Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	estate_n	king_n	lord_n	2,946	5	3.5545	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70553	The thoughts of a private person, about the justice of the gentlemens undertaking at York, Nov. 1688 wherein is shewed, that it is neither against scripture, nor moral honesty, to defend their just and legal rights, against the illegal invaders of them : occasioned then by some private debates, and now submitted to better judgments.	Leeds, Thomas Osborne, Duke of, 1631-1712.	1689 (1689)	Wing L923A; ESTC R15799	20,236	31

must be proportioned to the Frame of the Government and the end of that Frame Therefore if the Frame be to restrain Arbitrary Power the Subject cannot owe Arbitrary Allegiance Allegiance is more in some places and less in others but no Man can owe so much Duty to his Prince as not to have a Salvo for God and his Life and here we can owe none that is against our Laws and the Publick Good for that would destroy the Government Our Allegiance therefore must be bounded by our Laws and not by the King's Word or Will No Man can swear to obey the King's Word or Will simply but according to Law. It would be Sin to tye our selves to think or speak or do what he would have us at large Our Allegiance therefore must be such as will consist with the Frame of our Government and that must be such as is couched in the Body of our Laws Other Allegiance there can be none but what is wrapt up in Courtesies and Formalities For it seems the King as well as the People is under the Law in some Sense under the direction of it though not under the constraint and therefore at his Coronation he does a kind of Fealty to the Laws and Government and swears Allegiance to them as to a Supream Lord. The Oath is not only Will you grant the Laws but will you grant and keep the Laws and Customs of England and the Answer is I grant and promise to keep them It is certain therefore no Allegiance to the King can be against Law to which he himself owes Allegiance The Case being thus far clear That the Allegiance sworn to is no other but our Legal Duty it does not hinder but that we may resist Illegal Force When the King of the Scots swore Allegiance to our King it did not deprive him of a just defence of his just Right by taking up Arms if he were opprest And the King of England when he swore Allegiance to the King of France made no scruple to take up Arms against his Liege Lord in defence of his just Rights And the Old Lawyers tells us That the very Villain might in case of Rape and Murther Arm against his Lord and if the Law Arm a Villain against his Lord Subjects are worse than Villains if they may not Arm against their Sovereign Lord's Illegal Forces in defence of their Laws Lives Estates and the Publick Good but what makes it most evident is the Clause in King Henry's Charter which says If the King invade those Rights it is Lawful for the Kingdom to rise against him and do him what injury they can as though they ow'd him no Allegiance The Words are these if my Author fail me not Licet omnibus de Regno nostro contra nos insurgere omnia agere quae gravamen noster respiciant ac si nobis in nullo tenerentur Much to the same purpose is in King John's Charter which I find thus quoted Et Illi Barones cum communa totius terrae distringent gravabunt Nos Modis omnibus quibus poterunt scilicet per captionem Castrorum terrarum possessionum etalis modis quibus potuerint donet fuerint emendatum secundum Arbitrium eorum salva personâ nostra Reginae nostrae Liberorum nostrorum Much may be said of this Nature about the Old Allegiance which was all couched in Homage and Fealty but this enough to show that true Allegiance does not tye us from resisting Illegal Force and Intolerable Incroachments upon our just Rights Obj. 10. But such Resistance would be against the Declaration which says It is not Lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King c. Answ The Latitude of the Word Lawful causes the Scruple which at first View seems to tell us That it is sinful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King c. But it is no good consequence to say That it is sinful because it is unlawful unless the Discourse be restrained to the Laws of God. I must confess it is Politically unlawful for Subjects in any Case or for any Cause whatever to take up Arms against the King and those Commission'd by him because such a taking up Arms here can have no Political Authority But it is Morally lawful in all limitted Governments to resist that Force that wants Political Power The Regal Power is Irresistable in all Persons from the King to the Petty Constable but it does not hinder but that all these Persons may be resisted when they do what they have no Political Power to They that have a limitted Power and a prescribed Duty may either Act against or beyond their Commission and when they so do they may be resisted For such Acts have no Political Power in them though the Persons have to other Purposes If a Commission should be granted to a Company of Ruffians to Plunder and Massacre they might have something more of the King's Affections but no more of his Authority than private Robbers had and consequently might be resisted with equal Honesty None therefore can make this Declaration in its full Latitude but upon this presumption That the King and his Ministers keep perpetually within the Bounds of the Law otherwise they declare the King has an Arbitrary Power which is against the Fundamental Laws of this Land and a kind of Treason against the State For if he may not be resisted in any Case he may be under some Moral restraint but under no Political restraint and consequently the Political Frame of the Government must be Arbitrary The meaning therefore of this Declaration can be no other but that a Man can have no Civil Power or Authority in any Case to take up Arms against the King c. But this does not debar any Man of the Natural Right of Self-defence by Private Arms against Inauthoritative Force Obj. 11. To this some reply that seeing God hath placed the Governing though limitted Power in the King's Hand no Man may by any Natural Right or Private Defence resist his illegal Force God's Power must not be resisted though abused Answ There is a great difference between the abuse of Power and the want of Power and therefore this Argument either supposes the Power greater than it is or concludes ill The King and Parliament have indeed an Arbitrary Power I do not say Infinite but as Extensive as the Frame of the Government will bear and therefore if they make a very grievous Law though they ought not for they are under a Moral restraint though no Political neither the King nor any of his Ministers may be resisted in the due Execution of it But the King has no Power to burden us beyond or against Law and we may thank our own Weakness if ever we have Strength to do it This shows us there is a great difference betwixt the abuse of Political Power and the want of it Abused Power must not be resisted