Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	bishop_n	church_n	king_n	3,230	5	3.5319	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43807	Solomon and Abiathar, or, The case of the deprived bishops and clergy discussed, between Eucheres a conformist, and Dyscheres a recusant	Hill, Samuel, 1648-1716.	1692 (1692)	Wing H2012; ESTC R12780	26,571	41

are persecuted by the Church as well as the State But this will require a very clear proof ere we can be justly charged with so great an Impiety Dyscher This Church hath ever Taught us to preserve an untainted Loyalty to our lawful Sovereigns which with us come in by Inheritance and accordingly our Oath of Allegiance binds us to the King his Heirs and Lawful Successors and this Obligation ceaseth not till Death or Resignation dissolves it Neither of which happened in this Revolution Eucher If by Resignation you mean a formal voluntary Act and Deed passing away the Title Royal then I deny that Death only and Resignation vacate our Allegiance for many Publick Authorities are void by mere Cession and Desertion which is indeed in Law equivalent to a Resignation And such a Cession here hapned which the Estates in Convention judged a Virtual Abdication of the Sovereignty and of this being a Point of Law they were to us at that time and in that juncture the most Competent Authentick and Final Judges which we are the more to submit to since the Kingdom hath ratified their Proceedings in a second Parliament And though K. James abroad condemns them yet that is no Argument either that they were unjust or inauthoritative 'T is granted that this Church preaches up an indispensable Loyalty to the Sovereign during the Tenure of his Sovereignty but when a King is fled from his Throne into Foreign Dominions or doth not exert any Royal Power or Presence to his People the Estates of this Land are the Supreme Domestick Judges upon the Tenure of the Sovereignty which is not to make them Judges of the King's Person but in the want of his Person of the State of the Kingdom and the Rights of the Nation in order to Settlement Nor is it a just Exception to deny the Authority by which they sate for by what Authority was that Free Parliament called or sate that voted in King Charles the Second 'T is prodigious Peevishness to require a King's Presence or Commission when he is gone and hath left all in Anarchy In such Confusion howsoever they come together they are the Supremest Council of the Land And yet by the Practice of all Nations and the Reasons of Peace and Settlement the Estates of any Nation being invited by a victorious and unresisted Power may come together and Treat with him that thus calls them tho' he hath no antecedent Authority strictly taken to call them So that the Churches Loyalty is to follow the Civil Judgment concerning the Object of our Loyalty and the Tenure of Sovereignty Dyscher Supposing them then in a state of Confusion proper Judges of the Tenure of Sovereignty which they determined abdicated by K. James yet how could they pervert the Hereditary Law and Rule of Succession that is Fundamental to this Crown Eucher I answer hereunto That the general and ordinary Rule of Succession to this Crown is Hereditary and in this we are very happy against the dangerous Consequences of ambitious Competitions But in extraordinary Interruptions and Convulsions of State against the ordinary Course our Laws and Constitutions do allow the Estates such a King as can actually be had for the time being till the ordinary Rule can be fairly recovered and in this also we are equally Happy if we would but know or see it This in Fact is evident from all the History of our Succession The Heirs Lineal have submitted to it the many Acts of Parliament yet in force made by Extra-lineal Kings and the concurrent Judgment of our greatest Lawyers under Hereditary Kings even since the Reformation without any Remonstrance of this Church or any Hereditary King are an Authentick Demonstration hereof and Bishop Overal's convocation-Convocation-Book comes up to it And my Opinion is That in the late Oath of Allegiance the word Successors was added after Heirs on this very self-same ground That tho' Heirs by the ordinary course are the Legal Successors yet others legally may succeed in cases extraordinary for I will not be so bold as to say That the Oath required Allegiance to unlawful Successors And the non-observance hereof hath been the occasion of so many Paradoxes or Absurdities in Discourses upon this Point Dyscher What! Can he be Legal that thrusts out the Legal King or Legal Successor Eucher One King by a Legal War may thrust out him that till he was thrust out was Legal King of his own People For the first offending Prince loses not his Sovereignty to the offended merely by the offence till actually thrust out by the offended And even an unjust Potentate tho' he cannot according to Legal Justice out a King against whom he hath no legal Cause or Right of War yet if he doth do so and the Subject People cannot help it and he enforce himself upon the People for a New King our Laws in this concur with the Laws and Practice of all Nations in allowing our Estates to determine for us in such Exigences as is manifest in the long Contentions and many Turns between the Houses of York and Lancaster and the Sin shall lie only on the Injurious and not on them that submitted to an inevitable Fate of things And yet in our case upon the Cession of K. James the Hereditary Succession was not violently broken but altered by consent of the next Heirs antecedent to the P. of Orange which shews that the two next Heirs judged that their Father had effectually deserted the Crown and were content for the Preservation of the Nation against the Power of France to admit before them a Prince of the Blood whose great Interest abroad and whose personal Abilities of Conduct in Counsels and War might be a Wall of Defence as well to the true Royal Heirs as to the Religion Rights and Liberties of the People Upon all which put together I think we are bound by the old Laws and Oath of Allegiance to the King his Heirs and Successors to pay Allegiance to K. William and Q. Mary and that 't is a breach of those Laws and Oath to deny it them Dyscher But suppose the Violence done to the rejected Prince be in it self essentially unjust and unnatural and contrary to the Moral and Eternal Laws of God and Righteousness can humane Compacts ratifie a wrong and justifie or confirm what is essentially injurious And must even the Priests of the most High God consecrate and confirm such Rapes by Oath and Religious Sponsions Eucher What would you inferr from hence Dyscher Perhaps the deprived Bishops and Clergy considering the Relation Their present Majesties stand in to K. James and the Subjection due from all Natives in this Kingdom as well in as out of Parliament may think this a Breach of the Moral Laws of God and not to be confirmed by their Oath Eucher Then first I answer The Internal Immorality of all Actions must be carefully distinguished from the Civil Consequences of them Now the Iniquity is not to be