Refledlions upon the late Great Revolution : Written by a Lay-H.ind in the
Country, for the fatisfadlion of Tome Neighbours. 4°.

The Hillory of the Dillertion ; or an Account of all the publick Affairs in
England, from the beginning of September 1688. to the Twelfth of i-V^rw^ry
fotlowing. With an Anfwerto a Piece called The Differ tien DifcuJJcdy in a
Letter to a Country Gcntlemnft, By a Pcrfon of Quality. 4° .