Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	king_n	law_n	subject_n	4,732	5	6.6515	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

as every one is bound to in his Station whilst a Prince is among them How will his way exempt them from paying the same when they have an obliging Opportunity whilst he is Dispossessed of his Throne This I think K. W. claim'd from the Irish Subjects requiring them to come in to him and to return to their due Obedience whilst his Errand was Restoring or getting Possession And this in virtue of their Natural Allegiance they having taken no Legal Oath to him And more particularly as to the Legal Oath the Maintenance and Defence Swore in that is with respect to the Legal Right as is plain in the Oath and as he himself observes p. 28. And here methinks it should be harder to get off from Maintaining and Defending if the legal Right be allowed to remain which they Swore to maintain and defend him in And the Maintenance Promised was against all Attempts whatsoever against his Person Crown and Dignity Now the Crown and Dignity is his who has the best Right to them Right making Property as I formerly observed So leaving the Legal Right to any Dispossessed Kings Person will leave him the Crown and Dignity And then all continuance of Attempts to deprive his Person of the Crown and Dignity will be Attempts against his Person Crown and Dignity I think And how will this making Attempts thereupon be Maintaining and Defending both his Dignity and him against them So no way will remain but the translation of Legal Right to take off this Maintenance and Defence in my Opinion He thinks also p. 30. That we are not bound to defend a King when he illegally Subverts the Laws or Legal Religion of a Kingdom 'T is enough in Conscience he fancies p. 27. pattently to bear such an one but a little too much for Subjects to venture all to keep him on the Throne to oppress them This I think makes Kings illegal Actings a Discharge of Subject's Allegiance and Legal Defence which agrees equally ill in my Opinion with the Oath of Allegiance and with Passive Obedience For that is to be so Passive as to make no Resistance and to be so Obedient as to pay all due Service and Allegiance even to such illegal Invaders of Religion and Laws Nor is this Duty taken off by the abuse they will make of the Subject's Performance in turning that Power upon them afterwards to persecute and oppress those who were its Dutyful Supporters for no Duty is taken off by the accidental abuse which others may make of our payment of it nor was this in particular thought to be taken off by the Primitive Christians They were not without plain appearances that if a Persecutor kept the Throne he would turn or continue his Power to persecute and oppress them But yet for all this they durst never be wanting in any Part or Duty of good Subjects in their several Stations to keep him thereon either against any Domestick Rebellion or Foreign Invasion The Subject's Duty in these Cases I think is as to the illegal ways never to act under him or serve him in the illegal Thing But yet for all that to be ready in their several Stations to defend his Person and the Cause of his Crown when either Subject or Foreigner shall rise against him And 't is their Acting in the illegal Thing that the Law punishes but no Law will punish them for Acting to support his Person and defend his Crown Though a Man may be a Traytor as he urges p. 30. For Acting for him against Law yet never for Defending him when Assaulted for that is according to Law So though they are not to defend such illegal Opposer in an illegal Thing yet are they bound to give him the due Defence of Allegiance and the Legal Oath notwithstanding it And thus I have considered both the Scriptures and Reasons he has offered for this Right of Providence And as the former Proofs I think shew Reason enough to overthrow it so he has brought no good Reason to support it And therefore mere Providential Possession of another's Crown without other Title is no Right much less such as should set aside the Legal Right So that the Legal Right will stand good notwithstanding it And if he that has the Legal Right has the best Right to the Crown though another be got into Possession The Supposal of a Legal Right in another will leave all the first mentioned Difficulties in Force against transferring Allegiance to the Possessor For in ingaging by such Allegiance to help him in keeping out the right Owner Subjects would be very Unrighteous and ingaging also thereby to resist the Authority of their rightful Prince they would be very Undutiful and Rebellious and therein moreover to break their former Promises and Oaths they would be very Perfidious and Perjurious All which I think are not to be taken off by the Supposal of Legal Right in the ejected Prince but only by proving he has parted from it and that the Possessor is vested with it which uses to be the Principle of the publick Acts on such Revolutions and particularly is so in our present Case and which as the Author has not at all medled with so neither shall I. And thus Honoured Sir I have considered what this Reverend and Learned Person has offered on this Argument Wherein I have endeavoured to take the Freedom which is fitting with his Opinion but to shew the Respect which I have and his many Excellent both Pious and Learned Labours have so long given the Serious and Wise part of Men cause to have for his Person I pray God to enlighten and thereby to awaken the Consciences of all concerned in this Question Some may be apt to take Offence at a free Discussion of these Grounds thinking it may touch too near on Reputation But as many as prefer Religion before themselves will be more careful to keep its Duties in Credit than to keep up their own Credit And I am sure all that have a serious Sense of Christianity and reverence for the Commandments of God must needs see that they have a much higher Concern than Reputation in this Dispute The Difficulties are of highest Importance in that Account we must all one Day make before the great Iudge of the World And if the Grounds several Men satisfie themselves upon at present will not take them off it nearly concerns them to see it in time whilst there may be ways of providing a more comfortable Answer against they come to be posed upon them God in his abundant Mercy grant us all the Grace to have and keep Minds raised above this World and both to see the Truth and follow it I remain Sir Your most Faithful and Affectionate Servant c. FINIS THE CONTENTS Chap. 1. OF the Difficulties in the way of the Present Allegiance and the ways of taking them off The Allegiance required Difficulties against it from several Commandments All suppose a rightful Competitor to

such Illegal acting And this Inherent and Unexercised Authority claims Obedience to him even at such time that is to keep under his Obedience and not cast it off and rebel against him And the same may be said in case of all other Misuse of Authority for few Mens Principles of Obedience are so loose but they will own it to be still due to ill Kings and Governor who abuse their Authority and 't is strange any Man should believe otherwise that believes the Scriptures But now do not I see why Authority may not have Obedience due it when it is not used as well as when it is misused For what binding Force should there be in misuse To my mind nothing is ever the better for being misused and if misuse can add nothing to it nor lend it any Force whereby to hold the Conscience I fancy it may bind as strongly to Obedience when it cannot be used at all 6. This confining Obedience to actual Exercise and Administration of Government is to make actual Protection or Administration the Condition of it And this will make a Conditionality in the Duty of Relatives a● Protection of Kings and Obedience of Subjects are One will be bound to obey if the other doth protect and so far and so long as he doth actually protect which he always doth most whose Administration is justest and keeps closest to the Laws which are the Cover or Protection they seek and expect who live under a limitted and legal Government And this way according to their keeping or degrees in keeping the Condition there would be one Obedience due to a Protecting and another or sometimes none at all to an Oppresive King one Obedience to a King in his good Days and another in his bad ones and not one and the same according to the Scripture Precepts which neither make nor admit of such Distinctions to all and at all times and like would be the Consequence thereof in the Duties of other Relations The performance of one being the Condition of performing in the other when one breaks the Bond is broke on both and no Tye left on either Whereas though the Persons are Relatives yet in all these States the Duties on each side are Absolute which one is bound in Conscience to perform whether the other do or no. The Author says p. 42. 43. Though Protection and Allegiance are not Relatives yet Government meaning actual Government and Allegiance are such Relatives as do se mut uo ponere tollere or infer or remove each other mutually And to extend Allegiance beyond actual Administration of Government is to preserve a Relative without its Correlate The Difference between Protection and actual Government is only this That actual Government is wider and takes in either actual protecting or oppressing whereas Protecting he there makes to be Administring justly and by Laws and opposes to Opressing Now Allegiance is the act of the Subject as actual Government and Protection are of the Prince Allegiance is the Subject's act only keeping his Duty as Protection is of the King keeping to his Duty But actual Government taking in both Protecting and Oppressing is the act of the King either keeping or breaking his Duty Now if Allegiance which is only the Subject's keeping must not be related to Protection which is the King 's keeping but to actual Government which is either his keeping or breaking his Duty methinks these Relatives are ill match'd and look as if they were not akin And if Alleg●ance relate to any thing since it is only the act of the Subject keeping it should relate to Protection which is the act of the King keeping his Duty And if his other act of Government or Oppressing must have any Relative it should be their Breach of Allegiance which is to break with him as he doth with them For as Performance answers to Performance so should Breach to Breach I imagine in Likeness and Relation But these Acts on either side are not Relatives or Correlates to one another though the Persons are The Acts are the Acts of their several Duties on both sides and those Duties are absolute which each must perform without any regard to the other's Performance Otherwise there is no Duty from a good Wife to a bad Husband or from a good Child to a bad Parent more than from a good Subject to an ill King And yet That such Duty there is towards them is as certain a Rule in Morality and Religion as that he mentions about Relata is in Logick The Relation is between the Persons not between the Acts and Offices which are called Relative Duties though in their Obliga●●on they be absolute only because they are Duties of Persons that stand mutually related And in the Persons his Rule is true Take away one Relative Person and you break the Relation and without its Correlate the Relative cannot remain But if the Prince cannot Govern saith he p. 42. the Subject cannot obey True he cannot obey actual Government when he cannot have it but he may keep under the Obedience of his Governor and obey it as he can as I shewed before till the Governor's Authority is gone or his Government comes to be actual again By all these Reasons I think it may sufficiently appear That the Obedience shewn before to be due to rightful Authority is not tyed to the Exercise and Administration thereof nor to follow Administration of Government without Rightful Authority But is the Due of the Authority whether the Person having and claiming it be in Place and Possession to exercise his Authority or no. 7. And for further Confirmation of all this I shall to all the foregoing Proofs from the Nature and Reason of things and Scriptures in the Seventh place add a Proof of the same which I think will be a good Proof among all English men in a Case of Allegiance required by Law and that is from our own Laws Now That Obedience in the Eye of our Law is due to Rightful Authority i● a dispossessed King is plain because in the Eye of Law Subjects may criminally disobey him If they ought him no Obedience they could not disobey him or deserve to suffer any thing at the hand of Law for not paying Obedience where by Law they ought none But what more common in Law than this towards a dispossessed rightful King Witness the Censure of Law on the Undutifulness shown to King Charles I. when arraigned before the High Court of Justice where he stood utterly dispossessed of all actual Admininistration and on like Disobedience and breach of Allegiance against K. Charles II. during his Dispossession and all the other forementioned Acts declaring Treasons the hight of Disobedience in Practices against dispossessed Rightful Kings as has been observed in Case of Richard the Second of Henry the Eighth's Heirs Q. Mary and others The same may be further evidenced from other Declarations of Law about the Dueness of Allegiance to such dispossessed Kings Whilst