AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. Sherlock's Book ENTITULED The CASE of the ALLEGIANCE DUE TO SOVEREIGN POWERS STATED and RESOLVED c. BY JAMES PARKINSON M. A. LONDON Printed for David Hay M.DC.XCI AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. Sherlock's Book ENTITULED The Case of the ALLEGIANCE c. I Have Examined Dr. Sherlock's Book Entituled The Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers c. And I must own that he has done what I expected he would For I expected he would start some new Doctrines to maintain his old Principles And he has fully answer'd my Expectation He tells us he has renounc'd no Principle that ever he taught Case of Allegiance Pref. excepting one in the Case of Resistance so that though he be a fallible Creature yet it seems he is but one degree beneath Infallibility But tho he may be mistaken yet this be is sune of Case of Allegiance Pref. That he never acted with more sincerity in any Affair of his whole life than he has done in this matter from the beginning to the end for which I will take his word for I had rather believe than censure and judge him Though he refus'd to take the Oaths yet he never engag'd in any Faction against it nor made it his business to dissuade men from it But did he not when his Opinion was ask'd declare his own Thoughts And were not his Thoughts against it And was not this enough for the Oracle of the Party whenever he was consulted freely to declare his Thoughts Oracles are sometimes dumb and will give no Answer but this Doctor was always a Speaking Oracle to the Party And who can think that he ever spake in vain Who can believe that those words which dropp'd from his mouth and dropp'd into the Ears of those that admired him and blindly believed in him could ever fail of making or confirming Non-Swearers He had no aversion to the Government of King William and Queen Mary and why should he The Government surely is almost as good as it was when the Seven Right Reverend Bishops were sent to the Tower it is almost as good as it was when Father Peire was at the Helm nay I will be bold to say it is very nigh as good as it was when he assisted at the degrading of the Excellent Mr. Johnson But was he not thankful to God for it no only he had no averston to it He prayed for King William and Queen Mary One would think that had he prayed heartily for them in the Church he would have own'd them in a Court of Justice by taking the Oath of Allegiance to them No this he could not do he still refused the Oaths out of pure Principles of Conscience but however he prayed for them And this was a disposition of mind prepared to receive satisfaction whenever it was offered This I believe and I doubt his desire of satisfaction has secretly and insensibly distorted his Judgment I am sure distorted it is But is his Judgment always distorted Was it distorted while he refused the Oaths And is it distorted now he has taken them Yes so it is his Judgment stood awry before because he was not for King William and Queen Mary and his Judgment still stands awry because though he swears Allegiance to them yet he does it in a wrong sense he swears to them no otherwise than he would be ready to swear to any Usurper when setled in the Throne And I know not what else should have thus distorted his Judgment unless it were a great desire of satisfaction For the Principles on which he grounds his new Allegiance are false and precarious and will satisfy no man who has not as great a desire of satisfaction as he himself had But though he desired satisfaction yet it seems it did not come presently to him he did in his thoughts ever and anon make a step towards King William but still his old Principles drew him back and in this state of wavering and doubting he continued almost two years moving forwards and backwards looking sometimes on King William who had God's Authority to bestow the Preferments and sometimes on King James who had as he would make us believe the Legal Right He likewise drew up his thoughts in writing and shewed them to some of his Friends and told them where he stuck but stick he did and could find no help for it What was the desire of satisfaction grown languid and weak no but though that was as strong as ever yet that alone could not do the job Still he stuck and had stuck to this day had he not been relieved by Bishop Overall 's Convocation Book Doubtless the Members of that Convocation spent their time to good purpose and Dr Ouerall did great service to the Church by registring what passed in that venerable Assembly Dr Overall was no Bishop during the time of that Convocation nor for some years after that for had it not been for his Convocation-Book this Reverend Doctor had forfeited the exercise of his Ministry for a mere mistake But what were the wonders that this Convocation-Book has wrought on him why it confirm'd his former Notions and suggested some new thoughts to him which removed those difficulties that he could not conquer before So that it seems he would not have us think he had all his good Notions from the Convocation-Book no he had many of them before he read it and that Book did only confirm them And besides all this he tells us That The venerable Authority of a Convocation gave him greater freedom and liberty of thinking Preface which the apprehension of novelty and singularity had cramp'd before And now the Doctor swells and is puffed up with the Sacred Authority of a Convocation His Soul was not at liberty before it was chain'd and fetter'd and he was afraid to let his thoughts rove and wander but now he has the Convocation on his side his thoughts are at liberty and he resolves to wander and I likewise resolve to follow him as far as I shall see it necessary Page 1. Case of Allegianc At his first setting out he complains that the Controversy is perplext but I doubt that before I shall get to the end of his Book I shall have greater reason to complain that he has perplext it more But what is it that has perplexed the Controversie Why it is the intermixing the dispute of Right with the duty of Obedience as if we could be bound to obey one who has no right to our Obedience Page 1. it is a making the legal Right of Princes to their Thrones P. 1. the only reason and foundation of the Allegiance of Subjects and I would fain know what other foundation of Allegiance there can be Bishop of Sarum's Pastoral Letter p. 6. For Allegiance is Obedience according to Law that is to say not a blind and absolute Obedience but such an Obedience as is defined and limited by the
firmly assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think and do hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second having abdicated the Government and Their Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity Their said Majesties did become were and are and of right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crown and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Titles c. to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And when that Parliament was dissolved and a new one summoned to meet at Westminster there was a new Recognition of Their Title in these words We Your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled do beseech Your Most Excellent Majesties that it may be publish'd and declar'd in this High Court of Parliament and Enacted by Authority of the same That we do recognize and acknowledg Your Majesties were are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland c. And if this be not a Legal Title I know not what a Legal Title means It is as good a Title as Edward the Confessor had as good a one as W. 1. W. 2. Hen 1. K. Stephen Hen. 2. K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 3. Hen. 4 5 6 7. Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of those two Queens either had or could pretend to and these whom I have mentioned had as truly a Legal Right to the Crown as any of the rest whom I make no mention of And the true Reason why I instance in these is this Because it is certain that none of these were Kings by any Divine Right of Succession If Proximity of Blood be absolutely necessary to a Legal Title then Edw. the Confessor had none for when he ascended the Throne Edgar Atheling his Elder Brother's Son was alive Then W. 1. had none both because he was illegitimate and also because Edgar Atheling was still living Then W. 2. and Hen. 1. could have none while their Elder Brother Robert was living Then K. Stephen could have none for the Right of Blood was in Maud the Empress Hen. the first 's Daughter Then Hen. 2. could have none so long as his Mother Maud was alive Then K. John could have none for Arthur his Elder Brother's Son had all the Right that Proximity of Blood could give Then Hen. 3. could have none at least not before the 24th year of his Reign or thereabouts at what time Eleanor Sister to Prince Arthur died Then Edw. 3. could have none during the Life of his unfortunate Father Edw. 2. who was Depos'd Then Hen. 4 5 6 7. could have none there being another Family which had the proximity of Blood on their side Then Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of them could have none for it is certain that one of the two must be illegitimate because Katherine Q. Mary's Mother was living at the time when Q. Elizabeth was born And yet we do not find that any Learned and Pious Bishops or any other dignified Clergy-men ever refused to accept of Ecclesiastical Preferments from any of the forementioned Princes and to swear Allegiance to them Nor can it be said that they swore Allegiance to them as to Kings de facto but not de jure at least wise this cannot be affirmed of those who lived before the Reign of Edw. 4. for then arose this distinction and not before The Scotch Parliament calls this a Villanous distinction I think I may say it is a distinction that is not well grounded for it seems to me to be founded on a false Principle That Proximity of Blood gives such an indefeasible Right or Title to the Crown that he who is next on the Royal Line whatever his natural or moral incapacities are cannot be barr'd from succeding to the Throne Which is directly contrary to a Statute made in the 13th of Q. Eliz. ch 1. wherein it is affirmed That the King Lords and Commons have right to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Inheritance and Government thereof And 't was by the said Statute made Treason during the Life of that Queen to hold affirm or maintain the contrary and after her decease forfeiture of Goods and Chattels and I know not of any Law of God that the Queen and Parliament broke when they made that Statute A King de facto is not as the Doctor imagines an Usurper but he is a Lawful King He is one to whom our Allegiance is due as appears from a Statute made in the 11th of Hen. 7. ch 1. and Allegiance is due to none but him who has a Legal Right for Allegiance is Obedience according to Law and consequently must be paid to him to whom the Law directs us to pay it and to say that the Law directs us to pay our Obedience to one who has no Legal Right to it does not sound well 4. It follows from hence that our Allegiance is due to K. VVilliam and Q. Mary for it is due to a Lawful King and it has been shew'd That Their Majesties are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen And this is the foundation of my Allegiance II. I must now examin Dr. Sherlook's Opinion concerning this matter His notion is this Page 10. That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obeyed by all Subjects as the Ministers of God without enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne And he tells us That the Convocation has determin'd two great points whereon this whole Controversy turns 1. That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority 2. That when they are throughly settled in their Thrones they are invested with God's Authority and must be reverenc'd and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People This is his Doctrine And this says he I will endeavour to prove from the Authority of Scripture and Reason Scripture and Reason I am always ready to hear he that brings me a plain Scripture proof commands my assent and he that gives me a good Reason will easily persuade me And therefore though the Venerable Authority of a Convocation stands in the front of his Book yet I intend it shall Lackey after his Reasons and his Scripture Proofs SECT I. Dr. Sherlock's Proofs from Scripture and Reason Examined HIS Proofs from Reason and Scripture must he says necessarily be intermixt and interwoven with each other and to set the matter in as clear a light as he can he reduceth the whole
believe them to have as good a Title to the Crown of England as any of their Royal Ancestors ever had so I hope they are so firmly settled in the Throne that all the Powers on Earth will not be able to remove them But I think Dr. Sherlock does by his Principles undermine their Throne for though he invests them with God's Authority because they have the Sovereign Power are able to crush whom they please and are settled in the Throne yet he will not own them to have a legal Right to sit thereon whereas it is most certain that there is nothing can secure to a Prince his Sovereign Power but that which sets bounds to it the Law SECT IV. Wherein is shew'd how little value we ought to have for the Acts and Canons of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I. 1603. FOR to the Authority of the Convocation begun in the first Year of King James I I may oppose the Authority of several Convocations in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth wherein the Bishops and Clergy were of a contrary Opinion I shall instance in two only the one in the 35th and the other in the 39th Year of that Queen's Reign 1. In the 35th of Q. Elizabeth the Clergy were of Opinion that an Usurper though settled in the Throne had not God's Authority and no Allegiance was due to him as appears plainly from their granting the Queen two Subsidies of four Shillings in the Pound to assist the Dutch in shaking off their Obedience to their once Sovereign the King of Spain 35 Eliz. c. 12. The Prelates and Clergy of the Province of Canterbury have for certain Considerations lovingly and liberally given and granted to the Queen 's most excellent Majesty two Subsidies of Four Shillings in the Pound What were those Considerations Amongst others this was one The consideration of her Majesty's great Charges in the provident and needful prevention of such intended Attempts as manifestly tended to the utter overthrow of the present happy state of her Highness's Realm to the miserable ruin of divers other Princes and Countries associate and near adjoining and to the extirpation and rooting out of the sincere profession of the Gospel both here and elsewhere The Temporalities Subsidy-Act explains this to us in these Reasons for their Tax Cap. 13. Besides the great and perpetual Honour which it has pleased God to give your Majesty abroad in making You the principal Support of all just and religious Causes against Vsurpers So that this Island has in your Majesty's Days been as a Stay and Sanctuary to distressed States and Kingdoms and as a Bulwark against the Tyranny of mighty and usurping Potentates Besides the great Succours in France and Flanders which we do conceive to be most Honourable in regard of the Ancient Leagues the Justice and Equity of their Causes c. These were the chief Reasons that moved the Clergy to give four Shillings in the Pound to the Queen This was read a third time Mar. 30.1593 in the Lords House these following Bishops being present and no Dissentientes among them as appears from the Journals of the Lords House Cantuariensis Londinensis Godwin de Praesulibus Asaphensis Roffensis Exoniensis Cicestrensis Licolniensis Petroburgensis Herefordensis Bangorensis Wigorniensis Landavensis Sarisburiensis Bathonens Wellensis Johames Whitgift Johan Elmer Gulielmus Hughes Johannes Young Johannes Woolton Thomas Bickley Gulielmus Wickham Richardus Howland Herbert Westfaling Hugo Bellott Richardus Fletcher Gervasius Babington Richardus Coldwell Johannes Still Now I think it is plain from hence that the Bishops and Clergy in the 35th of Queen Elizabeth did believe that an Usurper though he be settled in the Throne has not God's Authority and that those who are oppress'd by him may lawfully resist him and free themselves from his Yoke for had they been of Opinion that it was a Sin in the Dutch to resist Philip the 2d King of Spain as having God's Authority would they not have directed her Majesty's Conscience better in this Matter would they not have humbly represented to her Highness that though Philip the 2d was an Usurper yet he had God's Authority and therefore neither ought his Subjects to resist him nor she to assist them in making resistance Would they not have given her Sacred Majesty good Advice rather than Mony Would they not have admonished the Dutch to lay down their Arms and fly to their Prayers and Tears Who can think they would have been so uncharitable to their Protestant Neighbours as to set forward their Damnation or so foolish as to buy their own at the rate of Four Shillings in the Pound Such Actions as these do plainly shew what Opinion Arch-Bishop Whitgift Bishop Elmer and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's Bishops and Clergy had concerning this Matter and that as plainly as the Acts and Canons of a Convocation It may here be very proper to consider that the King of Spain had once a Legal Right to govern the Dutch who were his Subjects and ow'd him Allegiance but the Prelats and Clergy of the Church of England did verily believe he had forfeited and lost it by usurping upon them for it seems they were of Opinion that a Prince might usurp upon his Subjects as well as Subjects upon their Prince and this I believe was our Case King James the 2d having been that to us which Philip the 2d was to the Dutch That which I gather from hence is this That Queen Elizabeth's Bishops either did not think that an Usurper was invested with God's Authority or if they did they believed it lawful in some Cases to resist a Prince though invested with God's Authority Now let Dr. Sherlock chuse which of the two he will grant me for I think it cannot be avoided but one of the two must be allow'd 2. In the 39th of Elizabeth Chap. 26. The Clergy think themselves bound c to offer unto her Highness as a Testimony and Token of their good Wills and dutiful Affections some such Aid and Contribution towards the supportation of her Majesties Charges as they are perswaded the greatness of the same most justly may require And the Temporalities Subsidy-Act 39 Eliz. c. 27. has these words This Land is become since your Majesti's happy Days both a Port and a Haven of Refuge for distressed States and Kingdoms and a Rock and Bulwark of Opposition against the Tyrannies and ambitious Attempts of mighty and usurping Potentates This pass'd the House of Lords Dec. 19. 1596 fourteen Bishops being present and agreeing to it one of which was Arch-Bishop Whitgift c. The conclusion from hence is easy that in the 39th of Queen Elizabeth's reign the Prelates and Clergy own'd not this Doctrine that Vsurpers when settled in the Throne are invested with God's Authority and must be obey'd by all those who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People Besides it ought to be consider'd that the