Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	act_n	king_n	title_n	3,788	5	7.4113	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds, according to Scripture, reason, and the opinion of the Church in answer to a late book of Dr. William Sherlock, master of the Temple, entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated, and resolved, according to Scripture, &c. : with a more particular respect to the oath lately injoyn'd.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

therefore is called God's sending and charging or giving and taking and the like in the foresaid Scriptures And all without the least Regard to authorizing and giving Right to the Actors which is not to be expected in unrighteous and punishable Actions and which God therein doth not at all meddle with What needs Right is going at all on such Errands and violently seizing what is their Neighbours And this they have not at all from him but the Bent and Disposition thereto is all their own But when they are set upon this by their own Avarice Ambition or other corrupt Passions Providence ministers Accidents and Opportunities which come not to them in way of authorizing but of trying as they do to every one else in an unrighteous Action And these Accidents and Opportunities to a mind so prepared will ascertain the Accomplishments and limit and over-rule it as God sees fit and so bear out all these Scripture Expressions of God's accomplishing without any thing of his giving Right and authorizing which no one must expect from him in an evil or unrighteous thing 3. Thirdly That this Right of Providence or mere Providential Possession without other Title doth not set aside Legal Right may appear from the Authority of our own Laws The constant Method of Law is To give any thing in Dispute to the legal Title against the illegal Possessor This is manifest in all private Rights If a Man has a legal Title to any thing the Law every Term ejects the illegal Possessor for all he has the Plea of Providential Possession against the other And 't is plainly so in the legal Title to the Crown too This appears by all the forementioned Proofs of the Laws looking upon the dispossessed Prince with legal Title still as King and making the Allegiance of all the Subjects to continue due to him yea of the Usurper himself if he were a Subject before And attainting him as well as them for Treasonable Breaches of the same so making the Providential Possessor a Traitor to the Legal Owner as I have shewn from sundry Acts of Parliament and judged Cases in behalf of the dispossessed rightful Kings All which establishing the legal King's Authority against the Providential Usurper's shew plainly That our Law thinks better of a legal Right than of the Author 's Right of Providence To which I will add the Judgment of the Parliament 39 H. 6. on a Competition betwixt these two Titles For H. 6. had the Providential Right and had Reigned King himself for almost Forty Years and all that the D. of York had to oppose against it was his Legal Right And yet that Parliament confess the Duke's Title of Legal Right could not be Defeated Indeed if Providential Possession were the best Right there would be very little use of the legal Right Yes says he p. 15. it would bar all other human Claims But the Right of Providence according to his Notion has barr'd these better And what use of a worse Title to do that which a better has done before If a P●ince is in the Throne he needs not to hold by it for his Providential Possession will exclude all other Princes and oblige his own Subjects as effectually as any human Right would And if he is out of the Throne he cannot claim by it because it is the Possessor's by a better Right and no Man can honestly claim that from another which he has a better Title to than himself And if it is of no use to a King either for holding a Crown whilst he has it or for recovering it when he has lost it I think there is no great account to be made of it I shall now 4. Fourthly in the last place add some Authorities in this Case to shew how valid these Legal Rights have been held against Providential Usurpations and Possessions both by the Primitive and our own Church As for the Primitive Church they saw several Competitions of these Two Titles In one Part or other of the Empire some were still assuming the Purple and setting up in Fact against the legal Emperor and these were Possessed for their Time of the Countreys where the Defection was the People being all in their Power and publick Acts passing in their Names and this sometimes continuing for Years before they and their adherents were Overthrown or Reduced by the lawful Emperors If Providential Possession without other Right then carries the best Title here was the Title of Providence for so much as they possessed the whole Power of those Places being in their Hands and they being able there to crush all Opposers And if God grants Right where he grants Power here was a Divine Right to so much as these Usurpers had got into their Power But yet the Christians in those Places never thought this a Warranty to cast off their lawful Emperor as being this way disauthoriz'd by God and to turn Subjects to these Usurpers as having God's Authority in these Countreys put into their Hands So never any Christians would stick to them or act under them as in Obedience to God's Authority they should have done had they thought them now to be the Emperors of God's making among them Nunquam Albiniani nunquam Nigriani c. says Turtullian that is Their Enemies could never give an instance when they turned to any such Usurper or took part in such Defection Two whereof viz. that by Niger and another by Albinus were fresh in Memory at that time Herein keeping strictly and conscientiously to the Apostle's limitation who requires them to submit to the King as Supreme and to those sent to govern the Provinces only as to Governors sent by him and so not to submit and stick to them when they set up for themselves against him 1 Pet. 2. 13 14. As for our own Church of England we have had a like signal Competition between them in the long Usurpations till King Charles the Second's Restauration and as full a Declaration has been made of the Churches Sense therein and of the validity of the King 's legal Title against these Usurpers mere Providential Possession as can ordinarily be made by the Actings and Sufferings the Preaching and Printing of the Church Men both all the time of the Usurpations and for near Thirty Years together since And this I think is good Argument in this way of Arguing viz. from Authority though he says p. 45 46. There is only Prejudice but no Argument in it For such Preaching and Suffering for this Doctrine by the great●st Lights and con●est Pillars of the Church during all the Days of Usurpation and such constant Maintenance of the same both by Books a●d Sermons on the Aniversary Days and other Occasions of treating on that Subject in all Places of the Kingdom ever since till this Revolution must needs clear this to have been the Churches Doctrine and that after it had been put most upon studying the Point and delivering its Sense therein

Reason and good Conscience though there had been no Express Law against it but an Express Law for it yet would it have vacated that Law for can any human Law bind against good Conscience or authorize and bear Men out in unrighteous Actions And t●us this Statute would do if still owning another to have the Right it should authorize the Subjects to serve in War and assist the Possessor against him coming to get his Right But p. 65. doth not Law limit Right And may not a King limit his Right by his own Consent Yes and transfer it too if he will But if the Law has still left him the Right and he has not Consented in this La● to part with his Right when dispossessed Which is the reality of the Case as p. 37. the learned Author whom he considered on this Point shewed and as it is supposed to be in this present Dispute which is for trying to give away Allegiance admitting him still to have the legal Right What then is to be said to a Statute authorizing Subjects to oppose him in seeking of his Right If the King himself as he supposes him to do in the Statute on good Considerations consents to this What Iniquity p. 65. says he is there in this Law Yes as it leaves such Dispossessed Prince still to have Right and bids Men oppose him in it there is Iniquity therein as there would be in any Law that should bid Men steal their Neighbour's Goods or slay the Innocent There is Iniquity in all Unrighteousness and this Law would this way bid Men oppose Right which is to be Unrighteous So that here God's Law says you shall not oppose any Man in seeking of his Right and this Law would say you shall do it And when any human Law bids us do that I think since God is above Men it must needs be enough as is shewed in the Doctor and Student to vacate that Law to say that God forbids it But if this Statute is meant only of the right King What need of Indemnifying None whilst the right is in Possession But that was made to cover them as far as he could against a turn of Times which it would be the more like to do especially in such Doubted and Controverted Titles because on all Sides in this Quarrel of the Two Houses they had Cause enough to be weary of the way of Mutual Attaindors Thus much I thought fit to say here upon this Statute which since this Plea has been started other Papers have more largely considered And though the Author whom he replies to in this Part of his Book had no need I think to suppose the King for the time being in that Statute to be a mere King in Fact Yet any one that will peruse what with great Labour and Skill he has laid together in that Book will see enough to shew him how far the Law is from carrying Allegiance to a mere King in Fact Now these Sayings of Council in Baggot's Case and the Statute of H. 7. being my Lord Coke's Grounds for taking Allegiance to be due to a King in Fact the effect of what he alledges from the Three Lord Chief Justices and Baggot's Case to prove this Point I think when duly weighed will only amount to this That my Lord Coke followed therein by Two eminent Lawyers upon the Authority of a Saying of Council and of some Words in a Statute about Allegiance not expresly mentioning a King in Fact but according to their common use in Law signifying one that has Right and not admitting what the Statute affirms of them to be true if meant of any other but the Right were of Opinion that Allegiance is due to a King in Fact Though for further abatement of these Authorities my Lord Coke says enough I think particularly in Calvin's Case to declare Allegiance inseperable from the Right whether Possessed or no. And I think my Lord Chief Justice Bridgeman who Sentenced Men for Treason against the Right after he was D●spossessed and my Lord Chief Justice Hale who refused to sit on any under the late Usurpation that were to be tryed for their Adherence to the Dispossessed rightful King were plainly of the same Opinion And if 't is due to the Right when Dispossessed in their Opinion it is not as the Author thinks du● only to actual Government And if it is due to the Right out of Possession since as he says also we cannot have Two Kings or Two Allegiances there can be none due to the Wrong So this Opinion of these great Men seems not to have been their fix'd and settled Opinion for which a Saying of Council or such sound of some Words in a Statute as I have mentioned seems not to be the best Foundation But on the other side That Allegiance is all the time due by Law to the Right even when Dispossessed and broke by those that act against him in Adherence to the King in Fact yea by the King in Fact himself if he were a Subject before appears from Numerous both Acts of Parliament and judged Cases such as Calvin's Case and the Case of Union which make Allegiance to foll●● the King 's Natural Person and from the Iudgment on the Duke of Northumberland who gave this Plea of a King in Fact and for the Purposes it is now urged from the Statute of H. 7. for his Acting under Queen Iane against Queen Mary but was told by the Court That the Seal of an Usurping Queen was no good Warrant and the Judgment was afterwards confirmed by Act of Parliament From the Iudgement on the R●gicides for what they acted against King Charles 1. in his State of Dispossession and the need of an Act of Oblivion for what was done against his Son whilst-kept out of the Administration From the Statute of 13 14 Car 2. before mentioned declaring Allegiance all that while due to him as another declared it due to Queen Mary and the Regal Authority to be vested in her Person during the time of Queen Iane's Usurpation And as other Statutes declared it to be due to Henry the Eigh●h's right Heirs whilst others Usurped upon them And another Statute did to Richard the Second during Henry the Fourth's Usurping his Throne And as is declared in all the Statutes of Attaindor upon the Kings in Fact and their Adherents when the Kings in Right recovered their Thrones as has been observed in the Chap. 2. foregoing Discourse And as is declared lastly in the legal Oath of Allegiance which Recognizes the King 's Right and Swears to bear and pay Allegiance to the Right whilst he has Right to defend and pay it to And suppose the Statute of H. 7. had authorized Men to pay it to the Wrong and these Statutes of King James the First ab●●t the Oath of Allegiance make them Swear to pay it to the Right Which would be the Law in this Case If Two Statutes clash and