Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	crown_n	king_n	son_n	5,450	5	5.2450	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34073	A letter to a bishop concerning the present settlement and the new oaths	Comber, Thomas, 1645-1699.; Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1689 (1689)	Wing C5476; ESTC R26622	23,004	40

without 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 Rents Possessions Hereditaments Goods Chattels or any other thing but to be for that deed or service utterly discharg'd of any Vexation Trouble or Loss This Law doth authorise any Subject to pay his Allegiance to the King in being and does secure him against all Penalties for the same and therefore reaches our Case where there is not a bare Possession but all the Right that Conquest can give And in the famous Act of Parliament concerning Treasons the 25th of Edward III. my Lord Coke says that by the King against whom Treason is committed in that Statute is meant the King in possession of the Throne whatever his Right to it be These my Lord are his own words This Act is to be understood of a King in possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in possession although he be Rex de facto non Rex 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 if Treason be committed against a King de facto non de Jure and after the King de Jure cometh 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 void This is sufficient to shew the sence of our Laws in this case and for its being agreeable to Reason to transfer our Allegiance in the Circumstances mentioned I have already in part proved this and I think it may be fairly deduced further from the Writings of that great and excellent Casuist Bishop Sanderson whom all will allow to be a very competent Judge of the Dictates of Reason Whoever will read his Case of the Engagement may find a great deal to this purpose but I intend only to insist on what he hath delivered in his Fifth Praelection concerning the Obligation of Conscience where he disputes for and gives several reasons for the paying obedience to the Laws and submitting to the Government even of an unlawful Usurper and he puts this very case that where any one having driven away by violence the lawful Prince and true Heir of the Kingdom or having opprest him so far as that he is unable to stand up for his own Right doth while the other is still living take the Government upon him and act as King when he is in reality rather an Usurper than a King and it is past doubt that downright Injury is done to the oppressed Prince If it be askt says he what I think a good Subject should do in this case who hath taken an Oath of Fealty to his lawful Prince or if he have not taken such an Oath yet is as much obliged to the Prince as if he had sworn it My opinion is that it is not only lawful for a good Subject to pay obedience to the Laws made by him that has the Supreme Power only de facto and not de jure and to do what other things are commanded by him so that nothing base or unjust be commanded but that it is necessary oftentimes for him to do these things and that he should be wanting to his own Duty if he did not What I would gather from this Case put by the Great Bishop is that if such obedience be lawful and very often necessary to one who is a meer Usurper by unlawful Violence the least he would have determined in our circumstances must have been that Obedience might lawfully be paid to our present King and Queen who come to the Throne either by its being left empty by the last King or by a lawful and just Conquest And what the Bishop has afterwards urged in the Case of his Violent Usurper that notwithstanding the obedience to him the Fealty due to the lawful Prince must be preserved inviolate and nothing done in prejudice of his Right can have no place here since the late King fell perfectly from all Soveraigny here by deserting his Government and the Prince of Orange had a most just cause of War against him and made as plain a conquest over him neither of which can be brought within the Bishop's Case and therefore if Subjects may to keep to the Bishops Reasons upon the Case for their own sakes for the preservation of their Lives and Estates and for the Protection they receive under those who have possession of the Government and for the Publick sake for the Trade and Commerce of the Nation upon which the Publick must subsist live quietly under and pay obedience to an usurped Power every one of these Reasons is more foreible upon us to pay our Obedience to their Present Majesties who have Right of Just Conquest Right of Lawful Succession and the Consent and Recognition of the Nation in Convention on their side And as Reason has directed in such circumstances to transfer Obedience to the Conquerour under whom we can live safe and in quietness so does the Scripture it self the Best Rule we can desire in our Case As the Scripture commands under the greatest Penalties Subjection to the Supreme Power so it does not pur men upon the rack about the Right of Governours or upon examining who has or who has not the true Right to a Crown but directs obedience to the Powers in being to those who are in possession of the Supreme Power how small soever their claim to it may be This I can make evident my Lord from the Instances of some in the Old Testament and of those to whom our Lord Iesus himself and his Apostles did so strictly command Obedience in the New. Upon the Death of Iosiah King of Iudah the People of Iudah took Iehoahaz who was the fourth and youngest Son of Iosiah and anointed him which was done by the Chief Priest and made him King in his Father's stead setting aside the Right of his Three Elder Brothers 2 Kings 23. 30. Now that Iehoahaz was Shallum no one will doubt that will compare this place out of the 2d Book of Kings with Ieremiah 22. Ver. 11. and that Shallum was the youngest Son of four he can no more doubt that will consult 1 Chron. 3. 15. In this Instance we do not find the Scripture condemn the peoples paying Allegiance to this Prince thus set up but on the contrary God calls upon them by the Prophet Ieremiah Ierem. 22. 10 11 12. to weep sore for him that goeth away who was to return no more nor see his native Countrey that is to lament for their King Shallum or Iehoahaz who was carried by Pharaoh Nechoh into Egypt and was

from us and left no Provision because He was resolved to come back to destroy our Religion and to be reveng'd of the Nation My Lord I think such an Animus revertendi to be so far from making the Dereliction lame and void that it is as good a Proof of making the late King's Action a compleat Dereliction as if He had left it attested under his Hand and Great Seal that He would never return to us or this Government more For my own part I am persuaded that the late King withdrew himself voluntarily and by the Advice of Popish Counsels out of this Kingdom I am persuaded that He went off with an Animus revertendi and I am as fully persuaded that the Intention of his returning was to ruin our Properties and Laws and to destroy our Reformed Religion or to put it into the Popish Dialect to have his Ends of us From the first of these to wit his Withdrawing voluntarily I am satisfied that the late King Iames's Government and our Allegiance to Him are fallen and the last of them the Intention of his Return will I hope satisfie all others as much as it has done me that we have no tempting reasons either to wait for the late King's Return or to accept of his Government if He should get back I must now my Lord go on to another Consideration for there are some who are little satisfied notwithstanding all the evidence that can be offered about the King 's voluntary withdrawing himself as they were at his misgovernment being urged as the destruction of his Royal Dignity and tho' these Gentlemen have not agreed with me hitherto yet in this last Consideration they must concur with me and that is that the late King was conquered by the Prince of Orange and driven away involuntarily at least So that if by this Conquest He was put out of the condition of Governing and Protecting us we were as much depriv'd of the liberty of paying obedience to Him who was now driven from us The Business to be examin'd here is what sort of a Conquest this was and whether it was a just one such a one as by reason of which the People of England might lawfully submit to the Conquerour of their King. To begin with the Expedition of his then Highness the Prince of Orange there appears to be all the reasons in it that could justifie such an Invasion or make a Conquest just and good The Prince was no Subject of England but a Soveraign Prince who made this Descent into our Nation against our late King in defence of his own Rights as well as of ours and therefore his Action could upon no account be stil'd a Rebellion But the Cause of his Expedition is above all other things to be enquired after for that must be the chief thing that can justifie the Revolution here and ought to be highly reasonable and such as can give satisfaction to all wise and indifferent men since tho' the Prince of Orange were never so much a Soveraign Prince yet if he had not a very justifiable reason of coming hither with an Army his Expedition had been altogether a most unaccountable Action and his Conquest unjust Now to give all the satisfaction requisite to this justest Scruple the Prince's Reasons for coming hither in that manner appear to be as just and as good as his Success was great and if ever one Prince's Invasion of another Prince's Kingdom were to be justified the Prince of Orange's was For to instance in one or two of these Reasons He himself as well as his Princess had most undoubted Right to the Succession of the Crown of England and the Dominions belonging to it after the death of the late King Iames. This Right was notoriously set aside or made wholly useless to Them by the Arts and Counsels of those Papists who were about the King and did influence him The Imposture of a Pretended Prince of Wales was thought of and pitcht upon as the most effectual Bar to either of their Titles and did set Them as well as Her Royal Highness the Princess Ann of Denmark aside and deprive All Three together of their Rights of Succession and provide effectually against a Protestant Successor the only Person the People then in Power at Court were afraid of But to wave the Instance of the setting up a pretended Prince of Wales betwixt These Protestant Princes and their Right of Succession because the Proof of that Imposture has not been laid open as it might have been to the World and therefore cannot so strictly be insisted upon tho' most people even those who are dissatisfied about the present Settlement are satisfied of the Imposture the Right of Succession which was in the Two Royal Princesses and the Prince of Orange was made wholly useless to Them by the late King 's putting the Government of Part of the Dominions of the Crown of England into such hands as would not deliver them up or submit to any Protestant Successour Ireland is an evident Proof of this where all Offices Civil and Military contrary to the Laws of the Land were put into Popish Hands and such a Bigotted Irish Papist was made their Governor as that whatever Rogueries or Violences the Papists should be guilty of towards the British Protestants among them they should never need to fear being call'd to account being certain that his own management of the Government as well as his Religion would keep him from ever delivering up Ireland to any Protestant while He had the Sword in his hands and such a throughly Popish Army at his Command Now in this case when Ireland was wholly given up into such hands and Scotland was almost in the same condition and England ready to be put into the same it was high time for the Prince of Orange to assert his own and his Princesses Right and it was most reasonable for Him by all justifiable Ways and Means to prevent their being debarr'd their Right of Inheritance of these Kingdoms by bringing the late King to reasonable Terms or by depriving Him of the Power of doing Them or their Right any further Mischief herein This therefore together with the Princes Concern for our Religion and our Laws which were violated in so high a degree by the late King and with which his own Right of Succession was interwoven was a most just reason for the Prince of Orange's coming with an armed force and if the King would rather put things to the hazard of Battels than the decision of a free and legal Parliament no body else could help it and if his Army would neither fight for nor stand by him but suffer Him to be driven out of his Dominions it was because He had taken sufficient care to let all of them as well as the rest of the Nation know how very unjust the War would be on his part and how very unreasonable it would be for them who were the greatest part of