Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	church_n	rome_n	10,301	5	7.1174	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65418	Reasons why the Parliament of Scotland cannot comply with the late K. James's proclamation sent lately to that kingdom, and prosecuted by the late Viscount Dundee : containing an answer to every paragraph of the said proclamation, and vindicating the said Parliament their present proceedings against him : published by authority.	Welwood, James, 1652-1727.; Graham, John, Viscount Dundee, 1648-1689.	1689 (1689)	Wing W1309; ESTC R2126	15,716	35

Eternal God according as he is revealed in his most Holy Word and shall according to that same Word maintain the true Religion the Preaching of the Holy Word the due Administration of the Sacraments Now received and preached within the Realm of Scotland that is upon the matter the same as to Swear to be of the Reformed Religion since that Religion was established as the Religion of the Nation previous to this Act. Thereafter the King is to Swear by the same Oath That he shall rule the People committed to his charge according to the Command of God and according to the Laws and Constitutions received in this Realm Here I must confess my own weakness in the point of the late King Iames's Accession to the Crown for my reason could never persuade me of any Right he could justly claim to it as long as this Act of Parliament enacting this Coronation Oath to be taken by all succeeding Kings was in force since he neither did nor could Swear it Thus the two fundamental Hinges of the Government of Scotland being First That the Laws the People are to be governed by are such as are made by the King and Parliament And Secondly That the Government be administred by the King according to these Laws from the Obligation of a Coronation Oath If either the King alone or the three Estates by themselves take upon them to make Laws then the one Hinge is broken off and if the Government be not administrated by the King according to these Laws then the other Hinge is broken off also and in either or both of these Cases the Constitution is at an end and our Legal Government ceases Before I come to the other General Head proposed There is one Objection that lies naturally in my way which I judge necessary to be removed When I speak of Laws being only made by the King and the Three Estates of Parliament it will be told me by a certain sort of Men That this late Act of Parliament of their present Majesties Reign Abolishing Episcopacy seems to infringe that fundamental Constitution because one of the Three Estates is thereby removed viz. that of the Bishops This is easily answered when I have told them That before the Reformation the Three Estates of Parliament were thus reckon'd up the Archbishops Bishops Abbats Priors and Commendator of the Order of St. Iohn of Ierusalem made up the First Estate and were named the Lords Spiritual the Temporal Lords made up the Second and the Representatives for Counties and Burroughs together made up the Third But at the Reformation in respect of our being reformed by Presbyters and of the great opposition of the Bishops to the Reformation it self the Parliament was pleased not only to abolish the Errors of the See of Rome but also the Hierarchy of Bishops with all their Privileges and Honours whereof that of being the First of the Three Estates was one The Church of Scotland having continued under the Government of Presbyters for a great many years King Iames the First of England sound a way to restore Episcopacy in spight of the strugling Genius of the Nation And albeit at that time the Bishops by a tacit consent took their places in Parliament yet whether by neglect or design I know not they were never restored to that Privilege of being accounted one of the Three Estates of Parliament but were ever since reputed to make up but a part of one Estate in conjunction with the Temporal Lords the Second being the Representatives of Counties and the Third these of the Burroughs This account I judge the fitter to give that a great many who have not the occasion of being acquainted with the Constitution of our Country are inclinable to think that our reckoning up of the Three Estates is parallel with that of England when indeed there can be nothing more different England owed its Reformation to Bishops whereof some of them had the Glory of Sealing it with their Bloud and that Order has ever since afforded the greatest Luminaries of the Church When Popery was abolished in England the Heirarchy of Bishops was so far from being laid aside that it continued in the same State as to all its Privileges and particularly that of being the first distinct State of Parliament as they found it at the Reformation What I have advanced in point of the present reckoning up of the Three Estates of Scotland will appear farther beyond all doubt if we consider That in most of the Parliaments of King Iames the First his Reign there was none of the order of Bishops the Hierarchy being not yet restored and yet the Validity of these Parliaments were never called in question in any of the succeeding Reigns I come now to the Second General Head proposed viz. Whether or not the late King did forfeit his Right to the Crown by subverting the above-mentioned two fundamental Hinges of the Government and if thereupon the Estates did justly lay him aside In inquiring into this I shall not give the Reader the trouble of enumerating the several Cases in which the greatest Champions of Regal Prerogative allow Kings may forfeit their Right though such a digression might be pardonable being that King Iames's Proclamation insinuates fairly that in no case it can happen I confess I am so great a Friend to Monarchy as being the best of Governments and most suitable to the Genius of our Nation that I could not wish it Precarious nor the Royal Prerogative sunk below what our Parliaments preceding the two last Reigns have determined it And I think the late King Iames had reason to say of the Laws of Scotland the same he was pleased to say of these of England That they were sufficient to make the King as great a Monarch as he could wish There are a great many Arguments that inforce the unreasonableness of that Opinion That Kings may be called to an account for every mis-management and indeed it would seem much safer for the People many times to lie under the incroachments of their Princes then to endeavour a redress by a Remedy that proves often worse than the Disease And therefore it is not mis-managements in general though many and great that unmakes a King but only such as shake and subvert the Essence of the Government and unhinge the fundamental Constitution of the Kingdom And if mis-managements of this kind can be justly charged upon the late King it follows necessarily that immediately upon his so doing our Constitution is at an end and our Legal Government dissolved and thereupon He ceased to be our King and We to be his Subjects And how far the late King is thus chargeable will appear in the following Considerations That the First Fundamental Hinge of our Constitution viz. That the Laws the People are to be governed by be made by the King and Parliament was subverted by the late King is evident in his assuming a Power to annul and disable Laws by his