HAving just now met with the so much talk'd of OATH of Allegeance , imposed upon us under the penalties of forfeiting both Estate and Liberty , I have brought it with me , desiring your Opinion of it .

I am not at all glad to hear , that this Oath , whatever it be , is so generally imposed ; very much fearing , lest , as most such Impositions have been found to do , it may do more hurt than good . Yet if it be imposed with such Penalties to be inflicted on them that refuse it ; we are concern'd to consider seriously of it , lest we either wound our Consciences in taking it , or be too prodigal of our Estates and Liberty in refusing it . Pray let me hear the words of it .

The words of the Oath are these .

I am of the same Opinion . And first , Do you think it may be sworn in Truth ?

Seeing this is a Promissory Oath , to swear it in Truth , seems to me nothing else , but truly , or ( as the word in the Oath is ) sincerely to intend to perform what we Promise . And this we may do .

Yes , if we Promise no Impossible , Vain , or Unlawful thing .

That it is neither Impossible , nor Vain , supposing it not Unlawful or Unrighteous , I think we may be easily satisfied ; and therefore we need only enquire , whether it may be sworn in Righteousness .

Yea , but it is necessary also that it be sworn in Judgment ; What say you to that ?

If we know and consider well , What , Why , and to what End we swear , and after a rational deliberation are satisfied in mind , that the thing we promise is neither Impossible , Vain , nor Unjust ; we swear in Judgment . And therefore what concerns us chiefly to examine , is , if it may be sworn in Righteousness .

I see plainly it is so . May we then so swear it ?

If we may swear it without any wrong to God , our Neighbour , or our Selves , I think you will grant we may swear it in Righteousness .

I grant we may .

Wrong is done to God , when we break his Commandments . What Law of God then shall we break in taking this Oath ?

I am afraid lest we should thereby break all the Laws of God commanding Obedience to our Lawful Governours , and those also that forbid Vain-swearing and Perjury .

No Law of God commanding Obedience to Lawful Authority , is broken by swearing Allegeance to our Lawful King and Queen .

That 's true ; but if they be not so , and Another be our Lawful King , in swearing to bear that Allegeance to Them , which is due to Him alone , we break the Laws of Obedience to our Lawful Governours .

You see then , no wrong is done to God in breaking his Laws of Obedience to Lawful Governours , but by doing wrong to our Neighbour , I mean Him who is our Lawful Governour . We are therefore no farther concern'd here , but to see that no wrong be done to Him .

And this we ought very carefully to see to , before we can take this Oath .

It is very true , and in order to this , we are first to consider who this Lawful King is , whom we may wrong by taking the Oath .

I imagine we are all satisfied , that JAMES the II . had a Legal Right to our Allegeance .

I doubt it not .

And I am not yet satisfied , that He either hath lost , or could lose that Right .

If he could cease to be Lawful King , he could lose that Right to our Allegeance .

That cannot be denied .

If he could cease to be such a King , as by the Constitution of the Kingdom , our Kings must be , he could cease to be Lawful King .

I think that is also plain enough .

And I think it is as plain , that our Constitution admits of no King that will not be limited in his Government by the Laws . Ours being no Absolute , but a Mixed and Limited Monarchy .

Are we sure of that ?

We are , I think , sure , That the King's Will is not the measure of his Power , but ( as K. CHARLES the First of blessed Memory acknowledged ) The Law is the Measure of his Will ; That He is only our Liege , or Legal Soveraign , and the duty we owe him is Allegeance , or a Legal Obedience ; that the Laws and Customs of this Realm have ever been accounted the Rule of Government ; that the Regal Power hath been ordinarily confined to them ; that these Laws whereby he is bound to Govern , are neither Made nor Interpreted by his sole Authority , but by the concurrence of the other Estates of the Realm . If all this make it not evident that this is no Absolute , but a Limited Monarchy , nothing can .

Will it hence follow , that a Legal King can cease to be so ?

I think it will very clearly . For seeing our Constitution allows of no Absolute Monarch , if any King refuse to be limited by Law in his Government , and will be Absolute , making his Will the only Law by which he will Govern , he ceaseth to be Lawful King of this Realm ; because he is become such as the Constitution will not bear .

Shall He hereby lose his Right to Govern ?

Not his Right to Govern by Law if he will do so , and he hath no other Right that I know of .

Then it seems he may be Lawful or Rightful King still , tho' he unjustly claim an Absolute Power ; for he may be restrained by Laws in the Exercise of his Power .

Laws indeed may prescribe the Limits of his Power , but how shall they confine Him within those Limits , if he will be Arbitrary and Boundless ? What signifies a Limitation that can limit him no farther than he will be limited ? Will he not be as Absolute notwithstanding such Laws , as he could be without them , if he can forfeit no Right by transgressing them ?

Must a King needs lose his Right to Govern , by any transgression of the Laws , whereby his Authority is limited ?

By no means . Nay all tolerable transgressions of the Law , and very many and great grievances ought to be born , rather than the Peace and Safety of a Kingdom should be hazarded by disturbing the Government . Neither do I think that a King can forfeit his Right to govern , so long as by any means he may be reduced to a Legal exercise of his Authority , or will be content to Reign without the subversion of the Government , and the ruine of his people .

How shall we understand when he will not be content with this ?

When after all Legal means used for his due information and just restraint ; he shall either by Word or Deed manifestly declare it to be his resolution to be Arbitrary , and no longer to be limited by any Law but his own Will .

But the King has a Divine Right , his Power is of God , and can he forfeit that by transgressing the Laws of Men ?

When you say , His power is of God , is this your meaning ; That this very individual Person , suppose it JAMES the Second , was named or pointed out by God ( as Saul and David were ) to be King yea and Absolute Monarch of this Realm ?

I have no such meaning .

Then you can mean no more , but that Government in every Nation is of Divine Institution , and when any Person is once Legally invested in it , whether the Authority be convey'd to him by Election or Succession , it is of God .

Then that Authority is neither more nor less , than He or They by whom 't is derived unto him , is or were invested in by the Fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom , provided it be sufficient for the ends of Government .

I have nothing to say against that at present .

I hope we may also take it for granted . That the Right the King hath from God , is to be a Minister of God for the good of his People , that under him they may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all Godliness and Honesty ; and that they through whom this Right was convey'd to him never consented or meant that he should abuse it to their hurt or ruine .

This cannot be gainsaid .

Then I think a King in declaring his resolution not to regard the right ends of Government , nor any Law but his own Will , tho' it tend not to the preservation , but subversion of the established Government , not to the protecting , but the inslaving or ruining his people ; Declares his resolution to be no longer lawful King , either by Divine or Human Right . Destroying the Original Constitution of the Government , he undermines and Subverts his own Authority thereby , and absolves his Subjects from Allegeance to him .

This being a weighty point , I desire a little better to understand it .

The King holds his Crown , as his Subjects do their Liberties and Properties , by the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom : if he therefore subvert that whereon his Authority stands , the Legal Constitution of the Kingdom , he must needs overthrow his own Legal Authority . All that we owe him is a Legal Obedience ; destroying the Laws he quits that , and onely challengeth what we owe him not , and therefore in truth we owe him nothing .

By what you have said , I am now convinced that a Legal King may cease to be so , and when he ceases to be so , no Allegeance can be due unto him . The next thing to be examined is , whether JAMES the 2d who was once our Legal King , have ceased or no to be any longer so . What think you of that ?

That we must now examine , by applying to Him what we have already said . If He then hath in effect declared , that he would no longer rule us as his Legal Subjects by Laws , but as Slaves by an Arbitrary Power ; he hath quitted his Lawful Authority , which was all he had , and assumed an Authority which is none of his ; and thereby hath absolved us from our Allegeance to Him .

How did he declare this , when in his Declaration he promised to protect us in our Rights and Properties ?

What signifies a Verbal promise , which was in Deed broken almost as soon as made ? All it teacheth us is , not to believe such promises again , till we can have better evidence of his intentions , and better security too for the performance than I know which way he can give us .

But where do you find his Declaration not to Govern by Law ?

In his challenging to himself expresly an Absolute Power , and requiring to have his will obey'd without reserve . In Suspending some Laws for ever , and Dispensing with others at pleasure , and calling this his Right and Prerogative . In Licensing persons to act in Office contrary to Law , and putting them out of Office that would not own and assert his Right so to do . In imposing Illegal things , and punishing such as according to their known duty only in the most Legal way Petition'd to be excused . In erecting Illegal Courts in an Arbitrary way , to eject men out of their undoubted Free-holds , meerly for adhering to the Laws . In treating with , and receiving a Nuncio from that Forreign Power which the whole Nation is sworn to oppose . In admitting an order of men into his Privy-Council , for which it is Treason to enter the Kingdom . In using base Arts to pack Parliaments of men by Law disabled for that trust . In over-awing the people into submission to his Arbitrariness by an Army kept a foot-in times of peace . I add no more but this only , in Deserting his people , leaving them without means of Government , and to the mercy of a disbanded Army , and meerly because he would not hearken to any Treaty , or endure to hear of being tied to Govern by Law .

I wonder you say nothing of the death of the Earl of Essex , or of the Prince of Wales , or of the League with France .

I say nothing , but what is notorious to all the World , and cannot be denied .

In order to our Swearing this Oath in Judgment , 't is necessary we be well inform'd of the truth of all this as matter of Fact , and farther in point of Law , whether all this will null his Authority .

You and I being private Persons , and neither Lawyers nor Statesmen , what course could we take for our Information , but what has been taken ? the Peers did personally Convene , and all of us in our Representatives , to Examine , Consult and Conclude as there was cause . These have found the matter of Fact , and declared thereupon the Throne to be vacant , and have again filled it .

Filled it indeed , but how ? If JAMES the 2d have left it vacant , why was it not filled with the next undoubted Heir ?

JAMES the 2d losing his Authority , it must either lapse to the Nation , or descend to the next Heir . If it lapsed , our Representatives have anew disposed of it , and their act is good . If it descended , they have done the next Heir right , she is in the Throne .

Yes jointly with another who hath all the Power and She the empty Title .

The whole Administration you mean , not all the Power : and whatever He hath we may justly suppose 't is with Her consent . The Crown was tender'd to both , accepted by both , set on the heads of both , and the Oath of Allegiance is to both .

Think you the Determination of this Convention enough to warrant us in Conscience to take this Oath .

God's written Word ( the best Rule of Conscience ) commands us only in general , Allegeance to the Higher Powers . There is now a dispute whether the Supream Power be in JAMES the 2d or in WILLIAM and MARY . The Scripture will not tell us in which it is . Who then shall ? The Laws of the Land you 'll say . But you and I are not read in the Laws . Who then but the Representative body of the Nation ? If we must not rest in their Determination , wherein may we rest ?

To rest on their determination is one thing , to swear another .

To rest on their determination implies a Legal Obedience to King WILLIAM and Queen MARY , and that 's all is meant by Allegeance .

And I am resolved to yield it them .

Why then may you not swear to do , what you resolve to do ?

Because in this Oath I seem to assert their Right which is yet doubtful .

I am sure we do not in this Oath expresly assert any Right they have .

But it seems that Implicitly at least we do . For they are here stiled Their Majesties , and are called King and Queen , and it must be supposed they are so , when we swear Allegeance to them , else the Oath is a Mockery , and a taking God's name in vain .

But is it implied , that they are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen , and that we assert them to be so , as we did expresly do in the late Oath of Allegeance ?

I think this is implied , for Allegeance is due to such only , and that 's it we swear .

Who is to interpret an Oath where the meaning is dubious ?

The Imposers of it .

Was there not a debate among them about these words Lawful and Rightful ? And were they not purposely left out , lest they should create Scruples in them who are to take the Oath ?

't is said it was so .

To what purpose was this omission of those words , if what they signify must still be look'd upon as implied in the Oath ?

I know not that . But I am sure if this be not implied , it seems to me a very vain , and therefore unlawful Oath .

Why so ?

Because admitting this , we swear as good as nothing . For Allegeance being that Obedience which is due by the Laws to our Lawful Soveraign , if they be not Lawful King and Queen , no such obedience can be due to them by the Laws ; and swearing no other , I swear as good as nothing , a very vain Oath .

It is granted , that the Laws prescribe and bound the Obedience which is due to our Lawful Soveraign , so that no other hath a right by Law to that Obedience , nor need we by Law to pay him any other ; and in this sense 't is called Allegeance .

But how can we swear to pay that which is due to our Lawful Soveraign , and to him only , to those whom we need not suppose to be so ?

May we not in many cases swear to pay one that which is not by any Law beforehand his right and due ? And will not such an Oath create to him a right and due , which was not his before ?

I grant it in some cases , but not where it will be to anothers wrong , and it must needs be a wrong to our Lawful Soveraign to pay his due to another .

Tho' the Legal Soveraign alone can Challenge our Allegeance as his Debt and Due ; may we not promise the like obedience to another without wrong to him ? I owe you by bond Twenty pounds , may I not pay the like Sum to another , to whom I owe it not , without wronging you ? Or may I not Promise and Swear to him beforehand to do it , and make it so a Legal debt , tho no Law bound me before either to promise or pay it ?

Without doubt you may , so you pay me too what you owe me . But how we can swear Allegeance , to W. and M. as King and Queen , and yet pay our Allegeance to our Lawful Soveraign , supposing another be so , I see not . This were to serve two Masters , to set up two Soveraign Powers in one Kingdom , and indeed to swear Impossibilities .

I pay the Service I owe to one man as to my Master , whose due it is . I pay the like Service to another whose due it is not , nor own I him thereby for my Master : To the one I pay a debt , on the other I bestow a largess or boon . I pay my Allegeance to my Soveraign as far as I can . I yield the like obedience to another , not as my Soveraign , but as one whom I have other reasons thus to oblige . The former has his due , the later more than is due , but no more than I think fit . Where 's now the Impossibility or Injustice ? A penny was one labourer's due , and a penny was more than was due to another ; yet were they paid alike , the one had no wrong , nor the other too much .

Yet I see not how this can be done in our present case .

Our Case is this : The Imposers of this Oath have concluded , That JAMES the 2d is no longer our Lawful Soveraign , but WILLIAM and MARY . Yet do they not require that we should expresly swear this , but only that we will , whilst they govern us , obey them in all their Legal Commands , which is the very same and all which we are bound by Law to do towards our Lawful Soveraign , if any other be so . And our Question is , Whether we may swear this or no ?

I think we may not , because it is not certain that another is not our Lawful King , and we may not swear away his Right .

If all that was said above be true , JAMES the 2d is not our Lawful King . Yet we are willing at present to suppose it doubtful whether he be or no , and what has been last said is in order to their Satisfaction who yet doubt of this .

We may not swear he is not Lawful King , whilst we doubt of it .

Neither are we required to swear it , but only to be obedient to the Present King and Queen , ruling by the Laws of this Realm .

Do you think we may swear this , whilst we doubt that another may be wrong'd by it ?

I say not so , for Government is God's Ordinance , which no people can wilfully and innocently be without .

Who must Govern it in the mean time ?

He should whose right it is .

True , but He , whom you now suppose to have the right , has deserted the Government , and cannot Govern .

Possibly , he was driven out by force .

They whom we intrusted to enquire into that and other things do assure us he was not . Who should drive him away ?

The Pr. of Or , and his Assistants .

Then the Pr. by the help of his Assistants is become a Conqueror , and if Conquest create so good a Right , that some have thought it the best Title that any of our Kings could have , and thence have argued that they were Absolute Monarchs , why hath not King WILLIAM as good a Right as any that were before him ?

I have no mind to dispute about that .

Nor need you , for I think 't is plain enough that JAMES the 2d voluntarily forsook the Kingdom .

Had it not been fit however to have treated with him about returning to his Government , before another was seated in his Throne ?

Had they who are best able to judge what 's sit in such a case taken that course , I should have thought no worse of them for it , because it might have tended to many men's better Satisfaction . Yet I confess I cannot see to what other purpose it would have been . For either he would have disdain'd such a Treaty , as below him , or he would not have consented to govern by Law ; or if he would , he could not have given us better assurance that he would do so , than he had beforehand given us that he would not .

Why then had we not rather a Regent in his name , than a King in his stead ?

Had he been either Infant or Lunatick , this might have done , but to a Person of his Age , Temper and Religion , a Prison and a Fetter would have been as easy as a Regent . To be short , 't is fit the Nation in his absence should be well govern'd , and who fitter for the Government , than the next Heir , or He who hath it by her consent ? And whilst they Govern by Law , 't is our duty to obey them , and what it is our duty to do , I think we may swear to do .

But not if we doubt whether it be our duty or no .

Yet this seems no better than doing of evil that good may come .

Government is a necessary good , neither can obedience to Governors , be they Lawful or no , in things Just and Legal , for the publick good , be any evil .

The evil I shall be guilty of in Swearing this Oath seems to me very great , even no less than Perjury .

I confess that 's an evil not to be ventured on to save a world from drowning . No greater wrong can be done to God than this . But why must we be guilty of Perjury upon this account ?

Have we not already sworn Allegeance to another ? How then can we swear this new Oath of Allegeance without Perjury ?

Did we swear Allegeance to another absolutely and for ever , or only for so long as he should be Lawful King , and our Allegeance his right and due .

Without all dispute for so long only .

Then if at any time it prove to be no longer his right and due , or he any way cease to be Lawful King , we are absolved from that Oath , and at Liberty to swear the same to another whose right and due it is become . Did we swear that He who then was rightful King , would always be so , or that we would bear him Allegeance when he should not be so ?

We must have been mad to swear that .

The Perjury then you are afraid of is only on supposition that he to whom you swore is as much now our Lawful King , as then he was ; for if he be not so , your Allegeance is at an end , and your Oath too . Do you think we are bound by that Oath , not to live in Obedience and Subjection to the Present K. and Q. whilst they command by Law things Just and Lawful ?

I am not well satisfied as to that .

If we be not thereby obliged , not to obey their Legal Commands , then may we obey them , and then may we , when call'd to it , for their Satisfaction and our own safety , swear to obey them . If we be obliged not to obey them , then is it unreasonable we should expect their Protection . But I think , that if that Oath bind us yet at all , it binds us either to obey our present Governors , or to oppose and resist them all we can possibly .

Why think you so ?

Our present King and Queen are either the Lawful Successors of him to whom that Oath was sworn , or they are Invaders and Usurpers .

They must needs I think be one of the two .

If then they be his Lawful either Heirs or Successors , and that Oath be yet binding , it binds to obey them , for in it we swore Allegeance to his Majesty , his Heirs and Successors .

That cannot be denied .

And if they be Invaders and Usurpers of the Soveraign Authority , and that Oath be still binding , then doth it bind us not only not to obey them , but to oppose and resist them with all our might . For we then swore to Assist and Defend to our power all Jurisdictions , Priviledges Pre-eminences and Authorities granted or belonging to His Majesty , His Heirs and Successors , or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm . How can we to our power assist and defend these , and not with all our might oppose and resist the Invaders of them ?

I had not well consider●d this .

We swore also to defend to the uttermost of our power His Majesty against all attempts whatsoever made against His Person , Crown or Dignity , and to endeavour to disclose and make known to him all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies made against him .

't is true we did so .

Well then , if that Oath bind us not , we are not because of it guilty of Perjury , if we take this New Oath : But if it do still bind us , then are we guilty of Perjury , not only if we swear this new Oath , but if we do not to our uttermost power oppose and resist the present K. and Q. or if we do not disclose and make known to JAMES the II . whatever we know of any thing by them , or any other attempted against him .

If that Oath bind us to all this , how can we swear Allegeance to another ?

I confess we cannot on that supposition : but why then should it more bind us from taking this Oath , than to the doing of all that I have now mentioned ? Why do we pretend to fear the guilt of Perjury in the one , and not in the other ? Why consider we not that if it binds us not to resist them , it binds us to Obey them , and then are we perjured if we obey them not , and certainly that we may swear to do , which we are perjured if we do not .

I confess these things do not a little startle me .

Will you give me leave to ask you if you pray for the present K. and Q. as it is now ordered ?

Yes , I may and must pray for all men , and even for Enemies .

But can you use , or join in the publick Prayers for them according to order calling them in your devout addresses to God , your Soveraign Lord and Lady , your most Religious and Gracious King and Queen ; and praying that God would strengthen them to vanquish and overcome all their Enemies . That God would rule the hearts of his chosen Servants , W. and M. that we duly considering whose Authority they have , may Faithfully serve , honour and humbly obey them . Can you pray thus ?

I hear many do , who yet scruple the taking this Oath .

And yet I must needs say , I cannot imagine for what reason they can do the one and refuse the other : For they expresly own them to God in Prayer to be , what they are not tied expresly to own them in the Oath ; and they pray that God would grant them to do as much as the Oath binds them to do .

The Clergy will be most concern'd to answer that ; however I hope you do not think it any argument for taking the Oath , for no man is warranted by doing one evil to venture on another .

I use it not as an Argument to prove the taking of the Oath to be lawful , but propound it as a thing deserving their consideration who dare not take the Oath , and yet venture thus to Pray ; I conceiving it as lawful to do both as to do either ; and not finding that there is any danger in not doing the one more than in not doing the other .

Let us keep to the question before us . I am satisfied , that if JAMES the II . be not yet our Lawful King , and if K. WILLIAM and Q. MARY have a good Title , we may Swear Allegeance to them , but not otherwise .

I am satisfied , that this Monarchy is no Absolute , but a Limited Monarchy ; that therefore any King of England , that will not be Limited according to the Fundamental Constitution of this Government , is no longer Legal King of England ; that JAMES the II hath superabundantly shewn that he would not be so Limited ; and therefore that he is no longer Legal King of England .

And are you also satisfied , that K. WILLIAM and Q. MARY have a good Right and Title .

If this be so , we may lawfully Swear this Oath . But , put the case , that some there be , and it may be not a few , who really think , that James the II . is yet our Legal King , and that W. and M. are but Invaders of the Regal Dignity , may these Swear Allegeance to them ?

Is He whom they will have our Legal King in a present capacity to Govern us ?

No , but He might be , were he peaceably recall'd and invited to it .

Have they any reason to hope , that returning , He would be content to pardon all that is past , and to Govern by the establish'd Laws for the future , never endeavouring to settle Popery by violence , nor to re-assume an Arbitrary Authority ?

I cannot conceive what reason any one can have to hope this , or what assurance He could give us that he would be so content .

Suppose then He were re-call'd and re-inthroned , and should bring in his beloved Counsellors the Jesuits along with him , and fall to the old trade again , would these men patiently suffer their Religion , Liberties and Properties , and possibly Lives too to be invaded and destroy'd , and the whole Nation and Government ruin'd ?

I hope they would not .

What course then would they take to secure and preserve these things ?

They would possibly think of setting up a Regent , or putting the command of the Army into other hands , and so leave Him only the Name and Title of King ; I know not what else could be done .

And would not this be a violation of the former Oath of Allegeance , as well as what is now done ?

I think it would .

To let that pass , can they hope He would be willingly so confined and restrained , and not endeavour by the assistance of all his friends at home or abroad to recover his Absolute Power ?

No rational man that knows him can imagine it .