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 |
A28559
|
The doctrine of non-resistance or passive obedience, no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites by a lay gentleman of the communion of the Church of England, by law establish'd.
|
Bohun, Edmund, 1645-1699.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing B3451; ESTC R18257
|
35,035
|
42
|
same service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Law Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his commandment within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance c That for the said deed and true Duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise Convict or Attaint of high Treason ne of other Offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements c. or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Process of the Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void 5 Provided always that no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Which is to be understood of the King in being as the rest is and against the same King. To this Statute it is alledged That the Title of the Crown was then so ambiguous and uncertain that it was hard to know where the Right lay which is a meer Cavil The Title was as well known then as it is now and is a thing of that Nature that it can never be universally known but the greatest part of Mankind take those that are set over them without further inquiry nor is it reasonable any Man should suffer for obeying them whom he cannot nor ought to resist So that what some have said That every one is bound to take notice of the right Title at his Peril is true if the Person is in Possession but false if he is out of Possession Conquest a voluntary Surrender and a wilful Desertion of a Crown will put an End to the best founded Title in the World as I think is universally agreed so that if the Party pretending has a Title why is he not in Possession too if he is outed by his own Act I am absolved if by the Force and Power of another why then he is conquered and both waies especially if I had no hand in it I am and ought to be absolved before God and Man. But then not only the three Estates of England but all the Princes and Sovereign States in Christendom except the King of France have allowed King William and Queen Mary as the rightful Sovereigns of England which is a kind of giving Judgment against the late King after hearing what has been alledged on both sides So that this Case is determined by all the ways that are possible and must absolve any Man that submits now to that which is the only Supreme Power in England As to the Oaths taken to the late King they create no new Obligation upon us as to the Extent or Duration of our Allegiance I was under the same Obligations of Allegiance before I was sworn as I was afterwards and every Subject of England oweth by the Laws of England a natural Allegiance to his Prince before he is sworn as every Man ows naturally Obedience to God before he entreth into the Baptismal Covenant And so the Primitive Christians were under the same Obligation to their Princes we are tho' I do not find they ever swore any Allegiance to them 2. This Allegiance is no everlasting Obligation as to time Death a voluntary Resignation a wilful Desertion or a lawful Conquest will put an End to it 3. It is no wild unlimited Obedience whilst it lasteth but is plainly limited by the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land and if I obey further actively I am responsible to God and Man for it I come now to the Words of the Oaths which may seem to create any Scruple which in the Oath of Supremacy I suppose may be these I do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness his Heirs and Lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Where first I observe No Man is bound beyond his Power but that all those who stuck to the late King till he left the Nation and another took Possession of his Place are thereby disabled and freed from attempting any further 2. That the Authorities I am to defend are such only as belong to the Crown of England by the Laws of England which are to limit my Allegiance but by the Law of England my Allegiance is now transferred to another and cannot be due to two in opposition each to other so that if I persist in my Allegiance to James II. I am punishable by these very Laws therefore my Allegiance which was a legal Allegiance is determined That in the Oath of Allegiance which may be objected is this I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or otherwise c. Now this Oath which binds us to the Person as the other did to the Power is capable of the same Limitation and is to be limited both as to its Duration and extent by the Laws of England and the Law of Nations and therefore is determinable the same way the other was The Power and uttermost Power reserved and expressed in these Oaths is a Legal Power and therefore no Man is by these Oaths bound to exert his Natural Power for any Prince when he may by the Laws of England be punished as a Traytor for so doing it being a Legal and not an Illegal Allegiance we promise by them If King James would have been contented with the Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions granted and annexed or belonging to the Crown of England I believe no Body questions but he had been still King of England but by grasping at others which did not belong to him he cut off his own Succours and hindred those that otherwise would have defended him and them from doing it He would not be content with those that belonged to him and they could not fight for or defend any other and between these two his Power fell to the Ground by his own Default and his withdrawing put an End to his Sovereignty