A discourse concerning the signification of allegiance, as it is to be understood in the new oath of allegiance
Downes, Theophilus, d. 1726.
1689
Approx. 113 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 14 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A36485
Wing D2082
ESTC R1366
12265051
ocm 12265051
58004
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A36485)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 58004)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 181:13)
A discourse concerning the signification of allegiance, as it is to be understood in the new oath of allegiance
Downes, Theophilus, d. 1726.
27 p.
s.n.,
[London :
1689]
Caption title.
Attributed to Theophilus Downes. Cf. Halkett & Laing (2nd ed.).
Place and date of publication from Wing.
Reproduction of original in Yale University Library.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Allegiance -- Great Britain.
Loyalty oaths -- Great Britain.
2006-10 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2006-10 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2007-10 Taryn Hakala
Sampled and proofread
2007-10 Taryn Hakala
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2008-02 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
A
Discourse
concerning
the
Signification
of
Allegiance
,
as
it
is
to
be
understood
in
the
New
Oath
of
Allegiance
.
Qui
Perjurii
immunis
esse
cupit
,
&c.
He
,
who
desires
to
preserve
himself
from
Perjury
,
ought
diligently
to
weigh
every
Word
of
the
Oath
which
he
is
to
take
,
and
the
Sense
and
Force
of
them
;
that
if
it
ought
not
to
be
kept
,
it
may
not
be
taken
;
if
it
be
lawful
to
be
taken
,
it
may
be
kept
without
fraud
and
dissimulation
.
Sand.
De
Juram
.
Oblig
.
Prael
.
6.
Sect.
7.
THE
Words
of
the
Oath
are
these
;
1
A.
B.
do
sincerely
promise
,
and
swear
,
that
I
will
be
faithful
,
and
bear
true
Allegiance
to
their
Majesties
,
King
William
and
Queen
Mary
,
So
help
me
God.
In
this
compendious
Form
of
Swearing
,
It
is
said
there
is
great
Ambiguity
,
which
lies
principally
in
the
doubtful
signification
of
the
Words
[
Faithful
,
and
True
Allegiance
;
]
which
may
import
either
,
1.
That
kind
of
Fidelity
,
and
Obedience
which
Captives
may
promise
to
their
Conquerors
,
or
oppressed
Subjects
to
Usurpers
;
and
oblige
them
only
to
a
quiet
,
and
peaceable
submission
,
while
they
are
under
their
Power
,
and
does
not
debar
them
from
assisting
their
Lawful
Sovereign
in
the
Recovery
of
his
Crown
:
or
,
2.
All
that
Fidelity
and
Allegiance
,
which
was
formerly
sworn
to
the
Kings
of
England
,
whereby
their
Subjects
were
obliged
to
defend
their
Crown
,
and
Dignity
against
all
Persons
whatsoever
;
not
reserving
any
Branch
of
their
Allegiance
,
as
Due
to
any
other
.
It
is
upon
this
Distinction
,
that
two
different
Interpretations
of
the
Oath
are
grounded
,
and
the
highest
construction
is
this
;
I
A.
B.
am
sincerely
resolv'd
to
adhere
faithfully
to
King
William
and
Queen
Mary
,
to
perform
all
the
Duties
of
Allegiance
,
and
Subjection
unto
them
alone
,
and
to
defend
their
Crown
and
Dignity
with
my
Life
and
Fortune
to
the
uttermost
of
my
power
against
all
Persons
whatsoever
.
And
the
lowest
construction
is
to
this
effect
;
Whereas
W.
and
M.
are
actually
in
possession
of
the
Regal
Power
,
so
long
,
as
they
continue
in
the
full
possession
of
it
,
I
do
swear
,
that
I
will
pay
them
that
Obedience
,
and
Submission
,
which
may
be
lawfully
paid
to
an
Actual
Sovereign
,
not
engaging
hereby
to
uphold
them
in
the
possession
of
the
Throne
against
the
K.
de
Jure
,
nor
debarring
my self
from
exerting
my
sworn
Allegiance
to
him
upon
any
emergent
opportunity
for
the
recovery
of
his
Right
.
I
am
not
certain
that
this
last
Clause
of
assisting
the
K.
de
Jure
,
is
the
Sense
of
them
,
who
have
taken
the
Oath
with
a
Declaration
of
living
peaceably
under
the
present
Government
;
yet
there
is
this
reason
to
believe
that
it
is
,
because
(
if
any
thing
can
be
inferr'd
from
an
Explanatory
Declaration
,
more
ambiguous
,
and
obscure
,
than
the
Oath
explain'd
)
we
may
reasonably
infer
from
thence
,
That
the
Declarers
thought
the
Oath
in
the
higher
Sense
unlawful
,
because
directly
contradictory
to
their
former
Obligations
to
K.
J.
But
if
those
are
still
in
force
,
then
they
are
still
obliged
to
an
actual
assistance
of
him
;
and
then
their
Declaration
must
be
understood
in
such
a
sense
,
as
shall
not
exclude
it
.
In
short
,
if
their
former
Oath
be
obligatory
,
then
they
are
obliged
to
assist
K.
J.
If
it
is
not
,
then
the
present
Possessors
are
undoubtedly
our
Lawful
Sovereigns
,
and
we
are
consequently
obliged
to
pray
that
they
may
have
Victory
over
all
their
Enemies
;
and
if
this
be
our
duty
,
it
is
a
manifest
Sin
not
to
contribute
our
Actual
Assistance
in
our
respective
Stations
for
the
obtaining
of
it
.
Wherefore
chuse
they
which
they
will
,
either
that
their
former
Oaths
are
obligatory
,
or
not
;
the
One
,
or
the
Other
of
the
Kings
they
are
bound
to
assist
,
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
presum'd
to
bind
themselves
by
Oath
to
a
sinful
Neutrality
;
which
is
plainly
contradictory
to
their
former
Oath
,
and
if
that
be
extinguish'd
,
to
their
manifest
Duty
to
the
present
Possessors
.
But
nevertheless
,
because
what
seems
so
improbable
,
may
yet
be
possibly
true
,
that
they
intended
to
bind
themselves
only
to
an
exact
Neutrality
;
it
shall
be
shewn
in
the
ensuing
Discourse
,
That
the
true
Notion
of
Allegiance
is
absolutely
inconsistent
with
it
.
To
return
therefore
to
the
two
former
Interpretations
of
the
Oath
,
it
is
manifest
,
that
they
are
contradictory
to
each
other
.
By
the
former
we
are
obliged
to
pay
all
our
Allegiance
to
W.
and
M.
By
the
latter
,
not
All
,
but
an
Allegiance
qualified
,
and
limited
:
in
the
one
,
to
uphold
them
to
the
uttermost
of
our
power
in
their
Crown
and
Dignity
;
in
the
other
,
we
profess
we
will
not
be
obliged
to
do
it
▪
In
the
one
,
we
engage
to
defend
them
against
all
Persons
whatsoever
,
and
in
the
other
,
a
Power
is
reserv'd
to
assist
K.
J.
against
them
.
And
if
there
be
any
,
that
take
the
Oath
in
a
middle
sense
of
Neutrality
,
it
is
evident
from
the
very
Term
of
Neutrality
,
that
it
is
plainly
contradictory
to
the
first
construction
also
.
These
several
Interpretations
therefore
being
contradictory
to
each
other
,
it
is
certain
the
Swearer
cannot
be
obliged
unto
more
than
one
:
nor
is
it
to
be
imagin'd
,
that
the
Imposors
intended
either
to
oblige
us
to
contradictory
,
and
impossible
Duties
;
or
to
leave
us
at
liberty
to
chuse
in
which
of
those
contradictory
senses
we
will
be
obliged
.
For
this
Oath
is
exacted
by
a
Law
;
and
a
Law
is
nothing
else
but
the
declared
will
of
the
Legislator
.
Now
if
a
Law
should
be
so
fram'd
on
purpose
by
the
Legislator
,
as
to
be
fairly
capable
of
two
contradictory
constructions
,
and
to
leave
the
Subject
to
his
choice
in
which
he
will
obey
it
;
it
is
manifestly
no
Law
at
all
,
because
it
does
not
contain
the
determinate
declar'd
Will
of
the
Legislator
;
and
the
Subject
being
allowed
to
take
either
part
of
the
Contradiction
,
is
not
determin'd
,
as
by
a
Law
he
always
is
,
to
any
Act
of
Obedience
.
And
if
this
be
true
in
all
Laws
,
much
more
will
it
hold
in
those
by
which
Promissory
Oaths
are
established
:
for
a
Promise
equally
capable
of
contradictory
senses
,
is
indeed
no
Promise
:
And
it
is
nor
to
be
supposed
,
that
our
Legislators
intended
to
frame
a
Promissory
Oath
,
that
should
contain
no
Promise
at
all
;
and
to
make
a
Law
for
the
most
solemn
mockery
of
God
,
that
can
be
imagined
.
It
is
therefore
presum'd
,
That
the
Imposers
of
this
Oath
intended
to
oblige
us
to
one
determinate
meaning
of
it
;
and
that
those
Words
,
by
which
they
chose
to
declare
their
Intention
,
cannot
be
reasonably
so
interpreted
,
as
to
declare
the
quite
contrary
also
:
and
then
it
must
be
granted
,
that
one
of
these
Constructions
is
both
intended
,
and
sufficiently
expressed
in
the
Oath
;
and
that
no
doubt
is
the
sense
,
in
which
we
are
obliged
both
to
take
,
and
keep
it
.
We
are
therefore
now
to
enquire
whether
of
these
Constructions
is
the
intended
,
and
declar'd
meaning
of
the
Imposers
.
And
here
there
appears
at
first
view
an
invincible
prejudice
against
the
lower
Construction
of
the
Oath
,
viz.
that
this
Oath
being
undeniably
intended
for
the
security
of
the
present
Possessors
against
the
dispossessed
;
if
that
Construction
be
admitted
,
though
it
be
never
so
well
observ'd
,
it
can
be
no
security
at
all
unto
them
.
If
it
be
not
intended
for
their
security
,
it
is
a
vain
,
and
insignificant
Oath
:
but
if
it
be
intended
for
any
thing
,
it
is
certainly
designed
to
secure
them
from
the
greatest
,
I
may
say
,
the
only
,
danger
they
are
in
,
and
that
is
,
from
the
attempts
of
K.
J.
But
after
all
,
if
we
affix
this
Sense
upon
the
Oath
,
that
great
,
and
wise
security
amounts
only
to
this
,
[
That
we
will
submit
to
the
Power
of
the
present
Possessors
,
as
long
as
there
is
no
help
,
but
a
Halter
for
it
;
but
as
soon
as
ever
it
becomes
safe
,
and
prudent
to
attempt
it
,
we
will
then
with
all
our
might
endeavour
to
dethrone
them
,
and
restore
the
lawful
King
to
his
Crown
,
and
Dignity
;
in
short
,
that
we
will
●●t
attempt
to
destroy
K.
W.
till
we
have
〈…〉
bable
hopes
to
effect
it
.
]
And
can
it
be
imagin'd
〈◊〉
so
great
and
wise
a
Body
,
as
is
the
Parliament
of
England
,
should
after
great
labour
,
and
strugling
in
its
Birth
,
produce
a
thing
so
Iudicrous
?
Will
K.
W
?
Will
any
K.
upon
Earth
be
content
with
such
Security
as
this
?
Will
he
not
rather
look
upon
it
as
an
open
Declaration
of
Rebellion
against
him
?
Is
this
to
swear
True
Faith
and
Allegiance
to
him
?
Namely
,
to
submit
,
till
we
can
prudently
rebel
against
him
?
Was
there
ever
any
such
Oath
exacted
from
Subjects
since
the
beginning
of
Government
?
In
short
,
if
this
be
the
Sense
of
the
Oath
,
as
none
but
Mad
men
would
have
enacted
it
,
so
it
is
fit
to
be
propos'd
to
Mad-men
only
to
take
it
:
for
it
is
certain
none
else
will
contrive
,
or
execute
any
attempts
against
him
without
hopes
of
success
.
And
yet
this
must
be
the
Sense
of
those
,
who
take
it
with
a
reserve
of
their
old
Allegiance
to
K.
J.
for
by
that
Allegiance
they
are
obliged
to
assist
him
in
the
recovery
of
his
Crown
,
to
the
utmost
of
their
power
,
whensoever
their
assistance
may
be
useful
and
serviceable
to
his
Cause
.
But
to
swear
Allegiance
in
this
sense
,
is
plainly
to
swear
nothing
at
all
;
't
is
only
the
Phantom
of
an
Allegiance
,
and
will
not
only
deceive
,
but
destroy
them
that
were
intended
to
be
secured
by
it
.
Here
therefore
I
may
appeal
to
the
common
sense
of
all
men
,
whether
that
can
be
presum'd
to
be
the
meaning
of
the
Oath
which
does
directly
contradict
the
whole
End
and
Intention
of
it
;
and
whether
it
be
not
a
thing
incredible
that
the
King
,
Lords
,
and
Commons
should
enact
an
Oath
to
secure
the
present
Government
,
and
in
the
same
Oath
allow
the
Takers
leave
to
attempt
the
destruction
of
it
;
and
whether
lastly
,
I
had
not
reason
to
affirm
,
that
this
is
an
invincible
prejudice
against
that
Construction
,
and
may
not
now
have
leave
to
add
,
that
it
is
a
plain
demonstration
against
it
.
And
the
same
reasoning
will
in
some
measure
hold
against
a
Neutrality
also
;
because
that
also
does
defeat
the
Provision
intended
in
this
Oath
for
the
security
of
K.
W.
The
only
difference
is
,
That
the
former
Construction
does
permit
the
Swearers
to
be
still
Enemies
to
the
Government
:
But
this
leaves
it
without
any
Friends
to
support
it
.
The
one
does
in
effect
arm
the
Subjects
to
destroy
it
;
and
the
other
leaves
it
naked
and
defenceless
to
be
destroyed
by
them
.
Both
are
highly
pernicious
to
the
present
Governors
,
and
absolutely
inconsistent
with
the
prime
and
immediate
Intention
of
the
Oath
to
secure
them
.
Perhaps
it
will
be
said
,
that
a
peaceable
Neutrality
,
were
it
sworn
and
observ'd
by
all
the
Subjects
,
would
infallibly
secure
the
Possessors
against
all
Attempts
to
dethrone
them
;
and
that
however
if
such
Attempts
be
made
,
since
the
greatest
part
of
the
Subjects
do
think
themselves
obliged
by
the
Oath
to
an
Active
Assissistance
,
the
Possessors
will
be
effectually
secured
by
it
.
But
1.
The
Imposers
knew
well
enough
,
that
there
were
great
numbers
,
that
would
neither
swear
,
nor
observe
a
Neutrality
;
but
would
actually
assist
the
dispossessed
K.
against
them
;
and
that
therefore
in
such
a
dangerous
Conjuncture
,
a
bare
Neutrality
of
all
the
Subjects
could
be
no
tolerable
Security
against
them
.
And
2.
If
they
intended
to
oblige
the
Subject
only
to
an
exact
Neutrality
,
it
was
a
gross
Prevarication
so
to
frame
the
Oath
on
purpose
,
that
in
the
Opinion
of
most
Men
it
might
import
an
Obligation
contradictory
to
it
.
And
besides
,
if
that
alone
were
the
precise
Intention
of
the
Imposers
,
then
the
Government
will
be
secured
,
not
by
the
Oath
it self
,
but
by
a
false
Construction
of
it
.
Wherefore
this
single
Consideration
of
the
chief
End
and
Intention
of
the
Oath
does
clearly
evince
the
first
and
highest
Construction
to
be
the
true
meaning
of
it
:
And
that
it
is
so
,
I
will
further
endeavour
to
prove
by
all
the
Medium's
,
by
which
the
meaning
of
an
Oath
is
capable
of
being
proved
,
and
those
are
only
these
two
;
the
Words
which
the
Imposers
have
made
choice
of
to
declare
their
meaning
;
and
their
intention
otherwise
sufficiently
expressed
by
Circumstances
,
and
other
Actions
,
which
may
serve
as
a
Comment
upon
the
Oath
,
and
may
ascertain
us
of
the
meaning
of
it
.
And
1.
I
consider
the
signification
of
the
Words
[
faithful
,
and
true
Allegiance
,
]
which
contain
all
the
promissory
part
of
the
Oath
,
and
have
occasioned
all
the
different
Constructions
of
it
.
It
is
certain
,
that
Words
generally
speaking
have
their
signification
only
from
the
Institution
of
Men
;
and
those
that
are
vulgarly
used
,
and
understood
in
any
Language
,
from
the
common
consent
of
the
People
of
that
Language
;
and
those
that
are
understood
only
by
a
few
,
such
as
are
called
Terms
of
Art
,
from
the
Professors
of
the
several
Arts
and
Sciences
.
The
Words
[
faithful
and
true
Allegiance
]
may
be
consider'd
in
both
respects
,
as
they
are
vulgarly
taken
,
and
understood
by
the
generality
of
the
People
of
this
Nation
;
and
as
they
are
Law-terms
,
which
are
to
be
understood
according
to
the
Sense
of
Lawyers
.
And
first
I
will
consider
what
is
the
signification
of
those
Words
according
to
the
Laws
and
Lawyers
.
1.
I
observe
,
that
the
Lord
Coke
in
Calvin's
Case
does
affirm
,
that
Faith
and
Allegiance
have
only
one
signification
;
and
there
he
produces
several
Instances
to
shew
,
that
Esse
ad
Fidem
Regis
signifies
only
to
be
in
the
Ligeance
of
the
King
:
accordingly
the
same
Oaths
are
sometimes
called
Oaths
of
Fidelity
,
and
sometimes
Oaths
of
Allegiance
without
any
distinction
.
And
Sir
Henry
Spelman
in
his
Glossary
defines
Fidelity
to
be
[
Fidei
,
obsequii
,
&
servitii
ligamen
]
which
is
neither
more
nor
less
than
Allegiance
.
So
that
even
in
this
short
Oath
there
is
still
a
Word
too
much
,
since
Faith
and
Allegiance
do
signifie
the
same
thing
,
and
express
the
same
Duties
of
Subjection
.
2.
The
Subjects
of
England
may
in
two
respects
be
stiled
Fideles
Regis
.
First
as
they
are
Members
of
the
Body
Politick
,
and
are
therefore
obliged
to
pay
the
K.
that
Fidelity
and
Subjection
which
is
due
to
the
Supreme
Head
and
Governor
of
it
,
Secondly
,
As
they
hold
their
Lands
in
Fee
of
the
K.
and
so
are
obliged
to
pay
Fealty
and
Allegiance
to
him
.
A
Fee
is
thus
defin'd
by
the
Feudists
,
That
it
is
a
free
and
benevolent
Grant
of
a
thing
immoveable
,
or
something
equipollent
with
a
conveyance
of
the
Right
to
all
the
Profits
of
it
,
the
Propriety
being
still
reserved
to
the
Lord
;
and
the
Grant
made
upon
Condition
of
Fidelity
,
and
the
performance
of
honest
Services
,
]
So
that
in
this
Feodal
Contract
it
being
expresly
provided
,
that
even
the
Vtile
Dominium
should
revert
unto
the
Lord
upon
breach
of
Fealty
;
the
Vassal
was
hereby
obliged
in
point
of
Interest
,
as
well
as
Gratitude
to
an
exact
performance
of
it
:
and
consequently
all
the
Subjects
of
England
being
Vassals
to
the
K.
are
besides
the
common
Duty
of
Subjects
under
the
same
Additional
Obligations
of
Fidelity
to
him
.
3.
From
this
Tenure
of
Lands
in
Fee
,
they
who
held
them
,
were
sometimes
called
Fideles
,
and
sometimes
Ligii
a
Ligando
;
and
the
Bond
or
Obligation
they
were
under
Fidelitas
,
and
Ligeantia
;
and
the
Oaths
they
took
to
perform
it
,
Oaths
of
Fealty
and
Allegiance
.
For
anciently
Ligeance
was
not
appropriated
to
the
Sovereign
only
,
but
it
denoted
in
general
the
Obligation
of
a
Vassal
to
any
Lord
whatsoever
.
Thus
Hotoman
in
his
Feudal
Dictionary
tells
us
,
That
Liegeman
was
but
another
word
for
a
Vassal
:
and
in
his
Disp
he
spends
a
whole
Chapter
to
prove
it
.
Thus
Du
Fresne
distinguishes
between
an
absolute
Ligeance
due
to
a
Supreme
Lord
,
and
a
Ligeance
paid
to
an
Inferior
,
with
exception
of
the
former
.
So
also
Bracton
,
Glanvil
,
and
Fleta
do
speak
of
Ligeance
as
due
to
any
Capital
Lord
besides
the
King.
And
Spelman
in
his
Exposition
of
the
word
shews
by
several
Instances
,
That
private
Persons
had
their
Liegmen
also
.
But
tho'
Ligeance
had
anciently
so
large
a
Signification
;
yet
4.
It
was
at
length
confin'd
to
denote
only
the
Obligation
of
a
Vassal
to
the
Sovereign
Lord
of
the
Fee.
Hence
that
Distinction
in
the
Feudists
inter
Feudum
ligium
,
&
non
ligium
;
which
is
thus
explain'd
by
Dr.
Cowel
in
his
Institution
;
viz.
[
That
the
former
is
properly
so
called
,
when
an
Oath
of
Fidelity
is
taken
without
exception
of
any
one
;
and
the
later
,
when
it
is
sworn
with
exception
of
another
Fealty
▪
The
one
is
due
only
to
the
K.
and
the
other
even
to
common
Persons
.
]
In
short
,
the
one
was
held
immediately
of
the
Crown
,
and
the
other
mediately
under
an
inferior
Lord
;
and
therefore
it
was
but
equitable
,
that
in
the
Oath
of
Fealty
to
him
,
exception
should
be
made
of
the
King
,
who
was
the
Original
Proprietor
,
and
Sovereign
Lord
of
the
Fee.
5.
Two
considerable
Prerogatives
may
be
observed
from
the
Lawyers
,
which
were
peculiar
to
the
Sovereign
Lord
alone
.
First
,
That
whereas
the
Inferiour
Lord
had
only
propter
rem
a
right
to
the
Fealty
of
his
Vassal
,
from
which
he
might
free
himself
by
surrendring
his
Estate
,
the
Sovereign
Lord
had
a
Right
to
it
propter
personam
also
;
and
consequently
,
tho
his
Liegeman
did
part
with
his
Estate
,
yet
Allegiance
was
still
due
by
vertue
of
that
inalienable
Jurisdiction
,
which
the
Sovereign
had
over
his
Person
.
Secondly
,
Whereas
between
an
Inferior
Lord
and
his
Vassal
,
there
was
such
a
a
strict
reciprocal
Obligation
to
protection
on
the
one
part
,
and
Fidelity
on
the
other
,
that
(
as
the
Tenant
lost
his
Fee
upon
breach
of
Fidelity
;
so
likewise
)
the
Inferior
Lord
,
if
he
refused
protection
to
his
Vassal
,
or
committed
any
enormous
Offence
against
him
,
did
forfeit
[
to
the
Sovereign
Lord
]
all
his
right
to
the
Fee.
Yet
,
as
Molinaeus
affirms
[
this
Penal
Forseiture
of
Dominion
extended
only
to
Inferior
Lords
;
the
Sovereign
being
exempted
from
it
.
]
For
tho
the
Liege-Sovereign
was
bound
to
protect
his
Liegemen
;
yet
there
was
no
provision
that
he
should
forfeit
his
right
to
their
Fealty
,
if
he
did
not
perform
his
Obligations
to
them
.
Indeed
there
can
be
nothing
more
irrational
,
than
to
imagine
such
a
Provision
;
when
Fee-Lands
were
Originally
owing
only
to
the
Munificence
of
Kings
,
and
even
before
that
new
Obligation
of
Fealty
,
they
had
an
antecedent
right
to
the
Fidelity
of
their
Subjects
;
when
the
Kings
Lands
(
as
the
Lawyers
speak
)
were
held
under
God
alone
,
and
therefore
could
not
be
forfeitable
to
any
;
when
the
K.
himself
could
not
be
responsible
for
any
Injury
for
want
of
a
Superiour
Jurisdiction
;
[
and
if
any
were
done
to
the
Subject
,
there
was
no
other
remedy
,
but
only
humble
Petition
,
that
the
K.
would
correct
and
amend
his
Fact
;
which
if
he
refused
to
do
,
it
was
once
thought
a
sufficient
Punishment
for
him
,
that
God
was
to
be
his
Avenger
.
]
This
I
have
here
observ'd
,
because
the
Assertors
of
the
Republican
Doctrines
have
maintained
,
that
Kings
may
forfeit
their
Crowns
,
not
only
from
the
nature
of
that
Imaginary
Contract
,
which
they
suppose
was
made
at
the
first
Origine
of
the
Government
;
but
also
from
that
Contract
which
was
made
between
the
Sovereign
,
and
his
Vassals
,
and
which
they
suppose
to
be
equaily
on
both
sides
Conditionate
.
6.
Though
these
Feudal
Laws
are
now
in
a
great
measure
antiquated
;
yet
the
Fealty
by
which
a
Vassal
is
bound
to
his
Lord
is
still
in
force
.
Sir
Henry
Spelman
says
,
[
That
Fealty
in
England
is
inseparable
from
all
Tenures
,
and
though
it
be
now
but
seldom
exacted
,
yet
it
can
by
no
means
be
releas'd
without
destruction
of
the
Tenure
;
so
that
the
taking
of
the
Oath
seems
rather
to
be
remitted
,
than
the
Obligation
it self
to
be
dissolv'd
.
]
And
much
more
does
the
Obligation
of
Fealty
to
the
K.
continue
still
in
force-upon
all
the
Subjects
by
virtue
of
their
Tenures
from
him
.
The
same
great
Antiquary
affirms
,
That
the
Feudal
Law
was
first
brought
into
England
by
William
the
Conqueror
,
[
Qui
lege
eâ
è
Normannia
traductâ
Angliam
totam
suis
divisit
commilitibus
.
]
And
this
universal
distribution
of
the
English
Lands
among
his
Soldiers
,
and
Institution
of
Fee
service
is
attested
by
†
Mat.
Paris
,
and
by
Mr.
*
Cambden
also
.
And
hence
it
is
,
that
all
the
Lands
of
England
being
originally
derived
from
the
Crown
,
are
still
held
of
the
King
in
nature
of
a
Fee
,
which
implies
Fealty
to
him
.
And
this
is
a
true
,
and
easie
account
of
those
Assertions
of
the
Lawyers
:
[
That
the
King
is
the
Sovereign
Lord
,
or
Lord
Paramount
,
either
mediate
or
immeate
of
every
parcel
of
Land
within
the
Realm
;
and
that
the
Subjects
have
not
a
direct
and
plenary
Dominion
,
but
only
a
Fiduciary
,
and
conditionate
property
in
their
Estates
,
]
which
are
still
forfeitable
by
the
common
Law
,
and
upon
breach
of
Fealty
do
revert
to
the
Original
Donor
.
Which
Law
,
according
to
the
nature
of
the
Crime
,
does
also
vary
the
forfeiture
:
as
in
case
of
Felony
the
K.
hath
a
Year
,
a
Day
,
and
the
Wast
;
after
which
it
passeth
down
to
the
Heir
:
But
in
case
of
Treason
,
which
is
the
highest
breach
of
Fealty
,
after
Legal
Conviction
of
the
Traytor
,
the
Fee
is
for
ever
forfeited
,
and
all
his
Lands
and
Tenements
are
absolutely
at
the
King's
disposal
.
And
though
a
Statute
was
made
25
Ed.
III.
to
determine
what
was
precisely
Treason
:
yet
this
was
only
declarative
of
what
was
truly
Treason
by
the
Feudal
Laws
,
which
were
then
a
part
of
the
Common
Law
of
England
.
And
hence
it
appears
,
how
necessary
it
is
for
the
understanding
of
the
true
meaning
of
Faith
and
Allegiance
,
to
enquire
into
the
nature
of
Fealty
;
whence
the
Subjects
are
called
Fideles
&
Ligii
Regis
;
and
from
which
all
our
Oaths
of
Fidelity
,
and
Allegiance
derive
their
Birth
,
and
Original
.
7.
As
the
word
Allegiance
was
appropriated
to
express
the
Obligation
of
a
Liege
Vassal
to
his
Sovereign
:
so
was
it
also
at
length
enlarged
to
comprehend
all
the
duties
of
Fidelity
and
Subjection
,
which
(
not
only
they
,
who
hold
Lands
in
Fee
,
but
also
)
every
individual
Subject
of
this
Realm
was
bound
to
pay
unto
the
King.
Thus
Zouch
out
of
Duarenus
,
[
The
Fidelity
,
which
is
due
to
the
Sovereign
,
is
by
the
Feudists
called
Ligeance
,
and
as
many
as
live
within
his
Dominions
are
stiled
Liege-men
;
who
are
bound
to
the
Sovereign
not
only
by
reason
of
their
Estates
,
but
also
in
respect
of
their
Persons
,
and
his
Protection
of
them
.
]
The
reason
then
why
all
the
Subjects
of
this
Realm
are
called
the
King's
Liege-men
is
,
because
their
persons
being
under
his
Jurisdiction
,
and
Protection
,
they
are
therefore
bound
to
pay
due
Fealty
and
Allegiance
to
him
.
This
universal
Allegiance
of
all
the
natural
Subjects
of
this
Realm
,
is
by
the
Lord
Coke
distinguished
.
1.
Into
natural
Ligeance
;
which
is
so
called
,
because
it
is
originally
due
by
Nature
,
and
Birthright
.
And
,
2.
Legal
Ligeance
;
so
called
,
because
the
Municipal
Laws
of
this
Realm
prescribe
the
Form
and
Order
of
it
:
and
this
,
says
he
,
is
that
,
which
the
Law
requires
upon
Oath
at
the
Leet
.
This
Oath
of
Allegiance
in
his
Institutes
he
says
expresly
,
is
the
same
with
Homagium
Ligeum
,
which
he
thus
defines
in
Calvin's
Case
,
[
Quod
soli
Regi
debetur
sine
servitio
;
]
and
opposes
it
to
Homagium
Feudale
,
which
hath
it's
original
by
Tenure
.
And
to
this
Sir
Henry
Spelman
seems
to
agree
;
who
tells
us
,
That
Liege
,
or
Sovereign
Homage
is
due
only
to
the
King
in
right
of
Sovereignty
.
And
they
both
differ
herein
,
from
the
Feudists
;
who
define
Homage
to
be
Sponsionem
fidelitatis
propter
Tenuram
;
and
from
our
ancient
Lawyers
,
who
do
intimate
,
that
Liege
Homage
was
made
unto
private
Persons
also
.
8.
The
word
Ligeance
is
yet
further
in
our
Laws
,
and
Lawyers
enlarged
to
denote
the
duty
,
not
of
natural
Subjects
only
,
but
also
of
Denisons
,
and
Aliens
.
Thus
we
are
informed
likewise
in
Calvin's
Case
,
that
besides
natural
Ligeance
there
is
also
Ligeantia
acquisita
,
which
is
due
by
acquisition
,
or
Denization
;
and
Ligeantia
Localis
,
and
that
is
,
when
an
Alien
,
who
is
in
amity
,
cometh
into
England
,
because
he
is
then
within
the
King's
Protection
,
he
does
therefore
owe
a
Local
Allegiance
to
him
.
9.
Lastly
,
Allegiance
is
sometimes
taken
in
a
signification
yet
more
general
,
and
extensive
to
express
the
mutual
,
and
reciprocal
Obligation
between
the
Liege
Sovereign
and
his
Subjects
;
whereby
the
Sovereign
is
bound
to
the
Protection
,
and
just
Government
of
his
Subjects
;
and
they
again
to
pay
due
Fidelity
,
and
Subjection
to
their
Sovereign
.
And
thus
it
is
defined
in
general
by
Skene
in
his
Book
De
Expositione
Verborum
,
who
is
herein
followed
by
the
Lord
Coke
,
and
Sir
Henry
Spelman
also
.
It
appears
then
in
how
great
a
Latitude
the
word
Allegiance
is
taken
,
and
how
variously
it
has
been
applied
to
express
different
Obligations
to
different
Persons
.
The
various
significations
of
it
(
as
far
as
I
can
observe
)
may
be
reduced
to
these
six
.
First
,
It
anciently
denoted
the
Service
,
and
Fidelity
,
that
any
Vassal
owed
to
the
Lord
of
the
Fee.
Secondly
,
It
was
confin'd
to
express
the
duty
of
a
Liege
Vassal
to
the
Sovereign
Lord.
Thirdly
,
It
was
then
enlarged
to
comprehend
the
whole
duty
of
every
natural
Subject
to
his
natural
Sovereign
.
Fourthly
,
It
sometimes
signifies
that
Oath
of
Fidelity
,
which
the
Law
requires
of
every
Subject
,
and
is
therefore
call'd
Legal
Ligeance
.
Fifthly
,
It
is
said
to
express
the
Obligation
of
a
Foreigner
,
as
of
a
Denison
;
and
of
an
Alien
while
he
is
in
the
Realm
.
And
lastly
,
It
is
applied
to
express
the
reciprocal
Obligations
,
that
are
between
a
Liege
Sovereign
,
and
his
Subjects
.
As
for
this
last
signification
of
Allegiance
,
we
have
already
consider'd
it
,
where
we
discoursed
of
the
Prerogatives
of
the
Sovereign
Lords
:
for
here
we
are
to
consider
the
duty
of
Allegiance
,
as
it
relates
to
Subjects
only
:
and
there
would
be
nothing
more
absurd
,
than
to
say
,
That
when
Subjects
swear
Allegiance
to
their
King
,
they
do
swear
that
he
also
shall
discharge
the
Obligations
of
a
Liege
Sovereign
towards
them
.
So
likewise
when
Allegiance
is
applied
to
Aliens
,
the
very
nature
of
the
thing
does
shew
,
that
it
must
signifie
only
those
branches
of
the
duty
of
Allegiance
,
which
an
Alien
is
bound
to
while
he
is
in
England
,
viz.
conformity
to
the
Laws
,
and
an
obligation
not
to
attempt
any
thing
against
the
King
,
while
he
is
within
his
Protection
.
So
also
when
it
is
applied
to
a
Denison
,
who
is
made
free
of
the
Kingdom
,
but
not
entitled
to
all
the
Liberties
,
and
Priviledges
of
a
Natural
Subject
,
it
can
then
signifie
only
those
duties
of
Allegiance
,
which
a
Denison
is
obliged
to
,
whatsoever
they
are
.
For
as
the
Duties
of
Allegiance
are
diversified
by
the
different
qualities
of
Natural
Subjects
;
and
a
Clerk
,
a
Soldier
,
and
Artificer
are
not
bound
to
the
same
particular
acts
of
Allegiance
:
so
likewise
the
different
degres
of
Allegiance
must
be
determin'd
by
the
different
degrees
of
subjection
:
and
therefore
a
Natural
Subject
,
who
enjoys
all
the
Liberties
,
and
Priviledges
of
the
Kingdom
,
and
owes
the
highest
degree
of
subjection
,
must
be
in
reason
obliged
to
a
higher
degree
of
Allegiance
than
a
Denison
,
who
,
though
he
be
to
some
intents
incorporated
into
this
Kingdom
,
is
yet
the
natural
Subject
of
another
Sovereign
:
and
he
again
is
obliged
to
more
than
an
Alien
,
who
is
only
a
Subject
in
Transitu
,
and
enjoys
nothing
but
Protection
from
Injury
.
But
we
have
now
nothing
to
do
with
Allegiance
,
as
it
is
applied
to
Foreigners
.
Allegiance
in
the
Oath
before
us
is
required
,
and
imposed
upon
all
the
Natural
Subjects
of
this
Realm
;
and
therefore
it
must
be
that
,
which
is
due
from
Natural
Subjects
,
and
not
such
as
is
due
from
Foreigners
.
We
are
bound
to
honour
God
,
and
the
King
,
and
Subordinate
Magistrates
,
our
Spiritual
Rulers
,
our
Parents
,
all
our
Superiors
,
and
in
some
sense
all
our
Inferiors
.
Honour
is
due
to
all
these
,
but
in
different
kinds
,
and
degrees
according
to
the
nature
of
the
Duty
,
as
it
is
applied
by
different
Persons
to
different
Objects
.
Now
it
would
be
a
gross
absurdity
,
when
we
are
commanded
to
honour
God
,
or
the
King
,
to
interpret
it
of
such
a
degree
of
honour
,
as
is
due
to
a
Parish
Priest
,
a
Constable
,
or
a
Beggar
,
because
honour
is
due
respectively
to
every
one
of
these
.
So
it
is
equally
absurd
,
when
Allegiance
is
universally
required
of
all
the
Natural
Subjects
,
because
the
word
is
sometimes
taken
in
a
lower
sense
,
when
it
is
referr'd
to
Aliens
,
to
argue
from
thence
,
that
the
Law
,
which
requires
Allegiance
from
all
Natural
Subjects
,
requires
no
more
,
than
an
Alien
is
bound
to
.
To
argue
thus
,
is
at
once
to
do
violence
to
common
sense
,
and
Language
;
for
as
no
one
that
understands
either
,
can
imagine
that
the
Precept
which
enjoyns
Sons
to
honour
their
Parents
,
requires
less
than
filial
Duty
,
and
Obedience
,
though
the
word
honour
often
signifies
less
:
so
neither
can
it
be
reasonably
imagin'd
,
that
Allegiance
in
the
Oath
imposed
does
signifie
less
,
than
all
that
Fidelity
,
and
Obedience
,
which
a
Natural
Subject
owes
to
his
Natural
Sovereign
,
though
the
word
,
as
it
relates
to
Aliens
,
may
sometimes
signifie
less
.
But
however
,
if
Allegiance
must
needs
be
understood
in
that
sense
;
as
if
by
the
force
of
that
word
we
were
obliged
to
no
more
,
than
what
even
an
Alien
may
swear
to
perform
:
yet
it
is
to
be
consider'd
,
that
even
the
Local
Allegiance
,
which
an
Alien
owes
to
the
King
in
whose
Dominions
he
is
,
does
at
the
least
oblige
him
not
to
attempt
against
his
Crown
and
Dignity
,
as
long
as
he
resides
in
those
Dominions
.
Whereas
he
,
who
conceives
his
Oath
to
K.
J.
to
be
still
Obligatory
,
must
consequently
think
himself
obliged
to
attempt
the
dethroning
of
the
K.
de
facto
;
and
cannot
therefore
swear
even
a
Local
Allegiance
to
him
.
It
remains
then
to
consider
the
other
Applications
of
the
word
Allegiance
,
which
are
all
reducible
to
these
two
;
that
Allegiance
,
which
was
requir'd
of
those
who
held
Lands
in
Fee
;
and
that
which
is
required
of
all
the
Subjects
in
general
,
which
is
also
distinguished
into
Legal
,
and
Natural
Allegiance
.
And
these
several
kinds
of
Allegiance
are
not
thus
distinguished
,
because
they
import
different
Duties
;
but
in
respect
of
the
different
Grounds
,
from
whence
their
Obligation
is
derived
.
For
I
shall
produce
undeniable
proofs
,
that
they
do
all
concur
in
obliging
us
to
the
same
Duties
:
and
that
,
which
I
undertake
to
evince
,
is
this
;
That
Allegiance
in
those
several
acceptations
does
import
,
not
only
that
Obedience
,
and
Submission
,
which
may
be
lawfully
paid
to
an
Usurper
,
with
a
Reservation
of
Fidelity
to
the
lawful
King
;
which
is
the
sense
of
the
lowest
:
nor
yet
a
meer
peaceable
Neutrality
,
which
may
make
a
middle
construction
:
but
that
it
always
imports
an
Obligation
to
defend
our
Sovereign's
Crown
and
Dignity
,
to
the
utmost
of
our
power
,
against
all
Persons
whatsoever
,
without
any
exception
;
and
never
to
give
any
assistance
,
or
support
to
any
of
his
Enemies
against
him
;
as
the
first
,
and
highest
Construction
of
the
Oath
explains
it
.
And
first
,
for
the
better
understanding
the
Obligation
of
Feudal
Allegiance
;
it
is
requisite
to
enquire
into
that
Fidelity
,
which
every
Vassal
was
bound
to
pay
unto
his
Lord.
And
there
can
be
nothing
more
evident
,
than
that
it
obliged
him
not
only
to
abstinence
from
all
Injuries
,
but
also
to
an
active
,
and
vigorous
assistance
of
him
.
This
is
abundantly
evident
from
the
Feudal
Books
annexed
to
the
body
of
the
Civil
Law
:
out
of
which
I
shall
produce
some
demonstrative
proofs
to
evince
it
.
At
the
Investiture
of
a
Fee
,
the
Vassal
was
to
swear
Fidelity
in
this
form
.
[
Ego
Titius
juro
super
haec
sancta
Dei
Evangelia
quod
ab
hâc
horâ
in
ant●a
usque
ad
ultimum
diem
vitae
ero
fidelis
tibi
Cato
Domino
meo
contra
omnem
hominem
exceptô
Imperatore
,
vel
Rege
.
]
And
there
follows
in
the
Law
an
Explanation
of
the
Oath
to
this
Effect
.
[
I
swear
,
that
I
will
never
be
in
Counsel
,
or
aid
against
the
Life
,
Person
,
or
H●nour
of
you
my
Lord
:
and
if
any
such
design
shall
come
to
my
knowledge
,
I
will
discover
it
to
you
as
〈◊〉
,
as
may
be
,
and
be
ready
to
assist
you
to
the
utmost
of
my
power
:
and
if
you
shall
chance
to
be
unjustly
deprived
of
any
thing
I
will
aid
you
to
recover
it
:
and
if
you
make
a
just
Offensive
War
upon
any
One
,
I
will
be
ready
upon
due
Summons
with
all
my
might
to
assist
you
]
These
were
the
particularities
,
which
by
the
Feudal
Law
were
contain'd
in
the
Oath
of
Fealty
In
another
place
it
is
expresly
provided
,
that
the
Vassal
should
give
his
Counsel
and
assistance
to
his
Lord
for
the
preservation
of
his
Life
,
and
Honour
,
his
Fortresses
,
and
Possessions
;
because
,
says
that
Law
,
[
It
is
not
sufficient
to
abstain
from
Injuries
,
unless
actual
good
Service
were
performed
also
.
Another
proof
hereof
may
be
deduced
from
the
Obligation
of
a
Vassal
to
assist
his
Lord
in
his
Wars
.
Hotoman
observes
,
That
in
the
Feudal
Laws
Vassals
are
commonly
called
Soldiers
,
and
that
anciently
none
but
such
were
capable
of
Lands
in
Fee
,
because
the
greatest
part
of
their
Feudal
Services
were
purely
Military
.
Accordingly
it
is
declared
in
those
Laws
;
[
*
That
the
Vassal
was
bound
to
assist
his
Lord
in
his
Offensive
Wars
,
if
he
knew
them
to
be
just
;
or
if
he
only
doubted
of
the
justice
of
them
:
but
if
the
War
was
manifestly
unjust
,
even
then
he
was
bound
to
assist
him
in
his
necessary
Defence
,
but
not
also
in
the
unjust
Invasion
of
others
.
]
And
lastly
,
If
the
Vassal
upon
due
Summons
refused
to
give
his
assistance
,
if
he
deserted
his
Lord
in
the
time
of
Battle
,
if
he
did
not
discover
all
Designs
against
his
Life
,
Honour
,
and
Estate
,
that
came
to
his
knowledge
;
and
much
more
,
if
he
did
any
thing
,
that
tended
to
the
destruction
,
or
disherison
of
his
Lord
,
there
were
express
provisions
,
that
in
such
,
and
other
Cases
he
should
forfeit
his
Tenure
for
his
Treachery
,
and
Ingratitude
.
It
is
necessary
here
to
observe
,
That
the
same
Obligations
of
a
Vassal
to
his
Lord
,
which
were
required
by
the
Imperial
Feudal
Law
,
were
also
admitted
,
and
exacted
by
the
Common
Law
of
England
.
It
is
evident
from
Glanville
,
[
That
the
Vassal
was
bound
to
assist
his
Lord
in
his
Wars
;
and
if
he
held
of
more
,
than
one
,
to
fight
in
his
Person
with
his
Capital
Lord
,
even
against
his
other
Lords
,
in
case
he
were
so
required
.
]
Every
one
knows
,
that
there
were
anciently
several
Tenures
among
us
,
which
were
purely
Military
:
and
though
Tenures
upon
condition
of
Services
purely
Civil
were
also
introduced
,
such
as
Soccage
,
and
others
;
yet
even
in
these
the
Vassals
were
obliged
to
perform
Homage
,
and
swear
Fidelity
to
their
Lords
.
And
from
that
ancient
form
of
Homage
,
which
we
have
in
the
Statute
Book
,
and
in
Bracton
,
Fleta
,
and
Littleton
,
it
is
evident
,
that
the
Vassal
was
not
only
obliged
to
a
Negative
Fidelity
,
which
consists
in
abstaining
from
Injury
;
but
also
to
positive
services
,
and
assistance
of
him
.
The
form
runs
thus
,
[
I
become
your
Man
from
this
day
forward
of
Life
and
Limb
,
and
unto
you
shall
be
true
,
and
faithful
;
and
bear
you
Faith
for
the
Tenements
,
that
I
claim
to
hold
of
you
;
saving
the
Faith
,
which
I
owe
unto
our
Sovereign
Lord
the
King.
The
Lord
Coke
in
his
Institutes
gives
us
this
Exposition
of
it
.
[
Foial
,
and
Lo●al
,
(
which
are
words
equivalent
to
faithful
and
true
Allegiance
in
the
Oath
before
us
)
these
words
are
of
great
extent
,
for
they
extend
to
the
observation
of
the
Lord's
Counsel
,
in
whatsoever
is
honest
,
and
profitable
:
Omnis
homo
debet
fidem
Domino
suo
de
vitâ
&
membris
suis
,
&
terrenô
honorê
,
&
observatione
consilii
sui
per
honestum
&
utile
.
Comprehended
in
these
words
,
Foial
and
Loyal
.
I
become
your
Man
,
of
Life
,
and
Limb.
Therefore
he
must
never
be
armed
against
,
or
opposite
to
his
Lord
:
but
both
his
Life
and
Member
must
be
ready
for
the
lawful
Defence
of
his
Lord.
]
And
this
is
sufficient
to
shew
,
that
by
the
Feudal
Law
,
as
it
is
received
in
England
,
every
Vassal
is
obliged
to
an
active
Fidelity
and
Assistance
of
his
Lord.
Where
fore
.
2.
If
this
was
the
Obligation
of
every
Vassal
to
his
Lord
;
is
it
possible
for
Men
of
sense
to
imagine
,
that
a
lower
degree
of
Fidelity
was
due
to
a
Sovereign
Lord
,
who
had
a
double
right
to
the
Service
of
his
Vassals
,
a
property
in
their
Estates
,
and
a
Jurisdiction
over
their
Persons
?
Has
the
Law
ordain'd
,
that
the
Servant
shall
be
above
his
Master
,
and
the
Subject
above
his
Sovereign
?
Has
it
provided
for
the
safety
of
an
inferior
Lord
,
and
left
the
Sovereign
defenceless
?
Given
the
one
a
right
to
the
utmost
service
of
his
Vassal
,
and
obliged
the
other
to
be
content
with
a
peaceable
Indifferency
,
and
a
cold
Neutrality
?
Or
lastly
,
Can
it
be
supposed
,
that
Sovereign
Princes
,
who
enacted
,
or
introduced
these
Laws
,
did
intend
that
their
own
Subjects
should
have
such
a
Superiority
above
themselves
in
the
Fidelity
of
their
Vassals
?
This
surely
must
be
necessarily
false
,
as
it
is
plainly
irrational
.
And
to
shew
that
it
is
so
,
it
will
be
sufficient
to
observe
,
1.
That
in
the
Homage
,
and
Oaths
of
Fealty
made
by
Vassals
to
inferior
Lords
,
the
Sovereign
Lord
was
expresly
excepted
.
Spelman
,
and
others
tell
us
,
[
That
Frederick
Barbarossa
made
a
Law
,
that
the
Emperor
should
be
expresly
excepted
in
all
Oaths
of
Fidelity
;
and
that
this
Law
was
universally
received
in
all
Nations
;
]
And
that
it
was
here
observed
in
England
is
evident
from
the
form
of
Homage
here
inserted
,
and
the
ancient
Oath
of
Fealty
in
Fleta
.
But
also
.
2.
By
the
same
Feudal
Laws
,
the
Liege
Vassals
of
the
Sovereign
were
expresly
obliged
to
assist
,
and
defend
him
against
all
Persons
whatsoever
without
any
exception
.
This
is
evident
from
the
very
definition
of
Liege
Homage
in
Skene
,
and
of
a
Liege
Tenure
in
the
Feudists
,
and
from
the
common
Form
of
Liege
Homage
here
in
England
,
which
was
made
to
the
King
in
these
Words
,
[
I
become
your
man
for
the
Fees
and
Tenements
which
I
hold
of
you
;
and
will
bear
you
Faith
of
your
Lise
,
and
Limbs
,
your
Body
,
Chattels
,
and
Terrene
Honour
against
all
Mortals
whatsoever
.
]
As
for
those
,
who
held
in
Feudo-ligio
,
that
is
,
immediately
of
the
King
;
it
is
undeniable
,
that
they
were
bound
for
their
Fee
to
assist
the
King
in
his
Wars
;
and
it
is
no
less
certain
,
that
Vassals
of
Inferior
Lords
,
who
held
but
mediately
of
the
Crown
,
were
also
bound
to
the
same
assistance
of
their
Sovereign
.
To
this
purpose
a
Passage
out
of
Willelmus
Nubrigensis
,
is
cited
by
Du-Fresne
,
[
Regi
Anglorum
tanquam
principali
Domino
hominium
cum
Ligeantia
;
i.
e.
solenni
cautione
,
standi
cum
eo
,
&
pro
eo
contra
omnes
homines
.
]
So
Glanvile
informs
us
,
[
That
a
Vassal
at
the
Command
of
the
Prince
,
was
bound
to
fight
against
his
own
immediate
Lord.
]
And
lastly
,
that
Statute
of
the
Conqueror
does
expresly
prove
it
,
wherein
he
commands
[
All
Earls
,
Barons
,
Knights
,
Serjeants
,
and
all
the
Free-men
of
the
whole
Kingdom
to
be
always
well
provided
with
Horse
and
Arms
to
serve
him
as
often
as
need
shall
require
,
according
as
they
are
bound
by
their
Lands
and
Tenements
,
and
as
he
had
appointed
them
to
do
by
the
common
Council
of
the
Kingdom
;
and
for
that
consideration
had
given
them
Lands
in
Fee
for
ever
.
Hitherto
therefore
it
appears
,
that
Ligeance
in
its
Original
signification
implied
an
obligation
to
assist
the
Sovereign
against
all
his
Enemies
without
exception
.
And
since
all
our
Oaths
of
Allegiance
are
manifestly
derived
from
the
Feudal
Oaths
,
it
must
needs
be
probable
,
that
the
Ligeance
universally
required
of
all
the
Subjects
,
is
not
much
different
from
the
Feudal
,
to
which
it
owes
its
original
.
And
this
universal
Allegiance
I
shall
first
consider
in
General
;
and
endeavour
to
shew
the
Obligation
of
it
out
of
our
Laws
,
and
Lawyers
,
Secondly
,
I
shall
consider
it
,
as
it
is
stiled
Legal
;
And
Thirdly
,
Natural
Allegiance
.
1.
I
am
to
consider
the
obligation
of
Universal
Allegiance
in
general
.
Hotoman
observes
,
that
there
are
two
kinds
of
Fidelity
;
the
one
perform'd
by
Vassals
,
and
the
other
by
Citizens
,
or
Subjects
:
And
for
this
he
cites
a
Law
of
the
Emperor
Frederick
,
to
this
effect
;
[
Let
our
Vassals
swear
Fealty
to
us
,
as
Vassals
,
and
all
others
as
Citizens
,
from
sixteen
years
to
seventy
.
]
And
in
his
Disputations
he
proves
from
several
Forms
of
Oaths
of
Fidelity
exacted
by
several
Princes
,
of
all
their
Subjects
,
that
they
do
oblige
to
the
same
Duties
with
those
required
of
Vassals
:
and
the
Forms
he
there
produces
,
do
particularly
oblige
to
an
active
Fidelity
and
Assistance
of
the
Sovereign
against
all
men
living
.
Agreeably
,
in
this
Kingdom
,
as
all
the
Subjects
are
therefore
called
Liegemen
,
beccause
they
are
bound
unto
their
King
,
as
Vassals
to
their
Lord
;
so
the
Oaths
they
were
required
to
take
,
and
the
Allegiance
they
were
bound
to
pay
unto
the
King
,
are
the
same
in
substance
with
the
Feudal
Oaths
,
and
Obligations
of
a
Vassal
to
his
Liege
Lord
and
Sovereign
.
The
late
Interpreter
of
the
Law-terms
,
tells
us
,
[
That
Ligeancy
is
most
commonly
used
for
that
Duty
,
which
every
good
Subject
owes
to
his
Leige
Lord
the
King.
]
And
says
after
Cowel
,
That
it
is
thus
defined
in
the
Great
Customary
of
Normandy
,
*
[
That
it
is
an
Obligation
upon
all
Vassals
to
take
part
with
their
Liege
Lord
against
all
men
living
,
to
serve
him
with
their
Persons
,
Assistance
and
Advice
;
to
do
him
no
Injury
,
nor
in
any
thing
to
support
his
Adversaries
against
him
.
]
So
that
hence
it
is
obvious
,
That
this
Interpreter
took
the
Allegiance
of
a
Vassal
and
every
good
Subject
to
be
exactly
the
same
;
and
thought
this
to
be
a
good
Definition
of
it
;
which
is
as
absolutely
inconsistent
with
a
pure
Neutrality
,
or
a
Reservation
of
an
higher
degree
of
Allegiance
to
another
,
as
Words
can
express
.
The
same
Learned
Interpreter
has
yet
added
out
of
the
Lord
Coke
another
more
modern
Explication
of
it
;
viz
[
That
it
is
the
true
and
faithful
Obedience
of
the
Subject
to
his
Sovereign
.
]
But
neither
will
this
import
a
meer
Neutrality
,
or
only
a
peaceable
Conformity
to
the
Laws
,
if
we
will
take
the
sense
of
the
Author
from
his
own
Account
of
the
Duties
of
Allegiance
.
He
gives
us
this
Definition
in
Calvin's
Case
:
But
in
the
same
Case
he
positively
asserts
,
[
That
all
the
Subjects
of
this
Realm
are
bound
by
their
Allegiance
to
discover
and
oppose
all
Treasons
against
the
King
,
to
assist
him
in
his
Wars
,
and
even
to
spend
their
Blood
in
his
Defence
.
]
He
gives
the
same
Description
in
his
Institutes
also
;
but
he
had
before
explain'd
what
was
signified
by
Faithful
and
Loyal
;
which
,
according
to
him
,
do
imply
positive
Duties
of
actual
Support
and
Assistance
.
So
that
by
True
and
Faithful
Obedience
in
this
Definition
,
must
be
understood
all
those
positive
Duties
of
Fidelity
and
Obedience
which
every
Subject
owes
his
Sovereign
by
virtue
of
his
Allegiance
:
And
what
those
are
,
may
be
clearly
understood
from
the
known
Laws
of
the
Land
,
which
do
plainly
intimate
and
inform
us
to
what
Duties
true
Allegiance
does
bind
us
.
I
shall
here
out
of
many
,
produce
but
two
Passages
only
;
and
the
first
shall
be
out
of
the
Act
of
Recognition
.
1●
Jac.
1.
c.
1.
[
Wherein
both
the
H●us●s
do
unto
His
Maiesty
most
humbly
and
faithfully
submit
,
and
oblige
themselves
,
their
Heirs
and
Posterity
for
ever
until
the
last
drop
of
their
Blood
be
spent
;
and
do
beseech
His
Maiesty
to
accept
of
the
same
,
at
the
first
fruits
of
this
High
Court
of
Parliament
,
of
their
Loyalty
and
Faith
to
His
Majesty
,
and
his
Royal
Progeny
and
Posterity
for
ever
.
]
By
Loyalty
,
here
is
meant
nothing
but
Allegiance
,
to
which
it
is
equivalent
;
and
hence
we
may
observe
,
first
,
That
the
Parliament
here
obliged
themselves
to
the
utmost
possible
assistance
and
defence
of
his
Majesty
without
any
Conditions
and
Reserves
;
even
until
the
last
drop
of
their
Blood
was
spent
.
Secondly
,
They
call
this
Obligation
the
first
Fruits
of
their
Faith
and
Allegiance
,
and
therefore
certainly
contained
in
them
.
And
,
Thirdly
,
As
far
as
a
Law
can
do
it
,
they
oblige
not
themselves
only
,
but
their
Heirs
and
Posterity
for
ever
,
and
that
not
to
the
King
then
in
being
only
,
but
to
his
Royal
Progeny
also
and
Posterity
for
ever
.
The
other
Passage
is
,
11
H.
7.
c.
18.
Where
it
is
plainly
and
expresly
declared
,
[
That
every
Subject
by
the
Duty
of
his
Allegiance
is
bound
to
serve
and
assist
his
Prince
and
Sovereign
Lord
at
all
Seasons
when
need
shall
require
;
and
in
particular
,
against
his
Rebels
and
Enemies
,
for
the
Suppressing
and
subduing
of
them
.
]
This
is
so
express
and
authentick
a
Declaration
of
the
true
Duty
of
Allegiance
,
that
no
Art
nor
Sophistry
can
possibly
evade
it
.
And
upon
this
Statute
among
others
,
did
K.
Charles
the
Martyr
justifie
his
Commissions
of
Array
in
his
Proclamation
against
Levying
Forces
;
and
in
another
,
for
setting
up
his
Standard
,
he
required
all
his
Subjects
on
the
North-side
of
Trent
,
upon
their
Allegiance
to
repair
to
his
Royal
Standard
at
Nottingham
,
for
his
just
and
necessary
defence
.
So
that
this
is
not
an
obsolete
and
antiquated
Notion
of
Allegiance
,
but
such
as
our
Laws
both
ancient
and
modern
have
ever
exacted
,
such
as
the
Sages
of
the
Law
have
often
inculcated
,
such
as
our
Kings
have
always
claimed
,
and
their
Loyal
Subjects
have
yielded
them
in
their
necessity
.
I
shall
only
observe
further
,
That
it
seems
to
be
a
Maxim
universally
received
by
all
the
Feudists
and
Lawyers
;
Quod
nemo
potest
esse
Ligius
du
〈…〉
um
;
or
as
Cowel
after
Skene
expresses
it
,
[
That
Ligeancy
is
such
a
Duty
or
Fealty
,
as
no
man
may
bear
to
more
than
one
Lord.
]
And
this
Rule
is
founded
on
that
Aphorism
of
even
Truth
it self
,
No
man
can
serve
two
Masters
;
that
is
,
two
absolute
and
independent
Masters
at
once
:
For
if
one
be
subordinate
to
the
other
,
then
both
may
be
served
faithfully
in
a
due
subordination
;
and
thus
the
same
person
may
be
a
Vassal
to
an
Inferior
and
a
Capital
Lord
,
to
a
Subject
and
a
Sovereign
:
But
Ligeance
being
now
constantly
taken
for
the
Obligation
of
Fidelity
to
a
Sovereign
Lord
against
all
men
living
;
it
would
be
a
very
gross
contradiction
to
say
,
that
the
same
person
may
be
the
Liegeman
of
two
Sovereign
Princes
at
once
,
because
it
is
impossible
he
should
adhere
to
both
against
all
men
living
;
and
this
will
be
yet
more
absurd
,
if
the
two
Sovereigns
be
in
open
hostility
,
and
mutually
endeavouring
to
destroy
each
other
;
for
then
adher●nce
to
the
one
must
necessarily
be
Treason
against
the
other
;
and
the
Liegeman
will
be
bound
to
assist
,
&
to
oppose
,
to
defend
,
and
to
destroy
them
both
.
The
reason
of
that
Maxim
therefore
is
very
evident
.
And
hence
it
appears
,
how
absurd
it
is
to
make
Allegiance
signifie
Neutrality
;
whereby
the
Subject
becomes
the
Liegeman
of
two
Sovereign
Princes
;
or
to
speak
properly
,
of
neither
;
or
else
to
signifie
Fidelity
to
one
King
with
a
Reserve
of
assisting
anothen
King
to
destroy
him
.
But
the
Law
has
no
where
obliged
us
to
such
cross
and
contradictory
Obligations
:
And
as
for
those
subtle
Distinctions
between
a
higher
and
lower
kind
of
Allegiance
;
an
Allegiance
due
to
a
King
de
facto
,
and
another
at
the
same
time
to
a
King
de
jure
;
an
a
solute
and
a
conditioaate
,
an
active
and
an
unactive
;
a
reserving
and
an
unreserving
Allegiance
;
I
may
say
concerning
them
(
as
Judge
Jenkins
did
of
Acts
of
Parliament
without
the
Kings
Assent
,
[
That
no
man
can
shew
any
Syllable
,
L
〈…〉
er
,
or
Line
to
au
horize
them
in
the
Books
of
the
Law
,
or
Printed
Acts
of
Parliament
in
any
Age
in
this
Land.
]
For
since
it
is
not
yet
done
,
I
presume
that
that
it
cannot
;
and
it
is
another
Maxim
in
the
interpretation
of
all
Laws
,
Civil
and
Divine
[
ubi
Lex
non
distinguit
,
ibi
non
disiirguendum
est
.
]
Such
is
the
nature
of
that
Allegiance
in
general
,
which
is
universally
due
from
all
the
Subjects
;
and
this
is
next
to
be
considered
,
as
it
is
stil'd
Legal
Ligeanc
〈…〉
;
and
this
doth
not
import
,
as
the
Word
seems
to
intimate
,
an
Allegiance
bounded
and
circumscribed
by
Law
;
but
it
is
therefore
so
called
,
because
the
Law
requires
it
of
every
Subject
upon
Oath
,
and
has
prescribed
the
Form
and
manner
of
it
.
Though
Allegiance
be
universally
due
by
all
Laws
,
Civil
,
Natural
and
Divine
;
yet
the
security
of
the
Sovereign
Power
being
of
such
vast
importance
to
the
preservation
of
Peace
and
Justice
,
and
even
to
the
very
Being
of
Law
,
and
Political
Society
,
as
that
they
cannot
possibly
subssst
without
it
:
the
wisdom
of
the
Law
has
thought
it
necessary
to
tie
all
those
Obligations
faster
by
the
sacred
bond
of
a
Religious
Oath
,
and
to
assure
the
fidelity
of
the
Subjects
to
their
Sovereign
,
by
making
God
himself
the
Guarantee
and
Surety
of
it
.
And
hence
it
is
,
that
in
all
Ages
,
such
Oaths
of
true
Allegiance
have
been
ever
exacted
of
all
the
Subjects
of
this
Realm
to
the
Kings
thereof
:
which
,
as
it
is
the
most
demonstrative
proof
,
that
the
Sovereign
Power
was
always
acknowledged
to
be
theirs
,
Allegiance
being
an
Essential
Right
of
Sovereignty
,
and
never
so
much
as
pretended
to
by
any
others
;
so
it
is
also
evident
from
the
very
Forms
of
those
Oaths
,
(
which
have
been
different
in
Words
,
but
the
same
in
Substance
,
)
that
the
Subjects
were
always
bound
to
an
active
,
unconditionate
,
and
unreserved
Fidelity
to
their
Princes
.
There
is
this
Statute
among
the
Laws
of
Edward
the
Confessor
,
[
That
all
the
People
of
this
Kingdom
should
once
a
Year
bind
themselves
together
by
an
inviolable
Oath
,
and
combine
as
sworn
Brethren
,
to
defend
the
Kingdom
together
with
their
Lord
the
King
against
all
Foreigners
and
Enemies
,
and
with
him
to
preserve
his
Lands
and
Honours
with
all
Fidelity
;
and
that
they
will
be
faithful
to
him
,
as
their
Lord
the
King
,
b●th
within
and
without
the
Kingdom
of
Britain
.
]
To
the
same
effect
,
tho
somewhat
different
in
the
Expression
,
was
the
Statute
made
by
William
the
Conqueror
,
[
That
all
the
Freeman
of
this
Kingdom
should
affirm
upon
their
Faith
,
and
Oath
,
that
within
the
whole
Kingdom
,
and
without
,
they
will
be
faithful
to
their
Sovereign
Lord
K.
William
,
and
every
where
preserve
his
Lands
and
Honours
with
all
Fidelity
,
and
with
him
defend
them
against
all
his
Enemies
.
]
To
this
succeeded
that
,
which
the
Lord
Coke
calls
Legal
Ligeance
,
or
the
Common-Law
Oath
of
Allegiance
,
which
he
cites
out
of
Britton
,
who
wrote
Anno
5.
Ed.
1.
which
all
the
Subjects
were
obliged
to
take
at
Twelve
Years
of
Age
at
the
Sheriffs
Court
,
or
the
Leete
,
and
without
the
taking
of
which
they
had
no
warrant
to
abide
in
the
Kingdom
:
and
the
Form
of
it
was
to
this
Effect
.
[
You
shall
swear
,
that
from
this
day
forward
you
shall
be
true
and
faithful
to
our
Sovereign
Lord
the
King
,
and
his
Heirs
;
and
Truth
,
and
Faith
shall
bear
of
Life
,
and
Member
,
and
terrene
Honour
;
and
you
shall
neither
know
nor
hear
of
any
ill
or
Damage
,
which
you
shall
not
defend
(
that
is
,
oppose
)
to
the
utmost
of
your
Power
.
]
Coke
informs
us
,
that
Five
things
were
observed
by
all
the
Judges
upon
this
Oath
.
[
First
,
That
for
the
time
of
its
Obligation
,
it
is
indefinite
and
without
limit
.
Secondly
,
Two
excellent
qualities
were
required
,
that
is
,
to
be
true
and
faithful
.
Thirdly
,
To
whom
?
to
our
Sovereign
Lord
the
King
,
and
his
Heirs
.
Fourthly
,
In
what
manner
?
and
Faith
,
and
Troth
shall
bear
of
Life
and
Member
;
that
is
,
until
the
letting
out
of
the
last
drop
of
our
dearest
Heart-blood
.
Fifthly
,
Where
,
and
in
what
place
?
In
all
places
whatsoever
.
For
you
shall
neither
know
nor
hear
of
any
ill
,
which
you
shall
not
defend
.
]
Such
is
the
Ligeance
,
which
the
Law
has
prescribed
in
that
ancient
Oath
,
which
is
still
in
force
.
It
is
neither
circumscribed
by
time
nor
place
;
it
is
unconditionate
and
unreserved
;
it
is
not
a
lazy
Passive
Allegiance
,
requiring
nothing
but
pure
Submission
;
but
an
active
and
vigorous
Loyalty
,
exacting
all
that
is
in
the
Sphere
of
Moral
Possibility
,
and
engaging
us
to
spend
our
dearest
Blood
in
the
defence
of
our
Sovereign's
Person
,
and
the
preservation
of
his
Crown
and
Dignity
to
him
.
For
it
is
to
be
observed
,
that
by
the
Law
all
this
Allegiance
is
due
to
the
King's
Person
.
So
the
Lord
Coke
says
it
was
then
resolved
by
all
the
Judges
,
[
That
Ligeance
was
due
to
the
natural
Person
of
the
King
,
(
which
is
ever
accompanied
with
the
Politick
Capacity
;
and
the
Politick
Capacity
,
as
it
were
appropriated
to
the
Natural
Capacity
)
and
not
due
to
the
Politick
Capacity
only
.
And
he
adds
,
that
when
the
Spencers
in
the
Reign
of
Ed.
2.
invented
this
damnable
Opinion
,
That
Homage
and
Oath
of
Ligeance
was
more
by
reason
of
the
King's
Crown
,
that
is
of
his
Politick
Capacity
,
than
by
reason
of
the
Person
of
the
King
:
this
with
the
Consequences
they
deduced
from
it
,
was
condemned
by
two
Parliaments
as
execrable
and
detestable
Doctrines
;
one
in
the
Reign
of
Ed.
2.
and
the
other
Anno
1
o.
Ed.
3.
c.
1.
And
what
was
then
resolved
,
Judge
Jenkins
out
of
Plowden
affirms
was
resolved
by
all
the
Judges
1
Eliz.
as
the
Law
of
England
,
viz.
[
That
the
Body
Politick
,
and
the
natural
Body
make
one
Body
,
and
not
diverse
,
and
are
inseparable
and
indivisible
.
]
And
hence
the
same
Learned
Judge
thought
he
had
reason
to
infer
,
[
That
the
natural
Person
of
King
Charles
the
First
being
at
Holmby
(
though
under
Custody
,
and
de
facto
divested
of
his
Regal
Power
,
yet
)
his
Politick
capaci●●
was
there
also
,
because
both
did
make
but
one
indivisible
Body
.
]
And
hence
it
was
,
that
King
Charles
himself
required
all
his
Subjects
,
[
to
take
notice
of
the
Law
,
that
Allegiance
is
due
to
the
natural
Person
of
their
Prince
,
and
not
to
his
Crown
,
or
Kingdom
distinct
from
his
natural
Capacity
;
and
that
by
the
Oath
of
Ligeance
at
the
Common
Law
,
they
were
bound
to
be
faithful
not
to
the
King
only
,
as
King
,
but
to
our
Person
,
as
King
Charles
.
]
Therefore
I
conclude
this
Observation
with
that
Assertion
of
the
same
Judge
Jenkins
[
That
Ligeance
is
due
to
the
Natural
Body
,
and
is
due
by
Nature
,
God's
Law
,
and
Man's
Law
,
cannot
be
so
feited
,
nor
renounced
by
any
means
;
it
is
inseparable
from
the
Person
.
]
To
return
then
to
the
Oaths
of
Ligeance
prescribed
by
the
Law
,
it
is
further
to
be
observed
,
that
tho
the
Common-Law
Oath
was
never
yet
abolished
,
yet
it
has
been
almost
totally
supplanted
by
that
larger
Oath
of
Allegiance
,
which
was
enacted
Anno
3
o.
of
King
James
the
First
;
and
which
many
of
us
have
taken
to
K.
J.
the
Second
.
And
though
this
Oath
upon
the
discovery
of
the
Powder
Plot
was
particularly
framed
,
and
design'd
to
secure
the
King
against
the
Treasons
of
the
Papists
:
yet
as
K.
James
himself
does
affirm
in
his
Apology
,
that
it
exacts
no
more
,
than
what
the
ancient
Oaths
of
Allegiance
did
require
;
so
it
is
certain
it
exacts
no
less
.
For
it
is
not
to
be
imagin'd
,
either
that
true
Faith
and
Allegiance
in
that
Oath
should
be
design'd
to
signifie
less
,
than
they
always
did
before
;
or
that
a
less
Security
was
requir'd
,
when
a
greater
was
intended
.
But
to
prevent
all
Subterfuge
,
even
the
express
Words
of
the
Oath
do
manifestly
oblige
to
the
highest
Duties
of
Ligeance
that
can
be
.
[
I
will
bear
true
Faith
and
Allegiance
to
the
King
,
his
Heirs
,
and
Successors
;
and
him
,
and
them
will
defend
to
the
uttermost
of
my
Power
against
all
Conspiracies
,
and
Attempts
whatsoever
,
that
shall
be
made
against
his
,
or
their
Persons
,
Crown
,
and
Dignity
.
]
What
kind
of
Assistance
is
here
meant
by
the
Word
Defend
may
be
understood
from
the
Authors
,
who
expound
the
Jus
〈◊〉
such
as
Magerus
de
〈◊〉
armatâ
,
who
treating
of
the
Protection
given
by
Sovereign
Princes
,
saith
[
That
verbum
protegere
,
necessitatem
Desendendi
cum
armis
importat
;
]
and
tells
us
,
That
Subjects
are
in
the
same
sense
reciprocally
bound
to
defend
the
Honour
and
Dignity
of
the
Sovereign
:
it
may
be
understood
likewise
from
the
Feudal
Laws
,
whereby
the
Vassal
was
obliged
to
a
Military
defence
of
his
Lord
,
and
from
the
Municipal
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
also
:
which
oblige
all
the
Subjects
that
are
capable
to
take
up
Arms
for
the
King
,
when
need
shall
require
.
This
therefore
was
the
Defence
to
which
capable
Persons
were
sworn
in
that
abrogated
Oath
;
and
others
were
obliged
to
give
him
that
assistance
,
which
they
were
able
,
everyone
to
the
utmost
of
his
Power
in
his
respective
Capacity
as
the
express
Words
of
the
Oath
do
require
.
Thus
have
I
given
a
brief
Account
of
the
several
Forms
of
swearing
Allegiance
,
which
have
been
successively
required
of
all
the
Subjects
of
this
Kingdom
;
and
upon
the
whole
,
I
think
it
sufficiently
appears
,
that
the
Laws
have
been
always
Uniform
,
and
constant
in
obliging
the
Subjects
to
an
Allegiance
,
that
requires
not
a
peaceable
Subjection
only
,
but
also
an
actual
assistance
of
our
Sovereign
to
the
utmost
of
our
Power
against
all
Persons
,
and
all
Attempts
whatsoever
without
any
exception
.
And
this
is
lastly
included
in
the
Obligation
of
Natural
Allegiance
also
;
which
is
not
so
called
meerly
because
the
Persons
obliged
by
it
are
such
as
have
their
natural
Birth
within
the
King's
Dominions
:
For
Persons
born
without
the
Realm
may
be
his
natural
Subjects
,
as
are
the
Children
of
Embassadors
born
beyond
Sea
;
and
the
Children
of
Aliens
born
within
the
Kingdom
are
not
therefore
Natural
Subjects
of
the
King
:
So
that
the
meer
Circumstance
of
Birth
does
not
entitle
any
one
to
the
Priviledges
of
a
Natural
Subject
,
nor
consequently
bind
him
to
all
the
Duties
of
Natural
Allegiance
.
But
it
is
therefore
called
Natural
in
our
Laws
;
because
,
as
great
Lawyers
have
affirm'd
,
it
is
founded
upon
the
Law
of
Nature
,
which
gives
the
Sovereign
Power
a
Right
to
the
Allegiance
of
every
one
,
who
is
born
under
the
Jurisdiction
of
it
.
As
every
Son
is
born
a
Subject
to
his
Parents
,
and
is
by
the
Law
of
Nature
obliged
to
honour
,
and
obey
,
assist
,
and
support
them
:
So
also
is
he
born
a
Member
of
the
Body
Politick
,
and
by
consequence
a
Subject
to
the
Soveraign
of
it
,
and
accordingly
by
the
same
eternal
Law
is
bound
to
pay
all
Faithful
Service
and
Obedience
to
him
,
when
he
is
in
a
Capacity
to
perform
them
.
By
the
Law
of
Nature
here
I
mean
,
that
light
of
reason
,
which
is
given
us
by
the
Author
of
Nature
to
direct
us
in
all
our
actions
:
and
this
light
,
when
it
is
sufficiently
attended
to
,
and
not
darkned
with
Passions
,
will
clearly
shew
us
how
we
should
demean
our selves
in
the
several
capacities
,
and
relations
we
stand
in
.
As
it
shews
us
what
Obedience
and
Fidelity
a
Servant
owes
to
his
Master
,
a
Wife
to
her
Husband
,
and
a
Son
to
his
Father
:
so
it
plainly
directs
us
what
Duties
every
Member
of
a
Civil
Community
owes
to
the
Supreme
Governor
of
it
:
and
that
this
Law
of
Nature
directs
us
to
pay
the
highest
degree
of
Allegiance
to
him
;
viz.
an
active
assistance
to
the
utmost
of
our
power
,
is
evident
both
from
reason
,
and
from
the
common
consent
and
practice
of
almost
all
civilized
Mankind
,
the
two
only
ways
of
demonstrating
any
Law
of
Nature
.
And
first
it
seems
evident
from
these
following
reasons
.
1.
Because
such
assistance
is
absolutely
necessary
to
preserve
the
head
of
the
Community
,
and
consequently
the
whole
Body
also
:
for
to
every
Political
Body
a
Sovereign
Head
is
so
Essential
,
as
that
it
cannot
possibly
exist
without
it
.
And
therefore
since
the
natural
reason
of
all
Men
does
dictate
the
necessity
of
entering
into
Societies
;
it
must
likewise
teach
them
the
necessity
of
contributing
their
actual
assistance
for
the
preservation
of
those
Societies
,
and
consequently
of
that
Sovereign
power
,
which
is
Essen●ial
to
the
very
Being
of
them
.
2.
Because
every
Subject
has
received
actual
Protection
,
and
in
effect
his
very
Life
and
Being
from
the
Sovereign
Power
.
For
not
only
Property
,
and
all
the
Blessings
of
it
,
but
the
Conservation
of
even
Life
it self
are
derived
from
Civil
Government
:
and
therefore
both
Justice
and
Gratitude
do
oblige
us
,
to
do
all
we
can
,
to
preserve
the
Being
,
and
the
Rights
of
that
Sovereign
Power
,
from
which
we
derive
our
own
.
Our
Parents
are
the
Instruments
of
our
natural
Production
,
and
for
that
reason
we
are
ever
obliged
●o
honour
and
support
them
,
though
they
prove
never
so
unnatural
to
us
;
because
it
will
be
always
true
,
that
we
have
received
our
Being
from
them
,
and
the
Obligation
of
that
benefit
will
last
as
long
as
our
lives
.
Such
is
our
Obligation
to
the
Sovereign
Power
.
We
have
received
our
Lives
,
and
Properties
from
it
;
and
it
will
be
always
true
,
that
we
owe
them
to
it
:
and
therefore
,
though
it
become
never
so
Tyrannical
,
still
the
Obligation
of
obeying
,
and
assisting
it
will
remain
.
Our
gratitude
must
continue
as
long
as
we
enjoy
the
benefit
;
and
civil
oppression
can
no
more
ab●olve
Subjects
from
their
Allegiance
,
than
Domestick
Cruelty
can
discharge
Children
from
the
Duty
of
Obedience
.
3.
It
may
be
proved
also
from
the
Obligations
of
Equity
and
Justice
,
which
are
certainly
founded
in
the
Law
of
Nature
.
Now
the
grand
Fundamental
Rules
of
Justice
are
these
.
That
we
do
to
others
,
as
we
would
be
done
to
our
selves
;
and
that
we
give
to
every
one
his
due
:
and
by
both
these
equitable
Rules
all
Subjects
are
bound
to
assist
and
support
their
Sovereigns
.
By
the
former
,
because
every
Subject
does
expect
an
actual
Protection
of
his
Person
and
Property
from
the
Sovereign
power
;
and
that
when
he
is
disabled
,
from
contributing
his
assistance
to
support
it
;
and
therefore
he
is
bound
in
Equity
to
give
the
like
assistance
to
his
Sovereign
in
times
of
necessity
,
and
even
when
he
cannot
actually
exert
his
Power
for
the
protection
of
his
Subjects
.
It
is
also
due
by
the
latter
;
because
the
Sovereign
has
a
Right
to
such
assistance
of
his
Subjects
(
I
will
not
here
say
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
for
that
is
the
thing
,
which
I
am
proving
,
but
)
by
the
positive
Civil
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
.
The
Law
of
Nature
requires
,
that
every
Man
should
enjoy
his
Rights
;
and
that
is
truly
a
Man's
Right
,
which
is
such
by
a
Politick
Law
;
and
therefore
since
the
Kings
of
England
by
the
Political
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
have
a
Right
to
the
actual
assistance
of
their
Subjects
,
to
deny
it
them
is
a
violation
not
only
of
those
Laws
,
but
even
of
the
Law
of
Nature
also
.
But
,
4.
There
is
yet
a
higher
reason
for
it
,
which
respects
the
Author
of
all
Sovereignty
.
For
even
the
Light
of
Nature
doth
teach
us
,
that
an
infinite
Being
made
the
World
,
and
that
he
still
governs
it
;
that
from
Him
all
lawful
Dominion
is
derived
;
and
that
Kings
are
his
Ministers
,
and
Vicegerents
.
And
hence
it
is
obvious
to
infer
,
that
every
Subject
is
bound
not
only
to
submit
,
but
also
to
support
,
and
defend
them
;
because
it
is
every
Mans
duty
to
*
support
that
Government
,
which
God
himself
has
established
over
him
.
2.
It
is
evident
also
from
the
universal
practice
,
and
consent
of
almost
all
Nations
.
This
might
be
evinced
from
an
Induction
of
particulars
.
But
I
think
it
will
not
be
denied
by
any
,
that
where-ever
Civil
Government
has
been
established
,
and
in
what
from
soever
,
it
has
been
always
thought
the
Duty
of
every
good
Citizen
,
or
Subject
,
to
adhere
to
the
Sovereign
power
of
his
Country
,
against
all
his
Enemies
,
and
even
to
adventure
his
own
life
for
the
preservation
of
it
.
And
hence
it
is
,
that
there
is
hardly
any
Government
in
the
World
,
wherein
every
individual
Person
,
that
is
capable
of
bearing
Arms
,
is
not
obliged
upon
some
great
occasions
personally
to
assist
the
Sovereign
Power
,
and
hazard
his
life
in
its
defence
.
And
this
is
a
manifest
Indication
,
that
the
Duties
of
Allegiance
were
first
taught
Men
by
the
Light
of
Nature
,
since
the
universal
exacting
of
them
can
be
ascribed
to
nothing
else
,
but
such
an
universal
Principle
.
Wherefore
Dr.
Sanderson
had
reason
to
affirm
,
[
That
the
Bond
of
Allegiance
doth
not
arise
Originally
from
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
;
but
it
is
so
intrinsecal
,
proper
,
and
essential
a
Duty
,
and
(
as
it
were
fundamental
to
the
relation
of
a
Subject
quà
talis
)
as
that
the
very
name
of
a
Subject
doth
after
a
sort
import
it
;
insomuch
that
it
hath
thereupon
gained
in
common
Usage
of
Speech
,
the
stile
of
Natural
Allegiance
.
Whence
he
affirms
these
Inferences
will
follow
.
1
That
the
Bond
of
Allegiance
(
whether
sworn
,
or
not
sworn
)
is
in
the
nature
of
it
perpetual
,
and
indispensable
.
2.
That
it
is
so
inseparable
from
the
relation
of
a
Subject
,
that
tho'
the
exercise
of
it
may
be
for
some
time
suspended
,
by
a
prevailing
force
,
yet
it
cannot
be
so
absolutely
removed
,
but
that
it
still
remaineth
virtually
in
the
Subject
,
and
obligeth
to
an
actual
exercise
of
it
upon
all
fit
occasions
.
3.
That
no
Subject
of
England
,
that
hath
either
by
taking
the
Oaths
of
Supremacy
,
and
Allegiance
acknowledged
,
or
otherwise
believeth
,
that
the
Sovereign
Power
,
to
whom
his
Natural
Allegiance
is
due
,
is
the
King
,
his
Heirs
,
and
lawful
Successors
;
can
without
sinning
against
his
Conscience
,
enter
into
any
Covenant
,
Promise
,
or
Engagement
,
or
do
any
other
Act
whatsoever
,
whereby
either
to
transfer
his
Allegiance
to
any
other
Party
,
to
whom
it
is
not
of
Right
due
,
or
to
incapacitate
himself
to
perform
it
to
his
lawful
Sovereign
when
it
may
appear
serviceable
to
him
.
And
what
was
asserted
by
this
great
Casuist
,
is
for
the
substance
of
it
deliver'd
by
the
great
Oracle
of
the
Law
;
who
in
the
aforementioned
Case
reports
,
that
these
Positions
were
debated
,
and
resolved
on
by
all
the
Judges
.
[
First
,
That
the
Ligeance
of
the
Subject
is
due
by
the
Law
of
Nature
.
Secondly
,
That
the
Law
of
Nature
is
part
of
the
Law
of
England
.
Thirdly
,
That
the
Law
of
Nature
was
long
before
any
Municipal
Law.
Fourthly
,
That
it
is
immutable
.
It
appears
,
says
he
,
by
demonstrative
reason
,
that
Ligeance
of
the
Subject
to
the
Sovereign
was
before
any
Municipal
or
Judicial
Laws
.
First
;
For
that
Government
and
Subjection
were
long
before
any
Municipal
Laws
.
Secondly
,
It
had
been
in
vain
to
have
prescribed
Laws
to
any
,
but
to
such
as
owed
Ligeance
before
:
frustr
à
enim
feruntur
leges
,
nisi
subditis
,
&
obedientibus
.
Seeing
then
,
that
Ligeance
is
due
by
the
Law
of
Nature
,
it
follows
,
that
the
same
cannot
be
altered
,
or
taken
away
.
For
albeit
Municipal
Laws
have
in
several
times
and
places
imposed
several
punishments
for
Breach
of
the
Law
of
Nature
;
yet
the
Law
of
Nature
it self
,
never
was
,
nor
could
be
changed
:
and
this
,
says
he
,
appears
plainly
,
and
plentifully
in
our
Law-Books
.
]
And
afterwards
he
argues
thus
upon
the
same
Principle
.
Whatsoever
is
due
only
by
Law
and
Constitution
of
Man
may
be
alter'd
;
but
naturally
the
Ligeance
of
the
Subject
to
the
Sovereign
cannot
be
alter'd
;
therefore
it
is
not
due
only
by
the
Law
and
Constitution
of
Man.
[
And
again
,
Whatsoever
is
due
by
the
Law
of
Nature
cannot
be
altered
:
but
Allegiance
is
due
by
the
Law
of
Nature
:
therefore
it
cannot
be
alter'd
.
]
Thus
far
that
famous
Lawyer
;
and
thus
far
have
I
consider'd
the
signification
of
Allegiance
,
as
it
is
founded
in
the
Laws
,
and
explained
by
Lawyers
.
I
am
further
to
consider
it
,
as
a
word
of
vulgar
signification
also
;
and
as
it
is
taken
,
and
understood
by
the
Generality
of
the
People
of
this
Nation
.
For
all
the
Subjects
of
this
Kingdom
being
obliged
by
Law
,
and
immemorial
Custom
,
to
swear
Allegiance
to
their
Sovereign
,
it
is
not
credible
they
should
be
ignorant
of
the
true
meaning
of
it
.
Those
Law
terms
,
in
which
few
are
concern'd
,
are
by
few
understood
:
but
such
as
are
of
universal
concernment
must
of
necessity
be
also
universally
understood
.
Who
knows
not
the
meaning
of
Parliament
,
Jury
,
Assizes
,
that
is
of
any
understanding
?
The
word
Allegiance
is
of
more
near
,
and
universal
concernment
to
all
Men
;
it
is
therefore
presum'd
,
that
no
Subject
can
be
ignorant
of
it
.
The
Oaths
themselves
,
which
the
Subjects
have
ever
been
enured
to
have
,
sufficiently
taught
them
the
Duties
intended
by
it
.
That
they
must
pay
due
Obedience
to
the
King
;
that
they
must
never
assist
his
Enemies
;
that
they
must
uphold
his
Crown
,
and
sometimes
adventure
even
their
Lives
and
Fortunes
in
his
Service
.
Thus
much
Nature
it self
does
teach
them
,
as
it
teaches
Children
to
discharge
the
same
Duties
towards
Parents
.
But
there
is
no
need
of
proving
a
thing
to
be
that
,
which
it
is
.
Most
certain
it
is
,
that
all
Men
of
tolerable
understanding
,
even
among
the
common
People
,
do
know
,
that
all
these
Duties
are
included
in
true
Allegiance
.
Ask
any
Man
of
common
sense
,
whether
he
,
who
has
sworn
true
Faith
and
Allegiance
to
K.
W.
does
not
violate
his
Oath
,
if
at
any
time
he
assist
K.
J.
to
dethrone
him
?
Whether
he
is
not
bound
to
be
faithful
to
him
against
all
his
Enemies
?
To
discover
all
the
designs
of
K.
J.
against
him
,
that
shall
come
to
his
knowledge
?
And
when
it
is
in
his
power
,
and
necessity
requires
it
,
to
contribute
his
actual
Assistance
also
to
oppose
his
Recovery
of
the
Crown
?
I
make
no
Question
but
he
will
answer
,
that
his
Allegiance
binds
him
to
all
this
;
and
that
he
is
plainly
perjur'd
,
if
he
does
not
perform
it
.
The
Understandings
of
the
common
People
,
as
they
are
not
capable
of
those
Subtilties
,
which
men
of
Learning
are
enur'd
to
;
so
are
they
seldom
perverted
with
those
nice
and
sophistical
Distinctions
,
by
which
men
of
Subtilty
perplex
things
plain
and
easie
in
themselves
.
A
Mechanick
,
and
a
Peasant
apprehend
what
Motion
is
,
and
what
is
Perjury
,
as
well
as
the
acutest
Philosopher
,
or
the
deepest
Divine
;
and
they
know
what
Allegiance
and
Faithfulness
imply
,
as
well
as
the
ablest
Lawyer
;
and
if
you
go
about
to
blunder
their
understandings
with
Distinctions
,
and
Objections
,
they
are
but
where
they
we
〈…〉
,
and
will
still
clearly
apprehend
what
they
understood
before
.
And
if
all
men
would
act
with
the
same
plainness
,
and
sincerity
;
if
they
would
be
true
to
their
own
sense
,
and
apprehensions
,
aud
not
disguise
them
with
Artifice
,
and
Subtilty
,
there
would
possibly
have
been
no
need
of
the
present
Enquiry
;
nor
of
proving
,
that
Faith
and
Allegiance
are
not
capable
of
contradictory
senses
;
that
they
signifie
the
same
Duties
now
,
which
always
they
have
done
;
that
,
when
they
are
sworn
to
one
Sovereign
,
they
are
incommuninicable
at
the
same
time
to
any
other
;
that
we
must
not
bind
our selves
to
contradictory
Obligations
;
and
cannot
possibly
be
faithful
to
K.
W.
against
all
his
Enemies
,
and
to
K.
J.
against
all
his
Enemies
also
.
And
now
I
hope
,
it
appears
,
That
the
Words
,
Faith
,
and
true
Allegiance
,
in
the
Oath
,
do
not
signifie
meer
Submission
and
Obedience
only
;
but
also
faithful
Service
,
and
actual
Assistance
of
our
Sovereign
against
all
his
Enemies
.
True
it
is
,
that
the
Oaths
of
Allegiance
are
in
the
Law
sometimes
called
Oaths
of
Obedience
:
But
Obedience
then
does
import
the
whole
Duty
of
a
Subject
to
his
Sovereign
,
and
not
precisely
a
peaceable
conformity
to
the
Laws
,
abstracting
from
all
the
other
Duties
of
a
Subject
.
And
this
I
think
may
be
proved
from
these
Reasons
.
First
,
Because
Obedience
,
in
its
utmost
Latitude
,
does
comprehend
the
Duties
of
Fidelity
,
and
Assistance
also
.
For
every
act
of
Duty
is
an
act
of
Obedience
;
and
therefore
if
actual
assistance
be
a
Duty
to
discharge
,
it
is
Obedience
.
Secondly
,
The
same
Oath
is
more
often
called
the
Oath
of
Fidelity
,
and
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
:
And
therefore
if
Fidelity
and
Allegiance
do
(
as
I
have
shewn
)
imply
more
than
peaceable
submission
,
and
conformity
to
the
Laws
;
it
will
not
follow
,
that
it
does
not
imply
so
much
,
because
the
same
Oath
is
sometimes
expressed
by
another
word
.
Thirdly
,
Peaceable
Submission
,
and
Obedience
to
the
Laws
,
do
amount
to
no
more
,
than
such
a
Local
Allegiance
,
as
is
due
from
Aliens
;
and
I
am
pretty
certain
,
that
the
Laws
require
something
more
of
natural
English
Subjects
by
virtue
of
their
Allegiance
,
than
they
do
from
Germans
and
Italians
,
while
they
are
in
the
Kingdom
.
This
confounding
of
Allegiance
and
precise
Obedience
to
the
lawful
Commands
of
a
Sovereign
de
facto
,
is
a
very
common
and
obvious
Mistake
.
Thus
the
Author
of
the
Pastoral
Letter
,
brings
this
Argument
to
prove
the
lawfulness
of
taking
this
Oath
in
Question
;
[
If
it
is
lawful
to
obey
the
King
,
it
is
lawful
to
promise
to
do
it
;
and
if
so
,
it
also
is
lawful
to
swear
it
;
]
therefore
it
is
lawful
to
take
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
.
Which
is
just
such
an
Argument
as
this
:
If
it
be
lawful
to
bow
before
the
King
,
it
is
lawful
to
pay
Divine
Adoration
to
him
;
and
if
so
,
it
is
also
lawful
to
swear
,
that
I
will
pay
Divine
Worship
to
him
.
For
as
Religious
Worship
implies
a
great
deal
more
,
than
Civil
;
so
does
Allegiance
contain
more
,
than
precise
Obedience
.
I
may
lawfully
obey
a
Highway-man
,
and
I
may
lawfully
swear
it
;
but
I
suppose
it
will
not
follow
thence
,
that
I
may
lawfully
swear
to
be
faithful
,
and
bear
true
Allegiance
to
him
.
It
was
lawful
to
swear
Obedience
to
Cromwel
in
all
lawful
things
;
but
I
think
there
were
few
,
even
in
that
Age
of
Usurpations
,
that
were
so
hardy
,
as
to
assert
the
lawfulness
of
swearing
Allegiance
to
that
Unnatural
Usurper
.
Dr.
Sanderson
proves
,
that
it
may
be
our
duty
to
obey
the
Laws
of
an
Usurper
,
not
out
of
any
regard
to
his
Authority
,
which
,
he
says
,
is
none
at
all
;
but
upon
other
considerations
:
*
yet
he
is
absolutely
against
swearing
Allegiance
to
Usurpers
.
Both
he
,
and
all
the
Conscientious
Divines
of
that
Age
,
could
easily
distinguish
Allegiance
from
Obeying
;
and
so
may
any
one
,
that
is
not
absolutely
resolved
against
it
.
The
Pastoral
Author
adds
indeed
,
[
That
Allegiance
,
in
our
present
acceptation
,
is
Obedience
according
to
Law
,
]
Which
is
true
,
if
Obedience
be
taken
in
its
utmost
latitude
;
but
then
it
will
include
an
Obligation
to
assist
K.
W.
against
all
his
Enemies
;
and
in
this
sense
,
they
,
who
refuse
the
Oath
,
will
I
presume
,
refuse
also
to
obey
him
.
It
has
been
objected
further
,
That
,
whereas
the
actual
Assistance
of
the
King
against
all
Attempts
whatsoever
,
was
inserted
either
expresly
,
or
in
words
equivalent
,
in
all
the
former
Oaths
of
Allegiance
;
but
in
the
present
Oath
it
is
wholly
omitted
,
and
therefore
it
may
reasonably
be
presum'd
,
That
where
less
is
expressed
,
less
is
required
;
and
that
,
if
the
Imposers
had
intended
such
actual
Assistance
,
they
would
probably
in
plain
words
have
required
it
.
What
the
Reasons
were
of
making
this
,
and
other
Alterations
in
the
new
Oath
of
Allegiance
;
as
I
have
no
means
of
knowing
,
so
neither
is
it
of
any
moment
to
enquire
.
To
the
Objection
proposed
,
it
will
suffice
to
answer
,
That
the
Duty
of
actual
Assistance
against
all
men
living
,
is
sufficiently
expressed
in
it
:
For
in
the
Oath
we
are
required
to
swear
true
Allegiance
,
and
that
does
vi
termini
import
such
an
Obligation
:
and
as
no
particular
Duties
of
Allegiance
are
expressed
in
the
Oath
,
so
neither
are
any
excepted
;
and
therefore
we
are
obliged
to
all
the
Duties
of
it
:
and
what
those
are
,
may
be
understood
from
the
Laws
,
and
the
common
acceptation
of
the
Word
it self
;
which
,
as
I
have
shewn
,
has
always
signified
an
adherence
to
the
Liege
Lord
against
all
men
living
.
And
if
the
bare
omission
of
particularizing
this
Duty
,
is
an
argument
,
that
it
was
not
intended
;
then
was
no
particular
Duty
intended
,
for
there
is
none
expressed
:
and
so
the
result
will
be
,
that
when
we
swear
Allegiance
,
we
take
God's
Name
in
vain
,
and
swear
to
nothing
at
all
.
And
this
is
the
Answer
,
which
the
Feudists
have
long
since
given
to
the
Objection
.
Cujacius
says
,
[
That
the
Clause
of
defending
the
Life
and
Dignity
of
the
Lord
,
and
if
there
be
any
thing
else
,
which
is
wont
to
be
expressed
in
such
Oaths
,
it
seems
to
be
contained
in
the
general
Promise
of
Fidelity
]
Molinaeus
tells
us
,
*
[
That
a
certain
Form
is
not
required
,
but
it
may
suffice
to
swear
in
general
words
:
as
for
instance
;
I
swear
the
Fealty
of
a
Vassal
,
or
I
do
Homage
under
an
Oath
of
Fealty
:
neither
is
it
necessary
particularly
to
express
the
Heads
of
Fidelity
;
for
that
is
well
enough
understood
by
a
tacit
reference
to
those
Duties
,
which
are
required
by
the
Feudal
Law
and
Custom
.
And
he
adds
,
it
may
be
also
answered
,
That
Particular
Duties
are
not
therefore
expressed
in
those
Oaths
,
because
it
is
absolutely
necessary
,
but
only
for
the
clearer
understanding
of
them
.
]
But
there
is
one
Objection
more
,
which
must
be
considered
,
viz.
That
this
is
an
Oath
imposed
upon
Clergy-men
,
as
well
as
others
:
and
that
since
the
Laws
have
ever
exempted
them
from
Military
Services
,
it
is
certain
their
Allegiance
doth
not
bind
them
to
it
;
and
therefore
the
Allegiance
required
in
the
Oath
,
is
not
such
,
as
I
have
hitherto
asserted
,
because
it
does
not
universally
bind
the
Subjects
to
an
Active
Military
assistance
of
the
Sovereign
against
all
his
Enemies
.
But
this
Objection
will
be
of
no
force
,
if
it
be
considered
,
1.
That
Allegiance
binds
in
general
to
the
defence
of
the
King's
Crown
,
and
Person
;
which
implies
many
other
positive
Dutie●-besides
Military
Assistance
;
as
,
Aids
of
Money
,
and
Advice
,
Discovery
of
Conspiracies
,
and
the
like
.
Now
if
the
Laws
,
which
have
obliged
Subjects
in
general
,
do
exempt
Ecclesiasticks
from
the
Military
Duties
of
Allegiance
,
then
there
is
an
express
exception
of
them
as
to
those
Duties
;
and
this
very
Exception
does
shew
,
that
they
are
obliged
to
all
the
other
Duties
of
Allegiance
,
which
are
as
absolutely
inconsistent
with
a
peaceable
Neutrality
,
as
the
Military
Assistance
can
possibly
be
.
But
,
2.
Though
the
Laws
have
ordinarily
exempted
Clergy-men
from
taking
up
Arms
in
the
Defence
of
their
Sovereign
,
yet
it
was
never
doubted
,
but
that
in
Cases
of
extream
necessity
,
when
the
Life
of
the
Prince
is
in
imminent
danger
,
and
there
are
no
other
Persons
to
defend
it
,
and
it
is
in
the
power
of
a
Churchman
to
save
it
,
though
with
the
hazard
of
his
own
,
that
in
such
an
Exigency
he
is
bound
by
his
Allegiance
to
a
Personal
and
Military
assistance
of
him
:
and
therefore
it
is
still
true
,
that
all
the
Subjects
are
bound
by
their
Allegiance
to
a
Military
defence
of
their
Soveraign
,
when
necessity
shall
require
it
.
And
yet
further
.
3.
Though
Spiritual
Persons
are
not
ordinarily
obliged
to
defend
their
Soveraign
with
secular
Arms
;
yet
their
Allegiance
binds
them
to
do
it
with
Arms
more
prevalent
,
and
efficasious
,
viz.
Prayers
,
and
Intercessions
with
God
for
their
safety
,
and
Victory
over
all
their
Enemies
.
Thus
Zouch
tells
us
out
of
the
Grand
Customary
of
Normandy
[
That
Bishops
,
and
other
Ecclesiastical
Persons
,
(
who
held
Lands
granted
in
Frank
Almoine
,
or
in
puram
&
perpetuam
Eleemosynam
;
]
are
bound
to
no
other
Service
,
but
to
pray
for
the
Prince
,
and
intercede
with
God
for
his
safety
.
]
This
is
a
Branch
of
Allegiance
most
especially
incumbent
upon
them
,
who
wait
at
the
Altar
;
less
,
than
this
,
cannot
in
reason
be
required
of
them
,
and
a
greater
,
and
more
beneficial
Service
cannot
possibly
be
perform'd
by
any
one
.
And
it
was
never
yet
heard
,
that
a
Church-man
could
with
a
good
Conscience
swear
Allegiance
to
a
Prince
;
and
yet
could
not
pray
,
that
he
might
have
Victory
over
all
his
Enemies
.
This
is
a
branch
of
Allegiance
,
which
our
Church
has
expresly
required
of
us
in
her
Liturgy
;
nay
it
has
been
taught
us
by
the
Catholick
Church
of
all
Ages
,
wherein
Prayers
have
been
constantly
made
for
Peace
and
Safety
,
for
Prosperity
and
Victory
,
not
unto
Christian
Emperors
only
,
but
even
to
the
most
Cruel
Persecutors
of
Christianity
.
And
if
this
be
the
duty
peculiarly
of
Churchmen
,
then
it
is
their
duty
undoubtedly
in
their
Stations
to
contribute
all
other
actual
Assistance
also
;
and
if
this
be
a
necessary
branch
of
Allegiance
;
then
it
is
evident
,
that
we
cannot
swear
Allegiance
with
a
design
of
Neutrality
,
or
a
reserve
of
Allegiance
to
K.
J.
for
then
we
should
be
obliged
to
pray
reciprocally
backward
,
and
forward
,
that
J.
may
vanquish
W.
and
W.
vanquish
J.
and
that
both
may
have
Victory
over
all
their
Enemies
,
when
they
are
irreconcilable
Enemies
to
each
other
.
Wherefore
to
conclude
this
Point
.
If
it
be
true
(
as
I
have
endeavoured
to
prove
)
that
Faith
,
and
true
Allegiance
in
the
Construction
of
the
Law
;
and
the
common
Sense
and
Understanding
of
the
People
,
do
signifie
such
an
Allegiance
,
as
is
expressed
in
the
highest
Construction
of
the
Oath
;
it
is
evident
,
that
this
Construction
is
the
true
declared
meaning
of
it
.
For
the
declared
meaning
must
be
expressed
in
Words
,
and
Words
must
be
understood
according
to
the
known
,
the
usual
,
and
genuine
Signification
of
them
;
and
if
Men
will
take
a
liberty
of
imposing
a
quite
different
sense
upon
them
at
their
pleasure
,
there
is
an
end
of
all
Promises
and
Oaths
,
of
all
Faith
and
Commerce
among
Mankind
;
and
then
I
know
not
why
in
the
present
Oath
W.
may
not
signifie
J.
and
Allegiance
Rebellion
.
Hitherto
I
have
been
proving
,
that
the
Reason
and
Intention
of
the
Oath
,
and
the
words
themselves
in
which
it
is
expressed
,
do
necessarily
oblige
us
to
the
highest
Construction
of
it
:
And
where
there
is
a
manifest
concurrence
of
both
these
in
the
Interpretation
of
an
Oath
,
than
there
is
nothing
wanting
to
induce
a
Moral
certainty
of
the
true
meaning
of
it
.
But
because
the
Intention
of
the
Imposer
may
be
searched
into
by
other
means
,
besides
the
naked
force
of
the
Words
,
as
by
probable
Conjectures
grounded
upon
Circumstances
;
and
their
other
Impositions
and
Proceedings
,
which
have
some
relation
to
the
Matter
of
the
Oath
;
I
will
proceed
to
shew
,
that
even
these
also
do
afford
reasonable
grounds
to
perswade
the
Sense
,
I
have
here
asserted
,
to
be
the
true
meaning
of
it
.
But
here
there
are
two
Cautions
to
be
premised
.
First
,
That
when
the
words
of
the
Law
do
according
to
the
Vulgar
,
Customary
,
or
legal
Acceptation
of
them
,
evidently
express
the
Intention
of
the
Lawgiver
,
then
the
Enquiry
into
the
same
Intention
by
Circumstances
and
Appendages
,
is
of
no
importance
;
for
the
Words
are
the
first
and
principal
Sign
of
the
Intention
,
and
when
they
do
clearly
represent
it
,
the
Conscience
of
the
Subject
is
obliged
to
the
very
Words
;
otherwise
it
is
impossible
we
should
be
ascertain'd
of
the
meaning
of
any
Law
;
if
no
words
,
how
clear
soever
,
can
express
it
;
and
so
to
make
a
Law
would
be
a
thing
impracticable
,
because
the
Will
of
the
Lawgiver
could
not
possibly
be
expressed
.
Therefore
Secondly
,
The
Words
of
the
Law
being
the
best
and
surest
means
of
expressing
the
Intention
;
unless
clear
,
and
manifest
Evidence
can
be
produced
to
shew
,
that
the
Intention
of
the
Lawgiver
is
quite
different
from
what
the
natural
sense
of
the
words
does
import
;
the
genuine
Signification
of
them
is
always
to
be
adhered
to
.
So
says
the
Civil-Law
expresly
[
non
aliter
a
significatione
verborum
ejus
recedi
,
quàm
cùm
manifestum
aliud
ipsum
sensisse
.
]
and
the
necessity
of
this
Rule
is
evident
;
for
if
it
were
allowed
to
recede
from
the
words
but
upon
manifest
Evidence
of
a
different
Intention
,
every
one
might
wrest
the
Law
as
he
pleased
,
and
the
Law
would
not
be
the
measure
of
Duty
,
but
the
Subjects
Arbitrary
Glosses
on
it
.
Supposing
therefore
,
not
granting
,
that
the
words
of
the
Oath
do
not
clearly
represent
the
Intention
of
the
Legislators
;
proceed
we
now
to
enquire
into
the
true
meaning
of
it
,
from
Circumstances
,
and
other
Actions
of
the
Imposers
.
And
,
1.
I
consider
,
that
the
Parliament
,
in
the
Act
declaring
the
Rights
,
and
Liberties
of
the
Subject
,
and
settling
the
Succession
of
the
Crown
,
have
imposed
[
this
and
no
other
Oath
]
upon
their
Military
Officers
and
Soldiers
:
And
it
seems
very
absurd
to
imagine
,
that
they
should
intend
to
oblige
them
only
to
a
peaceable
Neutrality
;
or
leave
it
lawful
for
them
,
notwithstanding
the
Oath
,
to
assist
K.
J.
against
themselves
.
But
if
on
the
contrary
it
be
reasonable
to
believe
,
that
they
intended
to
oblige
their
Soldiers
to
an
active
assistance
of
K.
William
against
all
his
Enemies
;
then
of
necessity
,
according
to
the
Intention
of
the
Imposers
,
the
very
words
of
the
Oath
do
oblige
them
to
it
:
And
if
so
,
I
cannot
comprehend
,
why
the
same
words
should
not
oblige
all
others
also
in
their
respective
Capacities
to
the
like
assistance
:
Or
why
the
Legislators
should
intend
the
Oath
to
be
taken
by
different
Persons
in
contradictory
Senses
,
and
bind
one
to
be
a
Neuter
,
another
to
be
Active
for
the
Government
,
and
allow
a
Third
to
be
active
against
it
.
2.
It
is
certain
,
that
the
Present
Government
has
exacted
of
all
Clergy-men
an
actual
assistance
of
it
(
as
great
at
least
as
that
which
is
required
of
Soldiers
)
even
against
K.
J.
For
they
are
obliged
under
great
Penalties
,
to
insert
K.
W.
in
the
Liturgy
,
and
to
pray
that
he
may
have
Victory
over
all
his
Enemies
;
among
whom
his
greatest
,
and
most
implacable
Enemy
,
the
Enemy
that
is
actually
endeavouring
to
wrest
his
Crown
and
dignity
from
him
,
must
needs
be
comprehended
.
And
thus
to
pray
,
is
the
greatest
assistance
to
the
one
,
and
opposition
to
the
other
,
that
can
be
imagined
.
And
hence
it
seems
natural
to
infer
;
that
they
,
who
have
exacted
this
,
would
not
afterwards
Enact
an
Oath
to
oblige
them
to
a
meer
Neutrality
;
or
leave
them
a
reserve
of
their
old
Allegiance
to
K.
J.
What
reason
can
there
be
possible
assign'd
for
this
;
that
they
,
who
were
antecedently
bound
to
more
,
should
be
afterwards
sworn
to
less
;
or
that
our
Present
Governours
should
oblige
Clergymen
to
pray
against
all
their
Enemies
,
and
then
allow
them
to
assist
those
Enemies
,
or
discharge
them
from
assisting
the
Government
against
them
.
3.
Though
every
breach
of
Allegiance
is
not
punished
as
Treason
by
the
Law
,
yet
all
Treason
is
certainly
a
violation
of
Allegiance
;
therefore
whatsovere
is
branded
,
or
punished
as
Treason
by
the
Lawgivers
,
and
Imposers
of
this
Oath
,
is
very
probably
intended
to
be
forbidden
by
it
.
Whether
this
Inference
be
not
reasonable
,
I
appeal
to
the
common
Sense
of
all
Men
;
or
whether
any
thing
can
be
more
natural
,
than
to
conclude
,
that
the
Lawgivers
intended
in
this
Oath
of
Allegiance
to
prevent
,
what
they
design'd
to
punish
as
a
violation
of
it
;
and
to
bind
the
Subjects
to
Fidelity
,
not
only
for
Wrath
,
but
also
for
Conscience
sake
.
But
it
is
notorious
to
all
Men
,
that
the
Imposers
of
this
Oath
,
have
treated
the
Assisters
of
K.
J.
as
guilty
of
High
Treason
;
that
Bills
have
been
proposed
for
the
forfeiture
of
their
Estates
,
and
Tryal
of
their
Persons
;
that
they
have
imprisoned
many
upon
suspicion
of
siding
with
K.
J.
and
actually
Arraigned
others
for
dispersing
his
Proclamations
:
And
have
lately
Condemn'd
and
hang'd
one
,
for
saying
he
rais'd
Men
to
assist
him
.
And
therefore
we
cannot
but
conclude
;
that
they
,
who
punished
such
assistance
,
as
a
breach
of
Allegiance
,
did
design
,
when
they
obliged
us
to
swear
Allegiance
to
debar
us
from
it
.
Thus
it
is
evident
the
assistance
of
K.
J.
is
forbid
in
the
Oath
;
and
it
will
be
further
evident
,
that
so
is
a
Neutrality
also
;
if
it
be
considered
,
that
there
is
no
doubt
,
but
even
the
not
discovering
of
any
designs
of
K.
J.
against
the
Crown
and
Dignity
of
K.
W.
that
should
come
to
our
knowledg
,
would
be
punished
by
the
same
Authority
,
as
an
Offence
contrary
to
our
due
Allegiance
to
him
.
And
therefore
since
such
a
discovery
is
plainly
inconsistent
with
an
exact
Neutrality
;
it
is
obvious
to
infer
,
that
a
Neutrality
,
which
in
the
Judgment
of
our
Law-givers
is
against
our
due
Allegiance
,
is
forbidden
by
them
in
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
.
4.
Lastly
,
The
highest
Construction
of
the
Oath
seems
to
be
most
agreeable
to
all
the
Principles
,
and
Proceedings
of
the
Imposers
.
This
might
be
demonstrated
by
many
particulars
,
but
most
especially
from
the
very
Instrument
of
Government
,
wherein
this
Oath
had
its
Birth
.
There
they
first
declare
,
That
K.
J.
had
abdicated
the
Government
,
and
that
the
Throne
was
thereby
vacant
:
then
they
confer
the
Royal
Dignity
upon
W.
and
M.
as
King
and
Queen
of
England
;
and
then
annex
the
present
Oath
of
Allegiance
to
be
sworn
unto
them
.
So
that
if
we
take
all
together
,
we
may
probably
conclude
,
that
they
intended
a
full
,
absolute
,
and
unreserved
Allegiance
to
them
.
By
their
first
Declaration
it
appears
,
to
be
their
Intention
,
that
no
Allegiance
should
be
paid
to
K.
J.
for
to
No
King
,
No
Allegiance
is
due
:
By
the
second
,
That
all
our
Allegiance
should
be
paid
to
W.
and
M.
for
there
being
no
other
Sovereign
according
to
this
Declaration
,
it
must
be
all
due
unto
them
alone
.
And
the
new
Oath
being
then
immediately
added
,
is
it
not
rational
to
interpret
it
in
Congruity
to
those
Declarations
;
which
do
manifestly
discover
it
to
be
the
Intention
of
the
Imposers
,
that
all
our
Allegiance
should
be
paid
to
the
present
Princes
,
without
any
reservation
of
the
same
Duty
to
K.
J
;
who
according
to
that
Instrument
has
no
more
Right
,
than
the
Cham
of
Tartary
to
it
.
And
I
presume
it
will
not
be
denied
,
That
the
Intention
of
the
Oath
is
the
same
in
the
Law
,
as
it
was
in
the
Declaration
.
But
to
this
it
is
replied
,
That
though
it
be
true
,
that
in
the
Judgment
of
the
Imposers
,
all
our
Allegiance
is
due
to
K.
W.
and
none
at
all
to
K.
J
:
yet
if
it
be
consider'd
,
that
when
the
Form
of
the
Oath
was
under
Debate
,
the
word
Rightful
was
struck
out
,
upon
exception
made
,
that
many
scrupulous
Persons
would
thereupon
refuse
to
take
it
;
and
so
the
Form
was
passed
without
it
.
This
may
be
well
taken
for
a
sufficient
Indication
,
that
it
was
the
Intention
of
the
Imposers
,
that
we
should
swear
Allegiance
to
the
K.
and
Q.
only
as
such
de
facto
;
and
consequently
,
that
they
did
not
intend
to
oblige
us
to
such
a
high
degree
of
Allegiance
as
is
due
to
a
K.
de
Jure
:
and
therefore
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
take
the
Oath
in
the
highest
Construction
of
it
.
This
seems
to
be
the
most
considerable
reason
,
that
is
urged
for
the
abatement
of
the
old
sense
of
Allegiance
;
and
I
hope
to
give
a
satisfactory
Answer
to
it
.
And
I
Answer
,
1.
That
though
the
deliberate
omission
of
the
word
Rightful
does
necessarily
infer
,
that
we
are
not
obliged
in
this
Oath
to
a
Recognition
of
the
right
to
the
Crown
:
yet
it
does
not
infer
,
that
we
are
not
obliged
to
pay
as
high
a
degree
of
Allegiance
,
as
to
any
Rightful
King
whatsoever
.
That
omission
is
an
argument
,
that
the
word
King
in
the
Oath
does
not
necessarily
signifie
a
King
de
jure
:
but
it
is
no
argument
,
that
true
Allegiance
does
not
signifie
true
Allegiance
,
that
is
,
an
Obligation
to
adhere
to
the
King
against
all
his
Enemies
.
For
there
was
uo
Debate
,
that
we
know
of
,
about
the
Sense
of
the
word
Allegiance
;
neither
is
there
any
Intimation
given
,
that
they
design'd
to
restrain
it
to
a
lower
signification
,
though
it
was
plainly
necessary
to
do
it
,
if
they
intended
to
alter
the
commonly
received
meaning
of
it
.
Wherefore
as
the
striking
out
the
word
Rightful
would
not
have
proved
,
that
they
did
not
intend
to
oblige
us
to
an
active
assistance
of
K.
W.
against
all
Men
living
;
if
those
words
had
been
expresly
inserted
in
the
Oath
:
so
neither
will
it
prove
,
that
the
same
Duty
is
not
now
required
of
us
,
if
the
word
Allegiance
do
,
as
I
have
proved
,
vi
termini
import
it
;
and
that
as
fully
,
as
if
it
had
been
in
express
words
required
in
it
.
2.
That
an
abatement
of
Allegiance
is
not
necessarily
inferr'd
in
that
omission
does
appear
from
hence
;
because
it
might
be
the
Judgment
of
the
Imposers
,
that
a
plenary
,
and
unreserved
Allegiance
was
due
by
the
Laws
of
this
Kingdom
even
to
a
K.
de
facto
;
as
much
as
if
he
were
K.
de
jure
also
:
and
if
that
were
their
opinion
;
then
we
have
a
rational
,
and
easie
account
of
that
Omission
,
viz.
that
since
the
highest
Allegiance
was
thought
due
to
a
King
de
facto
,
it
was
not
necessary
to
create
scruples
by
insisting
on
the
word
Rightful
,
since
the
work
of
the
Law
might
be
as
effectually
done
without
it
,
and
the
present
Governors
secured
by
obliging
the
Subjects
to
swear
Allegiance
to
them
.
And
that
this
was
probably
the
true
reason
of
that
Omission
must
needs
be
granted
,
if
it
be
consider'd
how
that
opinion
is
become
almost
universal
,
and
has
been
publickly
countenanced
,
and
asserted
not
only
in
so
many
Licens'd
Pamphlets
,
but
by
our
Lawyers
and
Judges
,
and
even
by
our
Law-givers
themselves
.
However
it
clearly
shews
,
that
the
Omission
of
the
word
Rightful
does
not
manifestly
prove
their
Intention
to
oblige
us
to
a
lower
degree
of
Allegiance
:
And
the
rule
of
the
Law
is
here
to
be
applied
,
that
we
must
not
recede
from
the
Customary
signification
of
the
words
of
the
Oath
,
when
there
is
no
manifest
Necessity
for
it
.
Further
,
If
it
be
objected
,
That
many
Members
of
both
Houses
of
Parliament
have
declared
,
that
the
Oath
was
intended
only
to
oblige
us
to
live
peaceably
under
the
Government
;
I
answer
,
That
those
words
seem
more
ambiguous
,
than
the
words
of
the
Oath
;
that
the
utmost
extent
of
them
may
reach
to
a
full
and
unreserved
Allegiance
;
that
probably
there
are
not
many
that
will
say
,
that
they
did
not
intend
to
debar
us
from
paying
any
Allegiance
to
K.
J.
and
if
they
should
,
there
are
more
who
will
declare
the
contrary
;
and
that
lastly
,
the
Declaration
of
those
Members
is
no
authentical
Interpretation
;
for
when
the
Assembly
of
Parliament
is
ended
,
they
are
not
to
be
consider'd
,
as
Law-givers
,
but
as
private
Persons
;
and
they
have
no
more
Authority
to
interpret
Statutes
,
than
they
have
to
make
them
.
And
lastly
,
If
it
be
yet
further
objected
,
That
the
Government
not
opposing
the
Declarations
,
which
have
been
publickly
made
by
many
,
[
That
they
took
the
Oath
in
no
other
Sense
,
but
that
of
a
peaceable
Submission
,
]
does
imply
a
tacit
approbation
of
it
.
The
answer
is
obvious
:
That
the
not
opposing
those
Declarations
does
not
amount
to
the
approving
of
them
,
as
the
Sense
of
the
Imposers
;
but
only
to
a
connivence
at
them
for
some
Politick
end
,
and
design
:
And
in
short
,
no
Man
will
say
,
That
not
opposing
is
approving
;
or
,
that
the
Government
does
always
allow
of
that
,
which
it
does
not
punish
.
And
thus
have
I
somewhat
more
largely
,
than
at
first
I
intended
,
explained
the
Nature
of
Allegiance
,
and
asserted
the
highest
Construction
of
the
Oath
to
be
the
genuine
meaning
of
it
.
And
,
I
hope
,
it
will
be
allowed
,
that
this
discourse
has
sufficiently
evinced
,
if
not
the
certainty
of
that
Construction
,
yet
at
least
the
uncertainty
of
the
other
Interpretations
of
it
.
And
then
if
any
one
,
after
all
that
has
been
here
offered
,
shall
remain
doubtful
about
the
true
Sense
of
the
Oath
;
I
shall
only
put
him
in
mind
of
that
necessary
Caution
of
Dr.
Sanderson
,
[
That
when
the
meaning
of
an
Oath
is
dubious
,
great
care
must
be
used
,
that
we
do
not
indulge
our
corrupt
Affections
too
much
;
or
assume
to
our selves
a
loose
and
licentious
way
of
interpreting
,
that
we
may
the
more
easily
evade
the
Obligation
of
the
Oath
;
and
that
we
do
not
for
our
proper
Interest
,
and
advantage
,
affix
any
other
sense
upon
the
Oath
,
or
any
part
of
it
,
than
that
,
which
any
other
pious
and
prudent
person
(
who
,
being
unconcerned
in
the
Business
,
is
of
a
freer
Judgment
,
)
would
easily
gather
out
of
the
words
themselves
:
and
that
for
two
Reasons
.
First
,
For
fear
of
giving
scandal
to
others
,
lest
any
other
weaker
Person
,
being
encouraged
by
our
example
,
should
think
the
same
thing
lawful
for
him
,
which
he
sees
practised
by
us
;
though
he
be
ignorant
of
those
Subtilties
,
by
which
alone
we
discharge
our selves
from
Perjury
.
And
Secondly
,
In
respect
of
our selves
,
viz.
for
fear
of
Perjury
;
*
The
Guilt
of
which
abominable
Crime
,
we
do
undoubtedly
bring
upon
our
Souls
,
if
that
more
favourable
Interptation
,
which
emboldned
us
to
take
the
Oath
,
should
chance
to
deceive
us
.
And
this
Reason
is
grounded
upon
that
general
Rule
;
which
requires
us
in
things
doubtful
to
chuse
the
safer
side
.
But
it
is
much
safer
to
refuse
the
Oath
propounded
,
when
the
Words
according
to
the
common
,
and
obvious
sense
,
do
seem
to
contain
any
thing
unlawful
in
it self
;
than
by
a
loose
Interpretation
so
to
mollifie
them
to
our
purpose
,
as
that
we
may
the
more
safely
take
it
.
Forasmuch
as
it
is
manifest
,
that
such
an
Oath
may
be
refused
,
but
not
that
it
may
be
taken
without
any
either
fear
,
or
danger
of
Perjury
.
]
Thus
that
excellent
Casuist
.
And
in
another
place
,
where
he
expresly
propounds
the
Case
of
an
ambiguous
Oath
,
his
Resolution
is
,
[
That
a
pious
and
prudent
Person
should
absolutely
refuse
it
;
*
and
that
before
an
Oath
can
be
rightly
taken
,
it
is
expedient
,
that
there
be
a
clear
Agreement
amongst
all
Parties
concerned
,
(
the
Imposers
,
and
the
Takers
)
about
the
meaning
of
it
.
]
Whether
this
be
not
honest
,
and
conscientious
Divinity
,
I
leave
every
man
to
judge
;
and
whether
they
,
who
have
taken
the
Oath
in
the
lower
interpretation
,
have
acted
according
to
these
or
better
measures
,
they
themselves
are
the
only
Judges
.
If
they
have
herein
acted
with
sincerity
,
and
their
own
hearts
do
not
condemn
them
;
then
they
may
have
confidence
towards
God
;
but
we
should
all
remember
,
that
God
is
greater
than
our
hearts
,
and
knoweth
all
things
;
and
that
they
,
who
swear
deceitfully
;
or
change
,
when
they
have
sworn
to
their
own
hurt
,
shall
never
,
unless
they
repent
,
abide
in
the
Tabernacle
of
the
Lord
,
nor
ascend
into
his
Holy
Place
.
FINIS
.
Notes, typically marginal, from the original text
Notes for div A36485-e10
Spel.
in
v●r
.
Fideles
.
Feudum
est
benevola
,
&
libera
rei
immobilis
,
&
aequipollentis
concessio
,
cum
translatione
utilis
Dominii
,
proprietatè
retentâ
sub
exhibitione
servitiorum
honestorum
.
Feud
.
Declaratio
ante
lib.
Feud
.
Disp
de
Feud
.
c.
7.
Gloss
.
in
ver
.
Ligium
.
lib.
2.
c.
35.
fol.
79.
l.
9.
c.
1.
l.
3.
c.
16.
Inst
.
jur
.
Ang.
l.
2.
tit
.
2.
Feud
l.
2.
tit
26
:
Car.
Mol.
tit
.
1.
de
Fi.
S.
3
Glo.
4.
n.
17
Bracton
.
l.
1
c.
8.
Si
autem
a
rege
petatur
,
locus
●rit
supplicationi
,
quod
factum
suum
corrigat
,
&
emendet
:
quod
quidem
si
non
secerit
,
satis
sufficit
ei
ad
paenam
,
quod
Dominum
expectet
ultorem
.
In
v.
Fidelitas
.
†
Historia
major
,
p.
5
,
6.
*
Cambden
.
Britannia
.
p.
109.
vdit
.
Lond.
16●7
.
Victor
Gulielmus
,
in
victoriae
quasi
trophaeum
antiquatis
maximam
partem
Anglorum
Legibus
Normannie
●onsuetudines
induxit
,
causisque
Gallicè
disceptari
jussis
,
exclasis
haereaitate
avitâ
Anglis
,
agros
&
praedia
militibus
suis
assignavit
;
ita
tamen
,
ut
Dominium
directum
sibi
reservaret
,
obsequiumque
clientelari
jure
sibi
&
successoribus
devinciret
.
i.
e.
ut
omnes
in
feudo
sive
fide
●enerent
,
&
nulli
praeter
Regem
essent
veri
Domini
;
sed
●otiùs
fiduciarii
Domini
,
&
possessores
.
Coke
1.
Inst
.
l.
2.
c.
1.
Cowell
.
Inst
.
Jur.
l.
2.
tit
.
2.
Descrip
.
Jur.
tempor
.
juxta
consuet
.
Feudales
pars
1.
§
2.
Calvin's
Case
.
In
v.
Homagium
.
Mol.
ibid.
Glo.
3.
Calvin
's
Case
.
In
v.
Ligeantia
.
Page
4
,
5.
Feud
.
l.
2.
〈…〉
.
7.
Ibid.
tit
.
6.
Disp
.
de
Feud
.
c.
4.
*
Feud
.
l.
2.
tit
.
28.
Domino
Guerram
faciente
alicui
,
si
sciatur
quod
justè
,
aut
cùm
dubitatur
,
Vassallus
eum
adjuvare
tenetur
:
sed
cùm
palàm
est
,
quod
irratimab●liter
eam
facir
,
adjuvet
cum
ad
ejus
defersionem
,
ad
offendendum
vero
alium
non
adjuvet
,
si
vult
.
Feud
.
l.
2.
tit
.
28.
Lib.
9.
cap.
1.
1.
Inst
.
l.
2.
c.
1.
In
v.
Ligii
.
L.
3.
p.
207.
De
Exp.
Voc.
in
v.
Lige
.
Feud
.
Declar
.
ante
Lib.
Feud
.
Fleta
ibid.
In
v
Ligeanti
〈…〉
l.
9.
c.
1.
Lamb.
Col.
Stat.
58.
R.
Guliel
.
De
ver
.
Feud
.
in
v.
Fidelitas
.
c.
24.
Tho
Manly
.
*
Ligeantiae
est
,
ex
quâ
Domino
tenentur
Vassalli
sui
contra
omnes
homines
qui
mori
possunt
,
&
vivere
;
proprii
corporis
praebere
,
consilii
&
auxilii
Juvamentum
;
&
ei
se
in
omnibus
innocuos
exhibere
,
nec
ei
adversantium
partem
in
aliquo
confovere
.
Spelman
in
v.
Fidelitas
,
p.
225.
So
also
,
7
Ed.
1.
11
H.
7.
c.
1.
Calvin's
Case
.
Lamb.
Leg
,
E.
l.
Conf.
c.
35
▪
Ft
apud
Spelman
in
v.
Fidelitas
Stat.
52.
ibid.
Calvin's
Case
.
Cowel
Inst
.
1.
2.
tit
.
3.
Sect.
14.
Ibid.
Ibid.
His
Works
,
p.
71.
Ibid
p.
16.
Procl
against
Levying
Forces
.
Ibid
p.
22.
C.
12.
n.
96.
Calvin
〈…〉
Case
▪
As
Coke
,
Spelman
,
Jenkins
,
Vaughan
.
*
Tertull.
Apol.
c.
32.
Nos
Judicium
Dei
suspicimus
in
Imperatoribus
,
qui
Gentibus
illos
praefecit
,
id
enim
in
eis
scimus
esse
quod
Deus
voluit
,
ideoque
&
salvum
ipsum
esse
volumus
,
quod
Deus
voluit
.
The
Case
of
the
Engagement
.
Calvin
'
s
Case
.
*
Prael
.
5.
S.
20.
Regni
Invasori
sic
praestandum
est
obsequium
,
ut
Fidelitas
legitimo
haeredi
debita
nullatenus
violetur
.
So
also
in
the
Case
of
Engagement
,
and
his
Censure
upon
Ascham
.
Comment
.
in
Tit.
5.
lib.
2.
de
Feud
.
*
Car.
Mol.
tit
.
1.
de
Fises
.
s
.
3.
Glo.
4.
Non
requiritur
certa
Jurandi
formula
,
sed
sufficit
simplicibus
verbis
Jurare
;
put
à
Juro
fidelitatem
Clientelarem
,
vel
facio
Fidem
&
Homagium
sub
Sacramento
Fidelitatis
;
nec
est
necesse
sigillatim
exprimere
Capitula
Fidelitatis
,
quia
satis
subintelligitur
per
tacitam
relationem
ad
ea
,
quae
de
Jure
&
Consuetudine
Feudorum
debentur
.
Des
.
jur
.
temp
.
Sec.
Consuet
Feudales
Pars
1.
Sect.
9.
V.
Comber
upon
the
Litargy
.
p.
242.
Tertull.
Apol.
c.
30.
Dr
Taylor
Ductor
dubit
.
p.
123.
Suarez
de
leg
.
p.
190.
n.
7.
Taylor
ibidem
.
Suarez
.
p.
418.
De
Jur.
ob
▪
Pr●el
.
2.
S.
9.
*
Dr.
Sanderson
,
ib.
Quod
gravissimum
Crimen
sine
dubio
in
nos
admittimus
,
si
nos
forte
fallat
benignior
Interpretatio
,
quae
nobis
jurandi
fecit
audaciam
,
*
Id.
Prael
6.
S.
10.
Sanè
ut
inter
jurandum
omnia
rectè
fiant
,
expedit
ut
de
verborum
sensu
inter
omnes
Partes
quarum
interest
liquido
constet
;
id
quod
liquidò
jurare
veteribus
dictum
est
.
—
Et
ex
veteri
formula
juraturo
à
deferente
juramentum
dici
solitum
est
;
Quâ
de
re
peto
liquido
Jures
.