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.

The best way to discern whether or no this Oath may be lawfully sworn by us, will be (as I think) to enquire if it may be sworn according to God's directions, (Jer. 4. 2.) in Truth, in Judgment, and in Righteousness.

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 Ʋnlawful thing.

That it is neither Impossible, nor Vain, supposing it not Ʋn­lawful or Ʋnrighteous, 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 Ʋnjust; 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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4] 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.

That is my meaning.

Then that Authority is neither more nor less, than He or They by whom 'tis 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; [Page 6] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 7] 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 'tis 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 [Page 8] 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?

'Tis 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 'tis 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, [Page 9] 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?

Must the Nation be ungovern'd till all our doubts about the Government and Right to Govern be removed?

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 'tis 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, 'tis 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, 'tis 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.

I pray consider it well. The wrong done to another, if any at all, is to One who will not exercise his Right as he ought to do, and you do no more but doubt whether he be wrong'd or no. What is this in comparison of the Wrong which a whole Kingdom sustains for want of Government? And Government it must want if we will not obey our present Governors.

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. [Page 12] 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 Ʋsur­pers.

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 Ʋsurpers 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.

'Tis 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 [Page 13] 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.

I am satisfied, that we have no reason to believe there is in being such a thing as a true Prince of Wales, and that therefore the PRINCESS of ORANGE was the Rightful Heir; that being made Q. of England, she hath her Right; and the Prince of ORANGE, being by Her Consent join'd with Her in the Government, and having the Sole Administration thereof committed to him, and both of them having accepted of the Crown upon these Terms, He is also rightful King of England.

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.

And if he should thus attempt by force to subdue us to his Will, would these men sit quiet, and not make any resistance, but suf­fer not only this Nation to be inslaved and ruin'd, but also the Pro­testant Religion brought into the extreamest danger of being quite ex­tirpated throughout the World?

Surely they would be wiser than to suffer this.

Well then, He is in a present incapacity to Govern us, and no hopes have we that if he were recall'd he would protect us by the Laws, but rather endeavour to destroy both us and our Laws; and if he should endeavour this, as he hath already done, either we must suffer it when it is in our power to prevent it, and so be Accessories to it; or we must take the same course that is now taken; I can think of no other, unless they should think that of Forty Eight better, as I hope they will not.

I hope so too.

Till then He can be in a capacity to Govern us, shall we be ungovern'd, and so exposed to our Enemies mercy abroad, and live in Confusion at home?

That's not fit.

If we must be govern'd, why not rather by our present Gover­nors than by others?

Because they are thought Invaders and Ʋsurpers.

So would any other from abroad, and they at home, should they undertake the Government, would be thought Ʋsurpers, Rebels and Traytors; and so, tho' we must be governed, yet none must be thought fit to Govern.

What then I pray is your Opinion in this case?

Government being God's Ordinance, and the end of it, next to his glory, being the safety and welfare of the whole Nation, and the maintaining it in the exercise of Piety and Justice, Peace and good Order; we ought not to rest contentedly without it; and whilst He who is supposed to be our Legal King is under an incapacity of go­verning us, or will not Govern us by Law, but by his own Will, whereby the true ends of Government will be lost to us, which is evidently our case; and others in the mean time undertake the Go­vernment, and manage it legally and hopefully as to the attaining of all those ends: I am verily perswaded we may and ought to obey them, whatever Title they have, so long as they are actually our Governors. And if we may obey them, seeing the publick peace and welfare depends so much upon it, we may also Swear to obey them.

I know not how this will relish with some.

Neither is it our concern how it will; but either we ought to obey in this case, and may Swear obedience when call'd to it, or we must hazard wilfully, not only our personal, but the Nations peace and safety, yea, and that of this Protestant Church, and for ought I know of all others; we must disobey Them in their just and legal commands (obedience to no other being required) to whom under God we owe as great a Deliverance as ever was wrought for this Kingdom, and our present free enjoyment of our Religion, Laws, Estates, Lives and Liberties; we must voluntarily run into confusion, or put our Necks into the Yoak of Tyranny, and all this meerly for the sake of One who has done his utmost indeavour to enslave and ruin us, and we have too good assurance that he would do so again whenever it should be in his power. Whether this would be a wise and commendable thing I leave to your consideration.

If there be reason for it, tho' it be not thought wise, yet may it be just and commendable.

And if it be not just, as I think it is not, no reason can be given for it.

They say 'tis a wrong to another, which must not be done.

I say, 'tis no wrong to him who is in an incapacity to Govern, to obey them who can and will Govern us by our Laws, whilst he is un­der that incapacity. And he is so, not only whilst he is, as they will have it, in exile; but so long as he will not Govern according to Law. The good reason then that we have not to obey, or not to Swear to obey our present K. and Q. is this: Because we think a Legal Obe­dience, that is, Allegeance, due to Him only, to whom we are too well assured it will not be acceptable, because it is not an illegal one, or, because we think He hath something to say for a Right to Govern us, which he has declared he will not exercise but contrary to the Consti­tution on which that Right, if any, must be founded, and contrary to the welfare and happiness of his Kingdom; that is, because he claims a Right which neither God or Man ever gave him, to govern only by his own Will. All comes to this, they think he hath a Right which he will not use, and which they would give him, but he will not thank them for it; and he challenges a Right which they cannot own, and will have that yielded him, or he will have none.

This let us now well consider, and the wise God direct us.