Dr. SHERLOCK's CASE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSIDERED WITH SOME REMARKS UPON HIS Vindication LONDON Printed in the Year MDCXCI TO THE READER THERE has been lately as I am informed several considerable Treatises published against Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance and though I have perused none of these Answers excepting the Author of the Postscript yet from the general Reputation they have gained I have reason to conclude they are likely to give the Reader satisfaction and the Dr. Diversion enough if he intends a Reply So that had not the following Papers been almost finished before I understood there were so many Pens drawn upon him I think I had neither put my self nor any body else to any Trouble upon this Subject However since the Dr. has hung out the Flag of Defiance sent us a general Challenge and seems desirous to charge a whole Party he of all Men has no reason to be disobliged for being attacked from all Quarters Indeed this Circumstance besides its complyance with his Inclinations must do him a Kindness let things happen how they will For if he is obliged to quit the Field it affords him the Excuse of being Oppressed with Numbers If he succeeds the Forces of the Enemy must add to the Glory of his Triumph I shall apply my self to the Consideration of the Body of his Book without making any large Animadversions upon his Preface his Business in these preliminary Pages being not to argue upon the Controversie but only to report Matters of Fact with reference to his late Behaviour and to draw up an History of his Integrity Which Design of the Dr's how necessary soever it might be to undertake is in my Opinion but odly pursued For he has shewn an open Partiality in his Conduct before his Complyance and made large Steps towards the Revolution when he was convinced of its being the wrong side He calls it Faction to appear with Heartiness and Concern in Defence of the Old Oaths though we believe them to remain in full Force He prayed in the Royal Stile for the present Possessors as early one Week excepted as the most forward He gives hard Language to those of the Church of England who absent themselves from the publick Communion since the Late Alterations in the Service which in their Judgments are both sinful in the Matter and defective in the Authority He seems sollicitous lest the Rightful Government should Recover and declares his Inclinations were engaged against it 'T is true he prayed heartily to God that if he was in a Mistake he might discover it and comply But he doth not tell us he spent any of his Devotions the other way He does not say that he prayed for Constancy and Perseverance provided he was already in the right That he desired the Divine Assistance to stand firm against Interest and Noise and Numbers and be neither bribed nor frightned out of his Duty Now to act in this manner is a much more difficult Performance than the other and therefore the Preparatory Dispositions ought to be begg'd of God Almighty with the greater Earnestness A little praying is sufficient to incline a man to consult his Ease and preserve his Fortune but to hazard or part with them both is a Piece of Discipline very unacceptable to Flesh and Blood and requires a more than ordinary degree of Courage and Resignation to undergo it These things considered the Dr. had reason to call the Reader his Confessor for I am much mistaken if he has not frankly discovered his Failings to him However the Dr. assures us he has received that Satisfaction he desired Which is not unlikely but whether it was the Return of his Prayers or not will be best understood by examining his Principles I have nothing farther to add by way of Introduction but only to desire it may be observed That the Dr. all along supposes the Revolution unjust and illegal and argues upon a Case of Usurpation And therefore if the Reader meets with any unexpected Freedoms in this Discourse he may please to charge it upon the Nature of the Dispute and thank the Dr. for giving the Occasion THE CONTENTS THE Laws relating to the present Controversie vindicated from the Exception of Obscurity Pag. 3. Several Consequences drawn from the Dr's Principles by which the Danger and Vnreasonableness of them is made apparent p. 5. Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book no Favourer of the Dr's Opinion p. 11. This proved from the Convocation's maintaining several Propositions inconsistent with the Dr's Principles p. 12. His Citations from the Convocation-Book unserviceable to his purpose p. 18. The Authority of the Aramites Moabites and Aegyptians unexceptionable p. 21 22. The Four Monarchies all Legal Governments p. 23. The Case of Jaddus considered p. 27. A brief Account how the Romans came by their Government over Judea p. 35. The Dr's Notion of Settlement inconsistent with it self p. 41. The 13th of Rom. 1 2. concerns only Legal Powers proved from 1st the Doctrin of the Scriptures p. 44. 2dly From the Testimony of the Ancients p. 51. 3dly From the general Sentiments of Mankind at and before the Apostles times p. 53. The pretended Difficulties of this Interpretation removed p. 55. The Dr's Argument from Matth. 22.21 answered p. 59. His Doctrin concerning Providence and Events considered p. 62. The Abettors of his Opinion in this point produced p. 65. Amos 3.6 recovered from the Dr's Interpretation p 67. Hobbism proved upon the Dr. p. 73. The Insignificancy of Legal Right upon his Principles p. 82. His Doctrin concerning the different Degrees of Submission c. examined p. 85. Intruding Powers have no Right to a qualified Obedience nor to the Royal State p. 86. The Original of Government easily accounted for without the Assistance of the Dr's Scheme p. 90. The Objections raised by the Dr. defended against his Answers p. 94. The first Objection That his Doctrin makes a King lose his Light by being notoriously injured made good Ibid. The Injustice of deserting a Prince upon the score of Religion and the Sophistry of this pretence discovered p. 96. Allegiance bound unconditionally upon the Subject by the Laws of Nature and of the Land p. 97. All Subjects upon demand bound to hazard their persons in defence of their Prince proved from the Resolution of the Iudges c. p. 97 c. The Dr's Distinction of the Parts of the Oath of Allegiance ill founded and misapplyed p. 99. The King's Authority entire after dispossession p. 101. The Pretences for a King de facto confuted p. 102. To Maintain in the Oath of Allegiance implies an endeavour to Restore p. 103 c. Treason may be committed against a King out of Possession p. 107. The Dr's Assertion That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath c. untrue and dangerous p. 111. The Objection That his Doctrin makes it impossible for an injured Prince to recover his Right defended p. 115. The Case of private Robbers and
and at the same time to deny the Duties consequent upon it is to say that we are resolved not to render to all their Dues notwithstanding the common Reason of Mankind and the Apostles Command to the contrary But he the legal Prince does not and can't Govern If that is none of his own Choice it ought not to be alledged to his Prejudice If nothing but the Disobedience of his Subjects hinders him from Governing it 's unreasonable for them to plead their own Crime in Discharge of their Allegiance and to make a Privilege of Rebellion His next Answer has nothing new in it excepting an Admonition to all Princes to be upon their good Behaviour For they must take some care to preserve their Crowns by good Government i. e. they must govern as the Doctor and the rest of their Loyal Subjects think fit Which Courtly Advice must end in an Appeal to the judicious Mobb and make the Vulgar the last Resort of Justice For these being the Majority ought not to be denied the common Privilege of examining the Actions of their Sovereign But what is the Penalty the Doctor lays upon Princes if they don't give Satisfaction Why then their Subjects are allowed to stand Neuter and not to maintain them so much as in Possession Just now the Doctor told us That the Duty of the Subject was to obey the Laws of the Prince in Possession Some of which Laws provide expresly for the Defence of his Person Crown and Dignity Now to allow this Priviledge to an Usurper and deny it to a lawful Prince in Possession amounts to little less then asserting That Justice ought to be Discountenanced and that a bad Title is better than a good one But is the Doctor sure the People are at Liberty not to assist a Prince when he does not please them Are they not bound to defend a Divine Right which he grants is never parted from Possession Is not God's Authority in a bad Prince supposing he was really such as much as in a good one If not Dominion is founded in Grace and so we are gotten off from Thomas Hobs to Iohn of Leyden and Knipperdolling And though the Doctor was not very sure the Subjects are bound to defend an unacceptable Prince in his Throne yet a little time has better informed him For Pag. 29. he grants it's Reasonable enough to venture our Lives and Fortunes to defend the King's Person and Government while he is in Possession This I mention that the Doctor may have the Honour to confute himself Neu quisquam Ajacem possit superare nisi Ajax However at present he will not be thus Liberal For if the Subjects have a bad Prince who notoriously violates their Rights What follows Then to be even with him they may be bad Subjects and notoriously violate his Rights In such a Case if he cannot defend himself and fight an Army singly Let him go though we are bound to support him by the Fundamental Laws of Government in General and of the Constitution in Particular But what if he Strikes at Religion If he does it 's able to bear the Blow without any Damage A Man might as well undertake to stab a Spirit as to destroy Religion by Force We can never lose our Faith unless it 's thrown away by Negligence or surrendred by Treachery Religion is out of the reach of Injury and invulnerable like the Soul in which it 's seated For it 's not in the Power of Violence to rifle our Understandings or ravish the Freedom of our Wills Religion instead of being Weakned rises upon an Opposition and grows more Glorious by Sufferings as is manifest from the History of the Primitive Christians I don't mention this as if we lately either felt or indeed had any reason to fear any thing like a Persecution but only to shew the Sophistry of the Doctor 's Argument For if the Religion of the Subject be out of the Prince's Power to alter it ought not to be pretended as a Reason of Deserting him Besides to pretend Religion for the breach of Oaths and Natural Allegiance is the greatest Reproach we can lay upon it and makes one part of it to contradict and destroy another And though the Doctor says It 's a little too much for the Subjects to venture their Lives to keep a Prince in the Throne to oppress them That is a Prince the People are not pleased with for if they don't fancy him they will either say he is or will be an Oppressor Now if Allegiance depends upon the Qualities of the Prince and his Subjects were made Judges of his Behaviour as the Doctor will have it it 's impossible for any Government to continue At this rate the Ignorance and Levity of some the Disgust and Ambition of others would soon argue themselves into Liberty and the State into Confusion And therefore Obedience is unconditionally bound upon us by the Laws of Nature which are part of the Constitution of this Realm as the Judges agree in Calvin's Case This Faith and Ligeance of the Subject is as they observe proprium quarto modo to the King omni soli semper and by consequence forecloses all Objections against Rigour and Maleadministration Allegiance as all the Judges resolve it in the Case of the Post nati follows the natural Person of the King and by consequence must continue as long as his natural Person is in being without any respect to his Moral Qualifications But a Subject and a Soldier are two things and a Man may be the first without any Obligation from the Laws of God or Man of being necessarily the latter To this I answer That though every Subject needs not be a Soldier by Profession yet whenever his Prince is in danger and requires his Service he is bound by the Laws of God and Man to fight for him I doubt not but the Doctor is so far of Sir Edward Coke's Opinion That the Duty of the Fifth Commandment extends to the King who is Pater Patriae Now one part of the Duty we owe our Parents is to defend their Persons from Violence Which Assistance seems due a fortiori to the Father of our Country who has the Jurisdiction over all private Families and from whom both our selves and our Parents have received Protection Solomon tells us where the Word of a King is there is Power And if the Subject is bound to give a general Obedience to his Prince then certainly he is not at Liberty to decline his Service when his Crown and Person are concerned The same Conclusion is plainly implied in our blessed Saviour's Answer to Pilate If my Kingdom were of this World then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Iews From which Words this Proposition naturally follows That Subjects as Subjects are bound to hazard their Persons in Defence of their Prince Indeed this Doctrine stands in little need of the
Treason was committable against him for Treason is nothing but a high Breach of Allegiance But this Proclamation is so plain that there needs no farther Comment upon it And thus I have made it appear from the Resolution of all the Judges in two distinct and celebrated Cases by Proclamation and Acts of Parliament that Treason lyes against the King though out of Possession Which performance the Doctor is pleased to call Proving the Point and looked upon it as an impossible Undertaking The Doctor 's next Observation begins very obligingly for the Crown And seems to insinuate that the Subjects need not disturb themselves with Fears and Jealousies For in case a Prince should be enclined to stretch his Prerogative He can't hurt them unless they will betray their own Liberties and venture to be Hanged for it And who would venture an Execution only for Robbing himself There is no fear the Majority of the English Nation especially should ever be guilty of such an Extravagance So that now one would think all was safe enough But it happens quite otherwise For the Doctor flyes out unexpectedly against Arbitrary Power makes indecent Reflections and gives all Princes a Second Admonition to take warning And after this sit of Schooling is over he argues thus That if the Oath of Allegiance does not oblige Subjects to defend a Prince in the Exercise of an Arbitrary Power He thinks it much less obliges them to restore such a Prince To this granting the Doctors supposition for Disputes sake I answer That notwithstanding the Subjects are not to act for the promoting of Arbitrary Power yet they are bound to support an Arbitrary Prince supposing they have one This the Doctor must grant unless he will maintain That a Sovereign and unaccountable Power may be Forfeited by Maladministration which I think is a Contradiction For all Forfeitures imply a Legal and Superiour Court to take Cognizance of the Cause and pronounce Sentence which cannot be supposed in this Case without making a Superiour to a Supreme And if Sovereign Power is Unforfeitable than the Right of him who is vested with it must always remain And if so the Subjects are bound to support him in the Exercise of it though it may be sometimes over-strained into Rigour Let us try the Doctor 's Argument once more The Subjects are not obliged to defend a Prince in the Exercise of Arbitrary Power They are not bound to maintain the Excesses of a Prince's Prerogatives therefore they may deny him his just Rights They are not bound to give him more than his Due therefore they may give him less or take all away from him 'T is a fault to break the Laws in Favour of the Crown therefore we may break them for Rebellion Where lyes the Equity and Logick of these Propositions A less Master of Thinking than the Doctor would have found out the Distinction between Arbitrary and Regal Power and concluded that our Obligations not to promote the one did not discharge us from supporting the other His Inference That the making and receiving Addresses of Lives and Fortunes is supposed to signifie some other Defence than the Oath of Allegiance obliged the People to is not Mathematically drawn For may not Men make a Recognition of their Duty and give fresh Assurances to perform that which they were obliged to before What is more common in Religion and Civil Conversation than to renew former Engagements by repeated Promises and Solemnities of Action These Addresses of Loyalty refresh the Obligation of the Subject and the good Opinion of the Prince And therefore it 's no wonder they are kindly received though they present him with nothing but his own I don't mean that the People have no Property in their Lives and Fortunes but only that they are bound to expose and resign them to the Publick i. e. their Prince's Interest when Occasion requires The Doctor remarks farther That the Oath of Allegiance is a National Oath and therefore the Defence or Maintenance we swear is National that is to joyn with our fellow Subjects in defending the King's Person and Crown But in case the body of the Nation absolve themselves from these Oaths and depose their King and drive him out of his Kingdom and set up another Prince in his room it 's worth considering whether some private Men are still bound by their Oath And immediately concludes certainly this was not the Intention of the Oath for it is a national not a private Defence we Swear I confess the Doctor has stated the Matter of Fact notably enough about Absolving Deposing Driving out Setting up c. But the Consequence he infers from thence I cannot understand for these following Reasons First because there is nothing in the Form of the Oath to countenance this Interpretation but the contrary For by the Oath of Allegiance every Person Swears to bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty and his Heirs c. and him and them will defend to the uttermost of his Power Whence I observe 1. That the Swearing in the Singular Number and without Conditions of Assistance is an Argument that every individual Person is bound to unalterable Fidelity to the Crown without any Relation to or Dependance upon the Behaviour of his fellow Subjects 2. He that runs in to a Majority of Revolters does not defend the King to the uttermost of his Power For the King has neither his Counsel the Reserve of his Person nor the Example of his Constancy some or all of which might have been serviceable in their way and were in his Power to give him Nay he is so far from defending the King to the utmost of his Power that he consigns himself and all his Power into the hands of the Usurper to be employed against his lawful Sovereign which is as direct a Contradiction to the Words and Intention of the Oath as can possibly be imagined Farther the Oath declares I do believe and am in Conscience resolved That neither the Pope nor any Person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof But the Doctor is of another mind and concludes That when the great Body of the Nation has absolved themselves their Neighbours are absolved too I suppose the Doctor will not quibble upon the Word Person and argue that though the Pope nor any other Person has any Power to absolve us yet the People may because they imply another Number and include a Plurality of Persons If he objects in this manner the latter end of the Sentence is sufficient to disappoint him For there we renounce all Dispensations to the contrary Which Clause is levelled against Popular as well as Papal Plenitude of Power and comprehends the VVestminster-Infallibility as much as that of Rome Lastly all these things are sworn according to the express Words spoken and according to the plain and common Sense and Understanding of the same Words and without any Equivocation or
disobliging our great Patrons of Liberty Nay he is so far from condemning such singular Casuists that he seems to argue in Justification of them For They says he could not think that Oaths which were made and imposed for the Preservation of a Protestant Prince and the Protestant Rights and Liberties of Church and State could oblige them to defend and maintain a Prince in his Vsurpation as they thought upon both The Dr. by his wording it would almost make an ignorant man believe that the Protestant Religion was the Supreme Power in England and that we were Bound to support it in the Field against the King But those who will take the pains to peruse the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy will see they oblige us to bear True Faith c. to the King and to defend him and his Heirs and Lawful Successors without making any Enquiry into their Creed It was never known that the Kings of England held their Crowns by the Tenure of Religion If their Claim had not been wholly founded upon Birthright and Proximity of Blood there had been no Pretence for the late Bill of Exclusion But such Absurdities as these are too gross to deserve any farther Consideration And since we are indispensably Bound to serve and defend our Prince without any regard to his Perswasion it must be a very bad Religion which teaches us to desert or oppose him There can't be a greater Reproach cast upon the Reformation than to make it give Countenance to such horrid and treacherous Practices as these What our Author means by the Protestant Rights and Liberties of the State is hard to understand for the Rights of the State are purely Secular and Civil He may as well call a Farm a Protestant Farm as give that Epithete to the Rights of the State but the word Protestant must be crammed in otherwise the Charm will not work The Dr. once more lays a great stress upon a National Submission and Consent and makes it necessary to the introducing a Settlement Now I have shewn that this Expedient must be altogether unserviceable to our Author upon his own Principles for if by whatsoever means a Prince ascends the Throne he is placed there by God's Authority of which Power is a certain sign To what purpose is the Consent of the People required Have they the Liberty to refuse Submission to God's Authority when it produces such infallible Credentials and appears in such a demonstrative manner Besides as has been already hinted his making Submission a necessary Assistant of Power is not only a Contradiction of himself but likewise brings a farther Inconvenience along with it and makes that Absurdity which he endeavours to throw upon Hereditary Principles return upon his own for if God's Authority is not given to any Prince before a Through Settlement and this Settlement cannot be compleated without a National Submission then God as well as men is confined by Human Laws or by Human Inclinations which is as bad in making Kings which is to say that the Right of Government is not derived from God without the Consent of the People How the Dr. will disengage is best known to himself Farther I must ask him the old Question over again Whether this National Submission must be Legal or Illegal If an Illegal Submission will serve his turn this is no better than plain Force under the Disguise of a new Name 't is a violent Combination against the Laws and Rightful Governour and resolves it self into the Principles of Power If the Submission ought to be Legal he must not only prove it such but be obliged to give up the main design of his Books and dispute a point which he has declared is nothing to his present purpose However I must follow him through all the Windings of his Discourse He says Though some men dispute whether a Convention of the Estates not called by the King's Writs be a Legal Parliament yet all men must confess they are the Representatives of the Nation c. I suppose very few People besides the Dr. will dispute Whether a Convention is a Legal Parliament or not if they consider that the King's Writs are necessary to impower the People to make and return Elections And supposing they had the advantage of this Preliminary yet unless the Members take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy all their Proceedings are declared null and void by express Statutes Now if a Convention is no Legal Assembly their Deputation from the People signifies nothing it only makes them the Mouth of publick Disorder and the Illegal Representatives of the Nation And how the Dr. can oblige them by such a Character I can't imagin But the Nation can have no Representatives but such when there is no King in the Throne To make this Argument good the Dr. should have prov'd That the Throne is immoveably fixed at Whitehall That the King was Legally ejected by his Subjects That after this Retirement they sent to entreat him to return and promised a more agreeable Behaviour That upon these Submissions he refused to engage any farther and resigned up the Government into their Hands The Dr. should have proved that all this was either done or else unnecessary before he set the Nation a Representing at all Adventures As for his Flourish with the word Estates I question whether it will do him any service for Who made them Estates Does their Number and Quality make them such Then they are Estates in the Intervals of Parliament in their own Houses in a Tavern as well as at other times and places Does the Choice of the People though altogether Illegal give them the advantage of this Character If so I would gladly be informed whether every Riotous Meeting may not furnish out their proportion towards a Body of Estates to be compleated by the general Distraction of the Nation I perceive I must enquire farther I desire therefore the Dr. would tell me whether the Parliament House has any peculiar Vertue to raise private Persons into a publick Character If it has great care ought to be taken who comes into it Besides it 's worth the knowing which way this mysterious Privilege is conveyed Have we any Legislative Brick and Stone Or does the House work by way of Steams and Exhalations as the Oracle at Delphos is said to have done The Dr. I perceive does not trouble himself with these Scruples but is resolved to go on with his Submissions c. and tells us That the Consent and Submission of the Convention especially when confirmed by subsequent Parliaments is a National act Therefore I must ask him a few more Questions How a Convention can sublimate it self into a Parliament i. e. How a private and illegal Assembly can give it self the Privilege of Authority and Law Now a National Act without and against the Authority of the Constitution is to speak softly no better than a National Disorder