Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	ecclesiastical_a	foreign_a	jurisdiction_n	2,075	5	9.5695	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49115	A full answer to all the popular objections that have yet appear'd, for not taking the oath of allegiance to their present Majesties particularly offer'd to the consideration of all such of the divines of the Church of England (and others) as are yet unsatisfied : shewing, both from Scripture and the laws of the land, the reasonableness thereof, and the ruining consequences, both to the nation and themselves, if not complied with / by a divine of the Church of England, and author of a late treatise entituled, A resolution of certain queries, concerning submission to the present government.	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.	1689 (1689)	Wing L2967; ESTC R19546	65,688	90

Orange And they do pray the said Prince and Princess of Orange do accept the same accordingly And that the Oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all Persons of whom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by Law instead of them and that the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy may be Abrogated A. B. Do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary So help me GOD c. I A. B. Do Swear That I do from my Heart Abhor Detest and Abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be Deposed or Murdered by the Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do Declare That no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm So help me GOD c. Now if in the Judgment of the Great Counsel after mature Deliberation these evident Matters of Fact did amount to a just Cause to pronounce the Crown Void I cannot perceive what in Justice they could do otherwise then to lodge it where it is the present Circumstances in which the Nation was requiring a speedy Settlement For which end it was provided after the Vacancy of the Roman Empire the Electors were to agree in the Choice of another within thirty Days or else to be allowed only Bread and Water until they had agreed If it be objected That the Crown ought to be set only on the Queen it may be thus answered That there is as little Deviation made as possibly could be and that the present King might have claimed it by Conquest with as much reason as either William called the Conqueror or Henry the Seventh but he had also a better Title than either of those being nearer in Bloud then either of them and the Title of his Lady being undoubtedly the next in Succession but by a suspected Child was endeavoured to be excluded ought to be as happily it is vindicated by her Royal Consort whereupon the Administration of the Government being by general Consent conferred on him during Life it is no more than what he might have claimed nor less than what they could have granted And therefore there is no cause can be given why we should not transfer our Allegiance to him at least in conjunction with the Queen in the case of Henry the Seventh the Nation did so before his marrying the Queen in whom the right Title was and much rather may we when the Queen's Title is acknowledged and the Test of all publick Acts and Writs are in both their Names so that during the joynt Lives of the King and Queen supposing that King James hath forfeited the Crown our Allegiance is undoubtedly due as by the new Oath is required But if yet any man should scruple the taking this Oath as not being satisfied that the right of Title is in the present King I say that this is more than appears to be required either by the Letter of the Oath or the intention of the Authority that imposed it And first as to the intention of the Legislator let it be considered what other intent they could have in laying aside the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance wherein the right Title of the Prince in being was so punctually asserted to make room for this wherein the assertory part is wholly omitted but to prevent the objection of such as should pretend this too nice scruple of Conscience to which there being in the Nation so many Pretenders to a Liberty of Conscience which cannot be forced I do rationally believe that the present Authority had a respect in penning the Oath so cautiously for the Oath doth not say as without gross Nonsence it can be supposed I do promise that King William and Queen Mary are lawful King and Queen c. but only that I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary which may be done supposing that King William is only King de Facto and Queen Mary de Jure as in the Case of Henry the Seventh before mentioned And as to the Letter of the Oath though the Comparison be odious yet the Resolution of Bishop Sanderson in the case of subscribing the Engagement may determine such scrupulous Consciences the words of the Engagement are I do promise to be True and Faithful to the Common-wealth of England as it is now Established without King or Lords The words of the present Oath are I do sincerely Promise and Swear that I will be Faithful and bear true Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Where first observe that the Swearing doth no more add an Obligation to the Matter sworn to in the Oath than the Promise and Subscription doth to the Matter of the Engagement Secondly The Ingagement was for altering of the Species of the Government from that which was most Noble to that which was most Ignoble and indeed to an individuum vagum there being then no Government established Thirdly The King then in being had in no case made a Desertion or Forfeiture of his Crown but endeavoured with the hazard of his Life to vindicate his just Title Fourthly The Invader then was a Subject and a notorious Usurper who by fraud and force had driven him from his right All which considerations made a great difference between the legality of taking this Oath and subscribing that Ingagement But here I must premise that I do not insist on this Instance as if I thought the present King and Queen were only so de facto for I am rationally and fully perswaded that they are rightfully King and Queen of England c. as ever any of their Predecessors were That learned Casuist gives a higher and stricter or a lower and laxer sence of the Engagement the lower and laxer sence he thus expresseth Whereas for the present the Supreme Power under which I am is actually possessed by the House of Commons without King or House of Lords I promise that as long as I live under their protection I will not contrive or attempt any act of Hostility against them but living quietly and peaceably will endeavour faithfully in my Place and Calling to do what every good Member of a Common-wealth ought to do for the safety of my Country and preservation of Civil Society therein And our Casuits says p. 106. There want not greater probabilities of reason to induce us to believe that this sense is to be accounted the immediate and declared intent of the imposers who though they might have a more secret reserved and ultimate intent the ingager is not concerned in it the Equivocation if any lieth on the Imposers score not on the Subscribers Because 1. Many both Divines and Lawyers took it which they would not have done in another sense 2.

believe the French League for introducing of Popery and Arbitrary Government is worse than an Infidel Object But the King forsook the Land because his Subjects had first forsaken him contrary to their Duty Ans The peoples duty was to be governed according to the Law which is the measure of their Obedience and they being sensible that the King's design was to subvert the Laws and to that end had armed Irish and English Papists contrary to Law they could not joyn with such men in such a design The Papists themselves alway opposed their Kings in the reigns of King John Henry the Third and others that would have submitted the Kingdom to the Pope And if the Subjects had fought for the King in this Cause they had fought for the Pope and for Slavery against the Crown and Dignity of the King against their Religion and Liberties and against the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance which bound them pro posse as far as they were able to resist the Usurpations of the Pope by what means soever they should be introduced In brief let this Dilemma be considered either the King was forced to flye or else he deserted the Government willingly if he was forced then there was a Conquest and the Conqueror had right to what by lawful Arms he did obtain if he fled willingly then there was a renouncing of the Government that is an Abdication and so the Crown became void and our Allegiance to the late King ceased Object But the Subjects of England entred into an Association with the Prince and though they fought not yet were in Arms. Ans The Magna Charta granted by King John as well as the Law of Nature and confirmed by many Parliaments doth warrant such an Association for preserving their Lives Laws and Liberties when they are in imminent danger and such was the Case of England at that time Object If Subjects have Power to resist their Princes why then did the Primitive Martyrs cast away their Lives died Abner as a fool dieth Ans They had no Laws for establishing their Religion no Votes in choosing the Senators the Laws were against them and their Religion obliged them to submit to the present Powers who had an Absolute Command over them and if these Christians had such Oaths from their Emperors as we have it might be well questioned whether they would not have held him to the performance Object If we may not resist a King acting contrary to the Laws of God and Nature then neither when he acts contrary to the Laws of the Land. Answ The Laws of the Land do grant to Subjects more particular Rights and Liberties than the Law of God doth and the Law of God doth not destroy the Civil Constitutions of a Land which the People may claim and defend it is therefore observable that Queen Mary did not put any to Death for their Religion untill she had procured a Parliament that made void the Laws made on behalf of the Protestants and had reinforced the ancient Laws which were made in times of Popery and procured new ones against Protestants as Hereticks It is a strange account which Ecclesiastical Histories gives of the Primitive Christians that they were Candidati Martyris offered themselves to their Persecutors not only when they were accused and brought before Magistrates but when the Inimicum vulgus invaded them and they might have resisted such as had no Authority against them it was a Rule with Tertul. Quodcunque non licet in Imperatorem nec in quenquam licet By which Rule it was as unlawful to resist a Robber or Murtherer as the Emperor and in his opinion if the Emperor had been a Christian he might not have resisted any violent person but he was a Montanist and had his Errors as in matters of Doctrine so also of Fact as in his Account that the number of Christians were sufficient to have vanquished the whole Roman Empire that it was not lawful to fly in times of Persecution to which end he wrote a Tract De fuga c. which was contrary to our Saviours direction to his Disciples Matth. 10.23 And in truth if it be not lawful to resist a Persecutor neither is it lawful to fly when we are summoned to appear before a persecuting Magistrate for that is determined to be a kind of Resistance But the true Cause of the Non-resistance of the Primitve Christians was that which Tertul. observes Nos externi sumus We are Aliens from the Common-wealth of Rome they had no Laws no Votes in choosing the Senators but were accounted of as Out laws and Enemies to the Government by their Religion it was with them as with such Protestants as live under the Tyranny of the Pope who being apprehended and cast into the Inquisition had neither Power nor Right to defend themselves but it was their duty to give Testimony to the Truth by laying down their Lives for it They were under an Arbitrary Power in the nature of Slaves and Vassels and lookt on as Enemies to the Roman State being of a Religion contrary to what was established but we are Freemen that have our Religion and Properties established by Law and such as act contrary to the Government resist the Ordinance of God and oppose it and may be resisted And the Oaths by which we are obliged bind us primarily to the Government and to the Governours for the sake thereof and if the Government be not Arbitrary neither is our Allegiance due to one that would govern Arbitrarily So that suffering for the Faith of Christ is a distinct thing from suffering for the frame of the Government for if I may not resist I am overcome and yield consent to a change of the Government i. e. to an Arbitrary and Illegal Power contrary to the Constitution under wich I live and so promote the ends of an Oppressing and Usurping Governour and I cannot expect with comfort a Reward from God for casting away my own Life and endangering the Lives of many others when a Government is duely established God approves of it as his Ordinance and the People ought by all lawful means to preserve it for the Gospel of Christ doth no more destroy the priviledges of the People than of the Prince but if the Prince would destroy the Rights of the People they may contest them for in vain are Laws made and Liberties granted if they may not be defended And this may serve to answer the Objection concerning the behaviour of the Primitive Christians who as Bishop Abbot observed when they were armed with publick Laws and Priviledges under Constantine did not submit as when they lived under Dioclesian and Licinius but fought in their own Defence and would rather kill than be killed From the Death of Nero the Christians until Constantines Reign thought it a great happiness to injoy their Religion with Persecution they served the present Emperours fought their Battles and took the Military Oaths though the Emperor made