Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33908
|
Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance considered with some remarks upon his vindication.
|
Collier, Jeremy, 1650-1726.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing C5252; ESTC R21797
|
127,972
|
168
|
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