Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	good_a	king_n	subject_n	3,003	5	6.4581	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25779	The argument of a learned counsel, upon an action of the case brought by the East-India-Company, against Mr. Thomas Sands, an interloper	Pollexfen, Henry, Sir, 1632?-1691.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3633; ESTC R12992	26,277	82

Men in their lawful Mystery To the same purpose is Norris and Stop 's Case Hob. 211. So that this being the Sense of this Proviso to except Powers and Authorities that Companies have to regulate Trade for the Maintenance and Enlargement of it but not to restrain any from their Trades or lawful Mysteries it extends not to salve or preserve such Authority or Power in you to have a sole Trade excluding all others 2. For another reason it cannot be the Sense of this Proviso to except or save to any Body Politick the buying in their publick Capacity a sole Trade The Proviso then will be repugnant and contradictory to the enacting Clauses For taking the Proviso as they would have it To save to Bodies Politick the having the sole buying and selling and using any Merchandize or Trade as a Corporation and then compare the Proviso with the enacting Clause and it will be just thus Enacted That Letters Patents to any Body Politick for sole buying selling or using any thing shall be void And that no Body Politick shall be capable of having using or exercising any such Patent Inhibition or Restraint Provided that Bodies Politick may have the sole buying selling and using any Trade Is not this in plain English repugnant and contradictory Examine it as much as you can and it will be no other than a down-right Contradiction Suppose the Statute that enacts that no Man shall use a Trade that he hath not served an Apprentice to by the Space of seven Years had a Proviso That Men might use a Trade that they had not served an Apprentice to by the Space of seven Years This had ben a void repugnant Proviso This is as plainly repugnant That no Body Politick shall be capable of having a sole Trade Provided that a Body may have a sole Trade And repugnant Provisos are in Law void 1 Rep. 46. Pl. Com. 563. Statute gives the Land of J. S. to the King Then a Proviso comes to save the Right of all Persons This shall be construed all Persons besides J. S. not to destroy the Premises Therefore when the Act saith That all Patents granted to Bodies Politick for sole buying and selling or using any thing c. Shall the Proviso that saith That it shall not extend or be prejudicial to Companies of Merchants erected for the Maintenance Enlargement or ordering of Trade If construed in the same Sense that they would have it to give the Companies sole buying selling and using any thing as Companies in their Corporate Capacity it is repugnant and contradictory But to give the Companies the Management Order and Government is the Sense as I conceive And this is the general Practice of the Societies and Companies allowed in all times But a sole Trade under the Colour and Pretence of Order and Management never as I believe hath had any judicial Allowance Object Another thing that the Counsel of the other side have objected to evade this Act hath been this The Proviso is That the Act shall not extend to Companies of Merchants erected for Maintenance and Ordering of Trade but that their Charters Liberties and Privileges shall be of like Force as they were before the making this Act. And therefore say they Patents to Companies of Merchants for ordering Trade if good before this Act shall be good still and therefore say they the Act can't hurt us This is curious but if examined is but the same Objection in other Words For the Conclusion of this Proviso extends no further than the Charters mentioned in the Beginning of it It extends but to the same Charters so are the very Words What Charters or Patents then shall remain in the same Force they were before the Act Those that are excepted What are excepted Those that are for Order and Management as I have before shewn Not those that are for sole Trade granted to a Body Politick That is repugnant to the enacting Clause therefore those as I have said are not excepted or within the Proviso If then not excepted you are most plainly and fully within the enacting Clause and your Patent quite contratrary to and void by this Act unless the matter of Infidel will save you Object But this is a sole Trade with Infidels and such a Trade the Subject had never any Right to have without the King's Licence And to prove it they cite Michelburne's Case 2. Brownlow 296. Wherein Mr. Brownlow being Prothonotary doth relate what my Lord Coke said That no Subject of the King might trade with any Realm of Infidels without the King's Licence And that the Reason was because he might relinquish the Catholick Faith and adhere to Infidelism And that he had seen a Licence in the Time of E. 3. where the King recited the Confidence that he had in his Subject that he would not decline his Religion and so licenced him And that this did arise upon the Recital of a Licence made to trade to the East-Indies They cite also Calvin's Case 7 Rep. 17. where 't is said That Infidels are perpetui inimici there is perpetual Hostility there can be no Peace an Infidel can maintain no Action nor have any thing within this Realm and to prove this there is cited R. 282. 12 H. 8. 4. 1. Supposing the Law to be as these Books intend and as the other side urge them and the Consequence will be that the Plaintiff can't maintain this Action but that the Charter granted to them is void The Reason that is given in Michelburn's Case is grounded upon this That the King hath the Care and Preservation of Religion by the Law vested in him That his Subjects shall not trade with Infidels lest thereby they may be brought to relinquish the Catholick Faith and adhere to Infidelism And that the King shall take care that Licences to trade be only given to such as the King hath Confidence in that they will not decline their Religion Supposing this then your Patent must be naught for then it is only grantable to Persons in whom such Confidence may be 1. Your Corporation or Body Politick is indefinite as to Persons the Members thereof are daily changeable some go out sell their Stocks or dye others buy their Stocks and are daily coming in to be Members of your Company I doubt you do not much examine nor care how fixed or certain those are in Religion that come into your Company How then can there be any Confidence in a Body Politick The Law saith that a Body Politick hath neither Soul nor Conscience What Confidence then concerning their Religion can there be in a Body Politick 2. 'T is not only the Members of the Company that were at the Time of the Corporation but those that after should be Members and their Sons their Apprentices Factors and Servants that are licensed by this Patent If licensing to trade with Infidels be a Trust and Prerogative in the King to be given to such Persons in whom

the King can have Confidence that they will not be conversing with Infidels change or prejudice This can't be granted to a Body Politick and their Successors which may have Continuance for ever or to their Sons Factors Apprentices and Servants Persons altogether unknown not born nor in rerum natura when the Patent was made Suppose such a Licence to you to trade with Enemies I say 3. Supposing it to be in the King's Prerogative in Preservation of Religion to licence yet he can't grant this Prerogative to you that you shall have Power to grant Licence to whom you will Yet all this is done by your Patent for you have not only thereby Power granted you for your Apprentices Factors and Servants which are Persons that you your selves nominate and appoint at your Discretions and undoubtedly very religious But by your Patent it is expresly granted that the Company for any Consideration or Benefit to themselves may grant Licences to any Merchant Stranger or other to trade to or from the Indies And that the King will not without the Consent of the Company licence any other to trade Can this be a good Grant Can the King grant from himself his Kingly Care and Trust for Preservation of Religion to you that you shall manage it and that the King will not use such his Power without your Consent So that supposing that there is by the Law such a Trust reposed in the King for Preservation of Religion as you would have it yet the Grant to you is void in it self and then you have no more Right than we and consequently can maintain no Action against us 2. To consider the Books that you have cited to maintain this religious Point 1. Brownlow's Reports a Book printed in the late Times not licensed by any Judge or Person whatsoever The Roll is Mich. 7 Jac. B. C. Rot. 3107. Michelburn against B●thurst setting forth that the King had granted the Plaintiff his Commission to go with his Ship Tiger to the East-Indies to spoil and suppress the Infidels and to take from them what he could That there were Articles betwixt the Parties for Account and Shares of what should be got and upon those Articles a Suit in the Admiralty And what is it that is in the Case Nothing to the purpose but the Book mentions only what my Lord Coke said upon the Motion for the Prohibition Only a sudden occasional Saying not upon any Argument or Debate nor to the then Case So that a Man must be very willing that will much rely upon such a Saying I can't call it an Authority 2. For Calvin's Case That an Infidel is perpetuus Inimicus and can maintain no Action or have any thing and that we are in perpetual Hostility and no Peace can be made with them It is true that this is said in Calvin's Case but there was nothing there in Judgment that gave Occasion for it so that I can't think that it was much considered before it was spoken The Books there cited to prove it are Reg. 282. And all that I can find therein is that in a Writ of Protection granted to the Hospitallers of the Hospital of St. John's of Jerusalem it is said that the Hospital was founded in Defence of Holy Church against the Enemies of Christ and Christians But doth this prove that Infidels are perpetui Inimici with whom no Peace can be made that can maintain no Action The other Book cited is 12 H. 8. 4. a Trespass brought for taking away a Dog and in the debating whether this Action did lye or not it is said That if the Lord beat his Villain an Husband his Wife or a Man out-lawed or a Traitor or a Pagan they shall have no Action because they are not able to sue an Action So that this also is but Discourse and sudden Thoughts and Sayings where the thing was not in Question And what Authority is there in such Sayings It is true that Christian Religion and Paganism are so contrary one to the other as impossible to be reconciled no more than Contradictions can be reconciled But because they can't be reconciled that therefore there should be perpetual War betwixt them and us perhaps is an irreligious Doctrine and destroys all Means of convincing Infidels to the Faith And besides these extrajudicial and occasional Sayings in these Books cited are of little Authority For I can't find any Book or Case much less Judgment or Authority for such Opinions in so great a Point as this is But on the other side if a Man considers the general Course and Practice Trade and Commerce and legal Proceedings a Man would think That my Lord Coke could not be in earnest in what he hath said about Infidels For let a Man consider what a great Part of the World we have Commerce with that are Infidels as Turks Persians the Inhabitants of Barbary and other Countries Spain and Portugal were also possessed by the Moors who were Infidels till about the Year 1474. about 200 Years since they were driven out for till then for near the Space of 700 Years the Moors possessed both Spain and Portugal Have we not Leagues and Treaties with the Princes and Inhabitants of the Infidel Countries receiving Embassadors from them and sending Embassadors to them and Ministers always residing with them Have we not from Time to Time Peace or War with them in like manner as with Christian Kings and Countries If Infidels be perpetui Inimici if in perpetual Enmity then we may justifie the killing of them as those that we are in Hostility with wheresoever we meet with them 17 E. 4. 13. b. 2 H. 7. 15. Adjudged that any Man may seize and take to his own Use the Goods of an alien Enemy 'T is the Price of his Adventure and Victory over his Enemy If an Infidel be any Enemy any Man may then take away the Goods of an Infidel and have them to his own Use And this would be a good Trade if this be so Mr. Sollicitor in his Argument was pleased to cite many ancient Rolls out of H. 3. and E. 1. and about those Times concerning those Princes handling the Jews In Mr. Pryn's Book that he calls The second Part of a short Demurrer to the Jews long discontinued Remitter into England printed in 1656. In which Book I believe an hundred Records and Histories are cited to shew how they were about those times handled The Time that they did exact and much enrich themselves by Usury to the great Impoverishment of the People And that the Princes of those Times polled them taxed them and took it from them again at Pleasure But besides Mr. Pryn Stat. of Merton C. 5. made 20 H. 7. was my Lord Coke saith 2 Inst 89. principally intended against the usurious Jews Stat. de Judaismo 18 E. 1. Recites that the King's People were disinherited by the usurious Jews And enacts That no Jew for the future shall take Usury 2