Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	church_n	doctrine_n	5,028	5	6.8462	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A34753	A Country ministers reasons for taking the oaths of allegiance to K. William & Q. Mary in a letter to one under suspension for refusing them		1690 (1690)	Wing C6560; ESTC R28570	6,540	12

Person entrusted with the Government should enjoy it pro termino vitae or be Chosen Annually or after a certain space of years or when his Government shall determine so as the subjects shall be free from their Subjection to him in these and many other such instances in the Law of God there is altum Silentium and nothing determined The Wisdom of God foreseeing that no one particular form or method of Government would agree with all sorts of Ages Persons and Places has left the decision of such particulars to the Laws and Statutes of the several Nations and Kingdoms From whence it follows that the Laws of Kingdoms determining these particulars which the Laws of God take no Cognisance of cannot be said to be repugnant to any Law of God And consequently the Laws of our Nation deciding that the Government of one King determines when he is out and another has got Possession of it so far that the Allegiance which was owing to the former shall be transferr'd to him in Possession are not repugnant to any superiour Law of God And then the Laws of the Land if not repugnant to the Laws of God being the measures which Conscience ought to govern her self by in her Judgment of those actions which I am to perform as a Member of this Nation and this of taking the Oaths being an action of that kind I could not upon the whole matter but conclude not only that I might with a good Conscience take the Oaths of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary but that I could not with a good Conscience refuse them Nor could I apprehend that my former Oath to King James could give me any just scruple in this matter For my Oath to him was not to his Person separate from his Office but vested with it for otherwise in case of a spontaneous resignation I could not have been absolved from my Oath when therefore these two are Legally separated the obligation of that Oath ceaseth Now our Laws whose business I observed before it is to determine whether Death only or a certain term of years or whatever else should put an end to the Office of a King so that the Subject should be free from his obligation to him having declared that a Kings being out of Possession and his Throne being filled by another does so far put an end to his Office that during the time that he is out of Possession and another in he is in Legal Construction and as to all Allegiance that his Subjects owe him as Dead as if he were naturally so All objection upon account of my former Oath easily vanished And as little did I stumble tho I confess very much surprised at what some do mightily insist upon as a bar to taking these Oaths the Doctrine of Passive Obedience as profest and taught in our Church Particularly I was sorry to find it urged in the last Declaration of the late Lord Bishop of Chichester as the ground of his refusing the Oaths a Declaration which if it were his being made at a time when his Distemper and near approaching Death may well be supposed to have clouded his faculties and parts is supported with such Incocnlusive reasons and could serve to no good end or purpose in the World that out of respect to the Memory of that Worthy and Pious Prelate I cannot forbear wishing that the Editor had committed it to the Flames rather than the Press For supposing the Doctrine of Passive Obedience to be the Doctrine of our Church as I verily believe it is and a very good Doctrine when truly stated I doubt not but for all the Lawful Commands of my Prince Lawful I mean for him such as he is impowered to command by that which is the measure of his Authority I must either actually perform them or quickly submit to the punishment of my non-performance But what is this to the point of the new Oaths or how can I owe or pay this Obedience to King James who is out of Place to Command and out of Power to Punish Passive Obedience is not a suffering for my King but by my King or by his Officers Commissioned under him and therefore 't is absurd to talk of Passive Obedience to one that is out of Possession for it cannot be paid to or Exercised under any but him that is possest of the Power All therefore as far as I could see that Passive Obedience had to do in this Case was to oblige me if upon other good grounds I had been perswaded of the unlawfulness of the Oaths submissively to have born the punishment of my refusal without disturbing the Government or censuring those that complyed with it Your very Affect c. FINIS