The Duty of Allegiance, Chapter 1
THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS, According to SCRIPTURE, REASON, AND THE Opinion of the Church: In Answer To a late Book of Dr. WILLIAM SHERLOCK, Master of the Temple, ENTITULED, The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, Stated and Resolved, according to Scripture, &c. With a more particular Respect to the Oath lately injoyn'd.
London, Printed in the Year 1691.
THE Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True GROUNDS, &c.
CHAP. I.
Of the Difficulties in the way of the present Allegiance, and the ways of taking them off.
Honoured Sir,
HAving now at length, by the blessing of God, found that leisure and convenience I spoke of; in Dutiful Regard to the Ingagement you sent me, I have set my self, with the best attention I could, to consider the Grounds and Reasonings in Dr. Sherlock's late Book, viz. Of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, with a more particular Respect to the present Oath.
I Hope I have not miss'd his Sense; I am sure I have not done it willingly, nor been wanting in that Respect, which I profess to have, and think that all Lovers of Piety and good Reason have had great cause to bear for a Person, who in his many learned Labours has so well deserved of both. But I have examined his Opinions, with the same freedom that he has proposed them, and which the interest of Truth and Righteousness require, as I conceive, in this Case: And this freedom, I believe, will not be Offensive to himself; for if they will stand, it will give him a further Opportunity to clear them. But if they will not, as I verily think they will not, it will concern all, and no Person more than himself, to be showed the Falshood of them. And that not only as being unsound, and insufficient to justifie the Conscience in the present Allegiance: But also as being very ill Principles, and Destructive; in my Judgment, to that moral Honesty which should govern the Actions of Manking.
One Design of the Reverend Author in this Book, and that a very charitable one, was, to endeavour the Satisfaction of those who are still dissatisfied Pref.about the Oaths. And that we may the better judge how fit his Discourse is to reconcile their Consciences thereto, I think i… not amiss to represent in short the Difficulties which Men conceive against the present Oath of Allegiance; and then examine, how successful his way is like to prove in taking them off. And I think it will appear, notwith …anding all he has advanced in this new Hyp thesis, That the Difficulties are as great as they were before; and that there is like to be no way of removing them, but by demonstrating K. James's Abdication, and K. William and Q. Mary's Legal Right, which the Convention and Publick Acts ground the Allegiance in debate upon.
As for the Difficulties, in the way of the Refu…ers, to my Apprehension, thus the Case stands.
True Allegiance to K. W. and Q M. is, to become their true S…ject, to sta… by and to support them against all p…rsons. The Fifth Commandment, which is G…d's most ancient Law for Allegiance by Honour, intends not only R…sp…ct, b…t Service and Support of Parents; the Denial of whi…h, as hoth our Saviour and St. Paul say, is a Breach thereof. Matt. 15. 5 6. 1 Tim. 5. 4.The great end of Civil Society is for mutual Defence. So, when Civil Government is set up, the first and most Fundamental Obligation to it is to Defend it: and this Defence is by the Allegiance of the Subjects. Allegiance is the Band, which tyes not one Stranger to another, who may look on with more Indifference, as idle Spectators; but the Members to the Head. And the Duty of Members is, to do all they can to keep the Head upon the Body, and to be as ready to guard their Head, as to guard themselves. And if any person will take the pains to examine the constant and current meaning of true Allegiance in our Laws, and in the Legal Professions thereof, he will find nothing more clear, I think, than That true Allegeance speaks the Support of their S… vereign against all Opposers and contrary Pretenders. And being thus an Espousal of one, against all others; we can have but one true Allegiance, or one King at a time, to whom we owe, and are to pay this true Allegiance, as this Reverend Person truly notes, p. 14 Prop. 6.
In particular; this true Allegiance to K. William, &c. both in the Sense of the State, and in the Practice of the Subject, is to support them against K. James. If any, that owes K. William and Q Mary Allegiance, doth but correspond with K. James, or give him any Assist…nce, the Courts judge it a breach of this Allegiance. And when K. William goes professedly against K. James, or to reduce, as the Acts and Declarations say, the Rebels in Ireland, i. e. all those Irish that adhere to K James, all his Subjects are required, in vertue of their Allegiance and Subjection to him, to fast and pray for his Success, which are the mo… sol…mn Assistances; and, with as much Solemnity, to give Thanks for the same at his Return, after he has prevailed again…t him. All which, they that profess and have promised All giance to K. W. & Q. M. have accordingly done through the Kingdom.
Now, King James was confessedly the Rightful King of these Realms, to whom all the Subjects thereof ought this true Faith and Allegiance, and to whom all in any publick Office or Trust had Sworn it, either to him by Name, in all the Oaths taken in his own Reign; or, which is the same thing, to him, under the Words Lawful Heirs and Successors, (he being undoubtedly the Lawful Heir and Successor to his Brother) in the Oath, to bear true Allegiance to the King, and his Lawful Heirs and Successors, taken in his Brother's Reign.
This true Allegiance is by the present Oath transferr'd to K. William and Q Mary; and that, as the Convention and publick Acts, which order this Translation, say, because K. James now has no longer any Legal Right to the Throne, but K. W. & Q. M. are rightful King and Queen: And this, if cleared, prevents all the Difficulties which are on Supposition of King James's continuing to have this Legal Right still. But this learned Author, to suit his Argument to those (as he says in his Preface) who are most strongly prejudiced against the Legality of the late Revolution, reasons in this Book upon the Supp…sition of unjust Usurpation. And supposing, as he doth, K. James to have a Legal Right to the Crown; such as these, in my Judgment, are the Difficulties which will lye in the way of transferring Allegiance, for his Book to take off, viz. how such tak…ng away their Allegiance from K. James, supposed therein to have the Legal Right, and turning over against him to another, supposed to have no Legal Right, can be thought,
1. To be just to King James in point of Property. A Crown is the greatest Estate, as well as the highest Authority; and if you suppose the Right to this Estate to be in him, doth not that make it his rightful Property? Then, to seek to hinder him of his Right, to take it out of his hand, or to keep it out of his hand, would be very unrighteous. To pray for it, to wish or desire it, would be a Breach of the Tenth Commandment, an unjust and evil Covetousness. To attempt it, or any ways abet or act therein, would be a Breach of the Eighth, and pass among unjust Seisures. And the Allegiance that tyes to pray for, and to promote the Possession of K. W. & Q. M. I think doth pretty evidently do all this against him.
2. To be Dutiful and Obedient to him in point of Power. Admit him to have the Legal Right, and he will seem to be the Politick Father, and still King; and then, by the F…f…h Commandment, Allegiance is unavoidably due to him. Suppose him the Father there spoken of, and that Commandment bids all to Reverence, and keep Subj…ct to, and Serve, and Support him; and transferring Allegiance runs directly contrary to all these Duties: It is turning Subject to another against him, not keeping Subject to him against all Men. There is an end of praying for him, when they openly fast and pray against h…m. They have done with supporting him, when they fall to support another in his Throne. They can be but one King's Subjects, as having but one Allegiance, which when they promise and pay to K. William and Q. Mary, they must needs cast off to K. James: And as the Supposal of his Legal Right makes them owe him, as may seem, all the Duty of the Fifth Commandment; I think such transferring of Allegiance would manifestly be very bad Payment of it.
3. To be true and faithful to their own Oaths and Promises. The Third Commandment is, Not to take God's Name in vain; or, as our L…rd words it, not to forswear our selves: And Mat. 5. 33.that may be, either in …alsifying the former Oath, by Non-performance; or in falsi…ying again, by swearing more than we can perform in the new Oath.
The former Oath to K. James was, notwithstanding any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience, to bear Faith and true All…giance to His Majesty. Now, I suppose, to transfer Allegiance from him, doth not fulfil the Promise of continuing to hear Allegiance to him: And to bear it to his Competitor, is, not to bear it to him; for certainly he and his Competitor are not the same.
And to defend him and his Heirs, to the uttermost of our Power, against all Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their Persons, Crown, and Dignity. Now, how Attempts have been made, and how they are continued, against his Person, Crown, and Dignity, all Men must needs see. And the calling for the present Allegiance, is to back the Attemp…ers therein: And, if you suppose his Legal Right; to turn over to the Attempters will not verifie the Promise of Defending him and his Crown against all Attempts; nor will aiding and praying for them, when going against him, be keeping his Crown on his Head, to our utmost, against them.
It is declared further, That neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, has Power to absolve us of this Oath, nor of any part thereof. And that, notwithstanding any Absolution from this Obedience, we will bear him this Faith and true Allegiance. 'Tis visible, they that turn to bear it to another, who is set upon his Throne, bear it no longer to him. They were bound thus fast to him therein before, and some must have set them loose; and by his Supposal, that was not done by King James himself, if, as he puts the Case, his Legal Right still remains. And if they give this Faith and true Allegiance away to another, when these Absolvers have loosed them, how is that holding to bear it on to him, notwithstanding any such Absolution?
Such Rubs lye in the way of transferring this Allegiance from the former Oath to King James. And since, in this new Oath, true Allegiance is to be sworn again to K. William and Q Mary; if they swear such Service and Support to them against K. James, as 'tis not lawful to perform, (as it seems visible they do, if you suppose the former Bond is still remaining) there would be a new Falsification. To say, and not to doe, is to falsifie: And to swear he will do, what a Man ought not and will not do, is to swear falsly: And this every person doth, that swears to do an unjust thing, or to give away what is none of his own. Such Oaths lay no Obligation, nor procure Licence to perform; the thing being as unjust after as it was before their Swearing. No man must swear away any part of his Duty, as the Author observes, p. 32. because an Oath in which a Man so swears is false in the making, assuring Men of what they are not like to find; and deluding them by a Promise and Oath, which must not be kept, but broken.
As to the Persons concern'd in these Difficulties; the Consciences of all the Subjects are concerned, on some, though not on all the forementioned Accounts. The Eighth and Tenth Commandments, of not being injurious to him in his rightful Properties, would affect the Consciences of all Men in common Justice. The Fifth Commandment, of bearing Allegiance to him if true and legal King, and paying him Honour and Obedience, would bind the Consciences of all Subjects of these Dominions. And the Third Commandment, of not forswearing our selves, but performing towards him our Oaths, concerns only them that have been in Stations requiring the Oaths of Allegiance. And to the foregoing Obligations, which equally concern and are a fast Tye upon all others, this superadds a new Bond, or most solemn Obligation, upon the Swearers themselves.
These, in short, I conceive are the great Difficulties against the new Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary, whether called for upon Oath, or without Outh.
Now, of all these Difficulties, I observe, That they suppose a rightful Competitor in being, to whom the Subjects are under a contrary Obligation. The hindrance of Conscience is not from their own Rights, which the Owners may give up if they please; but from the Rights of a Third Person: And the Refusal, is only to do Right, and to keep a clear Conscience towards him. For, as the Case is put, it is K. James's supposed Right to these Realms, as Proprietor, that witholds them, in regard to the Eighth and Tenth Commandments, from that Allegiance which must joyn to drive or keep him out thereof; and his supposed Right, or Power and Authority over them, that bars them, in Conscience of the Fifth Commandment, from casting off Obedience to him, and turning Subjects to K. William and Q. Mary; and the further Right he has to all this by their solemn Promises & Oaths, which keeps them fast to him, in respect to the Third Commandment, till, either by Death, or some Act of his own, they have his sufficient Discharge. All which hindrances of swearing Allegiance to one possessed of a Throne, would vanish, were there no supposed rightful King and Competitor still living, nor any other Bar against turning to the Possessor, but meerly his having been set up by unlawful means.
And therefore in turning Subjects to such unlawful Poss…ssors, these Difficulties would be no Difficulties of Conscience to them who have all the right of Power in themselves; For when by their Submission they give up all this Power to the wrongful Possessor, they give away only what is their own, and do no Person any wrong: Great Difficulty there may be indeed in giving up their own Rights, but that is not a Difficulty of Conscience, or from any Law of God, whose Laws may all be equally kept, whether they have a mind to keep their Civil Power, or to part with it, and come into a subject State; but only a Difficulty in inclination and interest, or of worldly hardship. And this was the Case of the Senate and People of Rome, when Julius, and after him Augustus Caesar, first usurped upon them; till such time, as by the Lex Regia, the Empire was conferred upon him by their own Act, and became a Legal Constitution. And so it was also with other Nations, particularly with the Jews, when both King and People turned Tributaries, and submitted themselves to an usurping and prevailing Prince; as they did to the Egyptians and Babylonians; their Kings themselves, as Iehojakim and Coniah his Son, as well as the People, submitting to take their Crowns from, and hold them under them, and binding themselves as Ezechiel says, Ezek. 17. 13. of Zedekiah, by Oaths of Fealty and Allegiance to them. And 'tis the same Case with any Towns, or Places taken from their lawful Prince, by invading Neighbours (a Case so much pressed by some in this Argument) after once (as it usually happens at the end of a War) the Places at first seiz'd by Force, are given up by the right Owner to the Possessor in Treaties: For then the People are no longer obliged to his Right, which he himself has given up, but are all at Liberty to submit themselves. In all which Submissions, and turning Subjects to these Usurpers, or Conquerors, they denyed no other Person what was his Right, for none else had any Right over them; so there could be nothing Un…ighteous in this Submission.
Nor will they be Difficulties longer than the Prince, who has Right over them, lives. The Woman that is bound to her Husband, is bound only so long as her Husband liveth, as St. Paul says, Rom. 7 2. When a King's Person dyes, his personal Rights dye with him: And after that, none of the aforesaid Difficulties, so far as his personal Right made the Difficulty, will be any hindrance to them, in Conscience, from turning subject to another, that is possessed of his Throne. And this was the Case of the Roman Subjects, under all their bloody and numerous Revolutions and Usurpations. The Conspirators that set up, and succeeded against any of the Emperors, still cut off their Masters; and taking the right Emperor's Blood as well as his Power, cut off his Right, and the Peoples Allegiance, together with his Life.
And either this, or the aforesaid Submissions of the Subdued rightful Princes, was …he Case in the several Advancements and Erections of the Four Monarchies; both as to the Kingdoms they Subdued, and as to their Subduing one another, particularly as to the Power of the Persian Kings, which (as the Babylonian had done before in the death of Belshazzar, Dan. 5. 30, 31.) expired with Darius; for, besides that his Son, who would have been the next Heir was in the Conqueror's Hands, that Kingdom, though they had a great reverence for the Royal Blood, and it usually went from Father to Son, yet was not legally tyed to lineal Descent and Succession by Blood; as, I think, may appear In the choice of Darius Hystaspis, who, though of Royal Race, as Justin lays, yet had l. 1. c. 10.only his Lot for the Crown among the rest of the Princes, on the overthrow of the Counterfeit Smerdis. And in the Dispute ib. l. 2. c. 10.about the Crown, and the Decision thereof, betwixt his Son Artemenes and X…xes, after his Death. So that on the Death of Darius Codomannus, all the Subjects of that Empire were at Liberty to submit themselves, and bear Allegiance to the prevailing Maced…nians, as they had done to the Persians before; and did wrong to none therein, no other having any just Right over them.
From this also I observe, Where a Peoples Submissions are of Force to justify, and carry a Translation of Allegiance; viz. When they are their own Masters, and free from any Third Persons rightful Power over them. If they owe the Allegiance demanded of them to a rightful King, they cannot give it away from him: And if they pretend to do it, it is still as truly his, as it was before; and all the aforementioned Difficulties press upon them. 'Tis not for one Man to give away what is anothers; what is a Man's own continues his own after all the Gifts that are made of it, till he gives it away himself. The Popes have been very Liberal in giving away Princes Rights. And a People may be very Liberal also in giving away their Princes Rights, when they give away their own Allegiance: But if what they give away are really his Rights, he loses no Right by either of their Gifts, who had no Power to give. But if there be no Prince in being, that has any Right over them, they may give up their own Rights to whom they please, and their Submissions, who are thus at their own Disposal, are sufficient to bind themselves.
Having thus given a brief State of the Difficulties of Conscience in the way of the Refusers of the present Oath of Allegiance, I proceed next to consider what are the ways proposed to take these Difficulties off.
The way of the Convention and Publick Acts, is denying K. James now to have any Legal Right. Such Right they own he had; but they say he has parted with it, by breaking the Fundamental Contract, and by Abdicating the Government, and the Throne thereby, as they say, becoming vacant. Now, if any will set themselves to prove this, I grant that Proof will clear all these Difficulties: For the Supposal of his Legal Right is the ground of all these Exceptions. If he has no Right to any of the Realms, they do him no wrong, to pray, That the right Owner may have his own, and to help to put him, whose the Right is, into Possession. If he is not their rightful King, they owe him no Allegiance and Duty of Subjects: And if there is an end of his Right, there is an end of their Oaths. The Oath of Allegiance, recognizing his Right, and promising all the forementioned Allegiance and Defence to him, is only whilst he has a Right to be defended; so that if he has given away his own Legal Right, he has given back their Oaths too, from which though no other person may absolve them, yet he himself may.
But since this Question has fallen into private hands, this Allegiance has been endeavoured to be set on other Grounds. This Reverend Author is not for entring into the Dispute about p. 12.the Legal Right, which seems to him not fit to be disputed. That therefore I leave, as he doth, to stand or fall according to its own Evidence. But he adds, That this Legal Right is unnecessary in this Dispute, and has perplexed this Controversie: And that Allegiance is due to K. William and Q. Mary, as settled in the Possession of the Throne, and both may and ought to be sworn to them, though King James should happen to have the Legal Right still. So the business of his Book is to lay down Principles that wil clear the Allegiance required to K. Willi… and Q. Mary, though they he supposed to have no Legal Right. Which Principles, of Possession of the Crown without Legal Right thereto, advanced first by many others, but now carried higher and improved by him, how fit they are to remove the foremention'd Difficulties, I come next to examine.