Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A85047
|
Obedience due to the present knig [sic], notwithstanding our oaths to the former written by a divine of the Church of England.
|
Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.; Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing F2512; ESTC R42367
|
5,073
|
10
|
before 24 Sep. 1689 OBEDIENCE Due to the Present KNIG Notwithstanding our OATHS To the FORMER Written by a Divine of the Church of England 1. THE Oath of Allegiance is the Expression of our Natural Duty to the King as the Coronation Oath is of the Regal which in Nature is antecedent to it 't is especially signifyed in these Words He must be King before we can be bound to him as such I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend against all Attempts which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity 2. If the King do manifestly separate his Person from and engage it against his Crown and Dignity so that we cannot Defend them both I mean if his Personal Actions contrary to Law do directly and openly tend to the prejudice and spoiling of his Crown and Dignity by his voluntary subjecting them to a Foreign Power contrary to the plain and primary Intention and Letter of the Oath subverting the Legal Constitution and enervating the very Laws by which his Crown is supported his Prerogative is measured and the Dignity of the King as such hath its very Being as well as the safety of his People is maintained certainly in such a Case none can be bound by this or any other Oath to defend the King's Person in attempts so contrary to the very Reason and End of all Government with the neglect of the other part of our Duty which is to defend his Crown and Dignity 3. The Oath of Supremacy seems to direct us more clearly in this difficulty the Words are I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness but how It follows and to my Power shall Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities Granted or belonging to the King or annex'd and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is thus we are to bear Faith and Allegiance to the King. 4. For if we should be bound to Assist and Defend his Person when it is and as it is engaged against his Crown and Dignity we seem bound toto posse totis viribus so far Defence is expounded to Assist and Contribute to the Ruine both of our King and Country and perhaps to the cutting of our own Throats 5. If any should imagine That the Oath will not suffer us to consider the Person and Crown of the King thus divided but that it binds us to assist and defend them together 't is true while they are kept together But if the King himself divide them and 't is become impossible for us to Assist his Person but we must betray his Crown nor Defend his Crown without forbearing to Assist his Person to say now we are bound to Assist and Defend both makes a plain Repugnancy in the Oath and in our Duty to do and not to do the same thing and consequently the Obligation ceaseth 6. That we are bound by our Allegiance to Assist the Person of the King to the prejudice of his Crown and People seems not only to be against the light of Nature the primary End of it being the safety of his Kingdom and the safety of the King but the secondary end of it but most agreeable to the sense of our Ancient and Learned Lawyers and also Bract Fleta Ei fraenura ponere of the plain acknowledgment and profession of Ancient Kings and Parliaments King Henry I. five Hundred Years agone told the Pope whilst live the Authorities and Vsages of the Kingdom shall never be diminished But if I would so Debase myself which God forbid Magnates mei totus Angliae populus nullo modo paterentur The Lords and People of England would by no means suffer it And Edward I. wrote himself to the same purpose Besides with his consent the Lords and Commons in Parliament in their Letter to the Pope have these Words We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the premises by owning the Popes Authority touching his Right to Scotland so strange a thing so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King himself would Once more on Record in the Fourth of Henry III. the Commons Declare Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent Adomer's Revocation upon the Popes Order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret Now what 's the meaning of all this but that the King 's Personal Will contrary to Law however expressed for it must be signifyed by his Word or Actions if the performance of it would prejudice his Crown and Dignity may be resisted Much less are we bound by our Allegiance to Assist or Defend him in so doing in Reason Law or the sense of our Ancient Kings or Parliaments Objection But we Swear to Defend not only the King but his Heirs and Lawful Successors Answer 1. Tâ—ue but Haeres non est viventis and the Successor in Law and Common Sense is the Person that doth actually succeed or is in possession Now if the Actual Successor be the Lawful Successor we are bound by our Oaths to Defend him but if he be not the Lawful Successor none else is so because none else is the Successor and consequently so far the Object and Reason of our Oaths ceasing our Obligation by them ceaseth and we are bound to none besides the Person in Possession 2. 'T is farther remarkable That though the word Lawful be once in the Oath of Supremacy 't is only there where we Swear Faith and Allegiance in General But as if it were intended that the Subject should not trouble himself about the Title of the King in Being where that Allegiance is explain'd with respect to practice the word Lawful is left out in that Oath It follows there in these Words Shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors without the Word Lawful And agreeable hereunto we find the word wholly left out in the Oath of Allegiance both in the same place where we Swèar Allegiance in General as well as in the other place of our more particular Duty and it looks as if this was done de Industria for the same Reason namely that such as take the Oaths might not think themselves bound thereby to be Sollicitous about the Title of the Crown 3. The Holy Scriptures seem not to involve the Consciences of private Christians about Princes Titles but expresly require their Subjection to the Powers that are as a great and necessary Instance of that Humility and peacable Behaviour which their Religion teacheth them 4. In the same Holy Books we are farther most plainly admonish'd that by what means soever obtained 't is God that puteth down one and setteth up another and upon that ground too Rom. 13. we
are strictly charged to Submit to the Powers that are because they are Ordain'd of God. And tho' the Apostle use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think none can Imagine he intended by it to determine the Lawfulness of Angustus's Title who was admitted by the Senate but rather to inforce that Obedience that he presseth the Christians to yeild by this Consideration Imporatore Rom. satendum est non optimo Jure Imperium adepâ—os Sanderson That all Authority is from God and in its true Nature and by God's Ordinance intended for our Good. 5. The known Statute of 11 H. 7.1 is of the same import and grounded we find upon the like Reason and H. Scripture it gives us way to this plain inference that the same duty which we owe to a Lawful King is to be performed to the King in Being that is to the King in Possession and that no other King or future Parliament can in Reason Law or good Conscience upon any pretence of Usurpation in the Possessor of the Crown or any Disloyalty in the Subject charge us with guilt for Serving or defending the King in Possession The Subjects therefore might Lawfully sight for him and consequently take the Military Oath in Reason by the Law of Nature in Law by the Law of the Land in all good Conscience that is by the Law of God in the H. Scriptures 6. Hereupon my Lord Coke's words are notable This Act saith he meaning 25. Ed. 3. about Treason is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdome for if there be a King Regnant in Possession altho' he be Rex de facto and non de jure yet is he Seignior le Roy within the purview of this Statute and the other that hath Right and is out of possession is not within this Act. Nay saith he if Treason be commited against a King de facto and non de jure and after the King de jure come to the Crown he shall Punish the Treason done to the King de facto and a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is voide Inst 3. l. p. 7. Now if by the Law of the Land which I think is our only guide in such cases Treason may be committed against a King that is so only by Possession without Right and cannot be committed against him that hath Right and not Possession seing he is not within the purview of the Statute sure we cannot reasonably be thought to be intangled in such a strait as to be bound by our Allegiance to commit Treason which we cannot presume the King in Possession will Pardon and the Law tells us the King that hath Right only cannot Who therefore would question our Liberty to be true and Faithful to the King in Possession so far at least as not to resist him or to be Traitors to him or to give him assurance thereof by our Oath The renown'd Casuist Bishop Sanderson would not declare the very Engagement to be unlawful Case of Engag p. 111. taken in that lower Sense to the pretended Common-wealth without any King or House of Lords 7. Since we have mentioned that excellent Casuist whose Loyalty Judgement Fidelity and Authority is unquestionable 't is fit for us to observe what he hath frequently and without the least hesitancy delivered as his premeditated thoughts about the present case Having suppos'd a King in Possession only by Power if the Query be what is to be done by the Subject that hath Sworn Allegiance to the rightful King he answers 't is not Lawful to obey the King in such Possession but it often happens that not doing so defuisse Officio we are wanting to our duty Yea that we owe Subjection to a King in Possession upon the grounds of Justice Equity Charity and Gratitude while we enjoy our Liberties and are Protected by him Exigit hoc a nobis Optima aequi boni lex vetus illa commutationum formula 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 profecto perversissimae mentis sub illius dominationis patrocinio velle vivere cui parere nolis cajus protectione gaudeas ejus imperium detractare 8. His third Argument for the Necessity of Obedience to the present power however obtained is taken from the Charity we owe to the publick whether Church or State of which we are Members and for the good of which we are Born in quantum igitur illius Societatis cujus ipse Membrum pars est Salus tranquillitas exigit eatenus Civis unusquisque imperiis ejus qui de facto praeest obtemperare tenetur Words worthy the most serious reflection of the present Church of England Read at large his 5th Praelect But as to the Argument from Gratitude when we seriously reflect upon our late forlorn and ruinous Condition both in Church and state when we call to mind that all our Foundations were put out of Course and our Pillars even broken by the Late King 's own ill guided hands and that the Heroick Prince hath been at so great Expence and exposed himself to so many hazards in his own Country at Sea and here in England in Compassion both to our Miseries and Infirmities when our Land was weak and all the Inhabitants thereof in an utter disaiblity to rescue or save themselves and none under Heaven within the reach of humane apprehension besides that one Prince could possibly effect it that Glorious Instrument under God put his hand to support and strengthen and bear up our Pillars To Redeem and secure our Religion Laws and Liberties and when our late King either for fear of his Person or rather of the Issue of Affairs in our Re-establishment had deserted or abdicated his Kingdom and left us in confusion to shift for our selves whose return now cannot be thought of without Horour And the present King and Queen being therefore first Petitioned to take the Government have Graciously accepted it upon terms answering all mens desires or Interests I say when all this is well pondered the Ground and Argument for our quiet and chearful submission taken from Gratitude is indeed too big to be contained in a sheet or two of Paper or the mind of Man And Prodigious beyond the credit of Posterity Lastly One would think there was no place left for any farther Scruple The late Change was urged by extreme Necessity and carried on with a wonderful Providence and perfected with Vniversal Consent it was eminently the Lord's doing and our own too the Government was unhing'd by the late King himself The present King c. was put into possession by our selves in our Representatives who were as freely chosen by us as ever any Parliament was The Convention had nothing wanting but the previous formality of the Royal writs which could not be then had that Punctilio of order cannot reasonably be supposed to go into the being of the Representative Body the want of it cannot well be thought to prejudice our Election or Consent to what they have done whom we chose and entrusted with our Politick Reason and Interest and in whose Acts we ought to acquiesce as our own doings in every thing or matter of Expediency for the Publick good not evidently contrary to our duty to God. In short The Possession of the Throne by the Act of the People of England is now unquestionable we have no liberty left us either to dispute the King's Title or deny him our Duty Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars c. FINIS