Selected quad for the lemma: law_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A75533
|
The necessity of altering the present oath of allegiance made evident also the declaration signed by above 28000 in Lancashire, when they expected a late French invasion, compared with the association signed in this present Parliament / in a letter to a nobleman.
|
W. A.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing A35A; ESTC R42793
|
8,057
|
6
|
The Necessity of altering the present OATH OF ALLEGIANCE made evident Also the DECLARATION Signed by above 28000 in Lancashire when they expected a late French Invasion Compared with the ASSOCIATION Signed in this Present Parliament In a LETTER to a Nobleman IF My Lord it were possible for any private consideration to add to the satisfaction your Lordship has in the happy Discovery of that Horrid Plot against his Majesties Person and Government which is now too big to be Conceal'd I might believe it would be a particular pleasure to be freed from that Character which Men of great Moderation in the Cause of God and their Countrey affix to those who believing that the most will act according to their avowed Principles have long desired to come to a distinction who by Principle are against the Government and who for it This the House of Commons have done in great Measure by their Voluntary association in which they have set an excellent Example to all Societies of Men among us and claim the Honour of being before hand with the People as they in the time of Queen Elizabeth were with the Parliament which rejoyced to ratify what they worthily did without standing nicely upon Ancient Forms But certain is the Wisdom of former Ages has thought no Publick Associations sufficiently Solemn without an Oath which invokes the Almighty for a Witness and Party to what is declared before Men and they who would not be Sworn Brethren to defend the King and Kingdom were deservedly accounted Out-laws if not Enemies Nor need I enquire what your Lordship thinks of them who value the reputation of their Coat or Party 〈◊〉 than the security of our Religion Laws and Liberâ—… and who are so blindly partial as to assert it to 〈◊〉 to impose the Sacramental Test as a means to preâ—… the Peace by an uniformity in what they call the Reâ—… of their Countrey and yet will sacrifice the essentiâ—… our Religion and a Government which is the 〈◊〉 Visible security for that and us rather than â—…y-men should be thought to depart from Princiâ—… to be repented of or to suffer for an obstinate adâ—…ing to 'em against Sense Conviction and their 〈◊〉 practice at the beginning of this Revolution which 〈◊〉 not only complyed with but courted by their greatest â—…ts Some Timerous Politicians would be against Prosecuâ—…g the advantages which a most propitious providence puts into our Hands least if our Enemies should prevail they should profit of the Precedents for their security set by us But 1. They who always act in fear of their Enemies are never likely to subdue ' em 2. The others will never regard Precedents when they have power of doing mischief 3. Not to disable is to encourage 'em and all gentle usage to such Irgenerous Natures as appears by recent experience is but warming the Snakes till they get strength to sting 4. Not to disarm an Enemy in our power is a very absurd effect of fear 5. If that whereby we might disable the Enemy relate to Friviledges they who will hazard Life and all rather than deprive those of the Priviledges of Erglish Men who justly forfeit 'em are as ill Patriots as Politicians Wherefore I take leave here to lay before your Lordship an Abstract of those reasons which long since convinced me That the Government would be greatly wanting to it self if it should not press for a farther caution for the fidelity of the Subject than can be had from the Oath of Allegiance appointed by the late Act of Parliament and that if they who contributed to the present settlement or are for the right of it express a foolish tenderness for those who scruple all Oaths Declaratory of the Right and engaging to Defend it they will deserve what has for the most part been their fate to be despis'd and trampled on whatever side is uppermost Upon which occasion I cannot but apply the Observation of Ploughing with an Ox and an Ass to the Papists using the Services of the Tory and the Whigg The Oath appointed by the late Act is this I Do sincerely Promise and Swear That I will be Faithful and bear True Allegiance to Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Upon which I may observe 1. That this Oath is conceived in fewer Terms than ever any Oath to the Government required at Common Law or by Statute 2. The Omissions are very material and seem to have been contriv'd by some to leave themselves and their Friends a design'd Latitude by others to draw Men in to Swear Allegiance and to urge the true Import of the Oath upon them who might think themselves under no Obligation to defend this Government notwithstanding the Oath for that 3. The Common Law Oath of Fidelity and those which have been Enacted by any former Statute always required Defence of the King or Queen for the time being and acknowledged their Right to Govern either in express Terms or by plain Implication The Omission of which some have urged as an Argument that the Allegiance Sworn to the Late King was never intended to be alter'd or touch'd by this Oath 4. Many have openly declared that they have Sworn to this Government not only without regard to its Right but with a belief that the Right remains in King James This Collusion is justified by the writings of Men of the greatest Authority among them and that not only of the present but past Age particularly of Sir Robert Filmer and Bishop Sanderson whose dictates are never disputed by that set of Men. 5. That in Consequence of such belief there can be no security in the words of such an Oath might appear from the Nature of the thing and does evidently from those dictates according to which some misled Men believe they may take the present Oath and yet not only with some Men question whose commission they ought to obey when King Williams and King James's interfere but are positive that they ought to obey King James and are not to serve King William farther than they may presume the consent of their King of Right 6. If upon these accounts the Oath appears defective not to obviate the known and common evasion would imply great neglect of the safety of a Government which has done so much to make Men safe under it 7. Parliaments in several Ages have found it expedient to Swear the Subjects to maintain the Establish'd Succession of the Crown whereby great confusions have been prevented upon the Deaths of Princes 8. The Oath in Question is now only Personal to his Present Majesty and they who deny his Right notwithstanding their Oath to bear true Allegiance to him would certainly upon his Decease think themselves at liberry to declare for King James or the Prince of Wales in exclusion of Princess Ann and her Issue 9. Consequently tho' His Majesty may be secured of the Loyalty of many who take the Oath they not being subtle enough to understand the thin-spun evasions
with which others seem to quiet their Consciences or to keep up their Reputation all that wish well to the Princess and indeed to the Peace of this Kingdom are bound to use their endeavours for another Oath of Allegiance 10. It being generally agreed that Oaths ought to be taken in the sense of the Imposers and the Parliament which enjoyned the Oath having recognized his Majesties Right together with the late Queen honest Men could not with any colour of Reason scruple an Oath declaratory of the Right more than they do the present Oath 11. An Oath more express were requisite if it were only to acold that material Perjury into which too many run in taking the present Oath in a sense directly contrary to the plain intention of the Law-makers 12. It is to be considered That there is no Act of Parliament for the Oath to his Majesty alone but the subject matter fayling as to her late Majesty the intendment of Law is supposed to authorize the present Oath which may not be so satisfactory to nice Formalizers as a New Oath declaratory of the Right and obliging to adefence of the settlement 13. All the Declaration against rebellion required by the late Act is only against the King not naming his Majesty King William So that the Men who will have the late King â—…ill to be Rightful King must according to the principie of most of 'em except such as hold Non-resistance to be all that can be required by the Sovereign Power think themselves bound to take Arms against King William whenever they have an inviting opportunity and Commission from King James Which makes it highly reasonable if not necessary to distinguish 'em from them who are resolved to do their Duty in Fighting in Defence of King William and the Succession by Law Establish'd 14. An Oath to Defend the present Government and in effect to declare it Lawful and Rightful is yet in force at Common Law ought to be generally enforced at Leets and elsewhere and may be required of all the Subjects by special Commission Wherefore an Oath expresly declaring the Right would induce nothing new unless in the penalty for refusal 15. Allegiance to the Prince is in its own Nature the Duty of Loyal or Liege Subjects to their Liege Lord and is founded upon his Right to the Government or being Lawful and Rightful King As therefore whoever Swears Allegiance to his Majesty virtually acknowledges his Right he that shall refuse to Swear to the Right when duly required will effectually shew â—hat he resolves not to pay the Allegiance which is due 16. Allegiance at Common Law binds to the Defence of the Kingdom as well as the King and therefore the Subjects of this Realm are in a double respect under an Allegiance contrary to any pretence of Right in the Late King 17. It having been duly and Authoritatively declared that the Late King had broken the Original contract between Prince and People and his Majesty King William having been in like manner declared King there is as much reason to Swear that his Present Majesty is Lawful and Rightful King as there ever was to take the like Oath to J. I. C. I. C. II. and J. II. 18. An Oath expresly Abnegatory of any pretence in the Late King is fully as Just and as expedient as the Oaths required in several Reigns declaring against the pretended Authority of the See of Rome or of any Forreign Prince or Potentate 19. As Cowardice or some mighty expectations upon a Change rarher than Conscience must be thought to have made many backward to acknowledge his Majesties Right if the present Power should not work upon Men's hopes aad fears more than a Power in a Remote and as it is to be hoped Vain possibility it would argue great neglect or treachery somewhere 20. If fear be more prevalent than sense of Duty it were to be thought that Men should secretly desire to be under the obligation of an Oath expresly requiring the Defence of the settlement that if a Change should happen they might plead necessity in excuse of their honest endeavours to have prevented it 21. By the Law of God and of Nations as well as of this Land the Obligation of Protection and Defence is reciprocal and the Subjects are as much obliged to Defend their Prince as he to Protect his Subjects But the Doctrine of Non-assistance or of Obedience meerly Passive is New and of pernicious consequence suited to the late Doctrine of providence or of God's ways of Disposing of Kingdoms which makes Allegiance as uncertain as the events of War or publick counsels 22. An Oath by which few if any think themselves obliged to more than they would certainly do without any Oath is in effect to have none but to have none were to condemn the Wisdom and Experience of all Ages I should not think it enough barely to assert so many propositions were it not for a Labour'd Treatise publish'd An. 1694. making evident from Records History and Law Books all that may stand in need of proof upon this Subject and answering the most plausible Objections against such an Oath as is here contended for Upon the whole to engage by Oath to defend his Majesties Person and maintain the Act of Settlement would be so far from engaging to Fight against God's Providence that to refuse it would argue a distrust of Providence and to incur the imputation of being against the Present Government rather than disoblige any Body who possibly may come into power were in Truth to oppose that Providence which has made the presentsettlement and is likely to protect us in the discharge of our Duty to it For the Government to require such an Oath would be so far from implying its being in as desperate a condition as a Papist brought to Extream Vnction That on the other side to decline it would argue an unsoundness in some Vital Part and such a weakness as will not admit of a gentle Purge This would be far from obliging Men to Swear to a moot point as possibly some of superficial knowledge in our Constitution may hold while they with all their Sophistry can never reconcile their two contrary Allegiances to the Law of God or of this Land or to common sense If the example of general Insurrections in former Ages be urged to shew the insecurity of the most expressive Oaths of Allegiance it is to be considered 1. That most if not all of 'em were in Defence of the Kingdom which comes not within the present Question 2. It may easily be prov'd that few if any of 'em have been against any King till he by the Corstitution of this Monarchy ceased to be King 3. No Rising against any Government which never had Legal Settlement and had no other foundation but Force can come within this Question the obligation continuing no longer than the Force did which is a full answer to the rejecting the Protector Richard Cromwell after