Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A56410
|
An examination of Dr. Sherlock's book entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated and resolved, &c. by James Parkinson ...
|
Parkinson, James, 1653-1722.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing P493; ESTC R14794
|
32,398
|
38
|
Law He blames those that have not taken the Oaths Page 2. because they go wholly upon this Principle That Allegiance is due only to Legal Right and take away says he that and you remove all the difficulties they labour under and I suppose it is for their sakes that he has as far as in him lay taken away the Legal Right from their Majesties that so he might remove all the difficulties which the Non-swearers labour under But he seems not to care what becomes of their Majesties nor what difficulties he throws them into And he blames likewise many of those that have writ in defence of the new Oaths because they suppose that a Legal Right is necessary to make Allegiance due Page 1. and have therefore endeavoured to justify the Legal Right of their present Majesties This it seems is become a Crime to justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties which yet if we do not justify we condemn our selves But why should we not justify the Legal Right of Their present Majesties Why should we for the sake of a few Non-swearees betray our Cause and tacitly own that we believe King William and Queen Mary to be Usurpers He gives two reasons for this and I think he is a very bold Man that will venture to give reasons for so unreasonable a thing Now his Reasons are 1st Because it is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes 2d Because it is unnecessary 1. Because 't is unfit to dispute the Rights of Princes But though it may not be fit to dispute the Right of a Prince Page 1. when settled on the Throne yet it might have been fit to assert it though no Government can permit it to be a Question yet it might have been his declared Opinion one would think that he out of gratitude to his Royal Patron should have own'd him to be Rightful King nay methinks his interest should have prompted him to it For I must tell him there is this in the case which he little thought of That if K. William have not a legal Right to the Crown Dr. W. Sherlock can have no legal Right to the Mastership of the Temple For 't is the Law alone that invests King William with a Power to bestow these Preferments and therefore if the King be only King de facto that is in his sense an Usurper I know not how the Doctor will be able to make out that he is any more than de facto Master of the Temple without a Legal Right to his Place A froward Prince would hardly bear such ill treatment as this I 'm sure his Legal King would not and a mild King does not deserve it from him I doubt not but he has done a great deal of mischief though I do not say he design'd it by refusing to take the Oaths And did it become him to publish such a Book to the World and by implication declare to all his fellow Subjects That he for his part does not look upon King William and Queen Mary to whom he has sworn Allegiance to be any more than a King and Queen de facto that is according to him Usurpers 2. He says 'T is unnecessary to defend the Legal Right of King William and Queen Mary For whom is it unnecessary For him it may be because he does not believe it but 't is not unnecessary for those that own their Legal Right Nay there is nothing more necessary than this and therefore two Parliaments this and the last have recogniz'd their Title But it seems those Parliaments did a very needless thing and wanted this Doctor to give them better Advice for he that can sit in his Study and there make and unmake Kings at his pleasure may surely be fit to give Counsel to Parliaments The Doctor and I are in one thing agreed That Allegiance is due to King William and Queen Mary but we differ about the foundation and reason of our Allegiance He thinks that we ought not to take the consideration of Right into the Settlement of Government Page 18. for he says A Prince may be settled in his Throne without Legal Right and when he is so God has made him our King and requires our Obedience and I cannot be of his Opinion He says That his Allegiance may be due to one who has no Legal Right to Govern him I say that I owe Allegiance to none but him who has the Legal Right I shall therefore do these two things 1. I shall give my own Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it 2. I shall examine his I. I shall give my Opinion with the Grounds and Reasons of it which I shall do in these following Propositions 1. Allegiance is Obedience according to Law 2. No Man can have any Right to my Allegiance who is not my Lawful King These Propositions are I think in themselves evident and need no proof And therefore 3. King William and Queen Mary are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen of England and the Dominions thereunto belonging This appears plainly from that Declaration which the Lords and Commons Assembled at Westminster presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange Feb. 13. 1688. wherein they set forth Declaration of Lords and Commons presented to the Prince and Princess of Orange That King James by the assistance of divers evil Counsellors Judges and Ministers employ'd by him had endeavoured to extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom and many instances they give of his misgovernment and that he had Abdicated the Government and the Throne was become Vacant And then they assert the several Rights of the Subject which the late King had notoriously violated and last of all Having an entire confidence that his Highness the Prince of Orange would preserve them from the violation of their Rights and from all attempts upon their Religion Laws and Liberties they resolve That William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be declared King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging And the Prince and Princess of Orange at the Request and by the Advice of the Lords and Commons 1o. Willielam Mariae c. 1. did accept the Crown and Royal Dignity of King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions and Territories thereto belonging They did accept the Crown they did not snatch it by force and violence They were no Conquerors no Usurpers And afterwards in an Act past December 16. 1689. the same Parliament recogniz'd their Title in these words The Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleas'd Almighty God in his marvellous Providence and merciful Goodness to this Nation to provide and preserve Their said Majesties Royal Persons most happily to reign over us upon the Throne of Their Ancestors for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises do truly
firmly assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think and do hereby recognize acknowledge and declare That King James the Second having abdicated the Government and Their Majesties having accepted the Crown and Royal Dignity Their said Majesties did become were and are and of right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose Princely Persons the Royal State Crown and Dignity of the said Realms with all Honours Titles c. to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed And when that Parliament was dissolved and a new one summoned to meet at Westminster there was a new Recognition of Their Title in these words We Your Majesties most Humble and Loyal Subjects the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled do beseech Your Most Excellent Majesties that it may be publish'd and declar'd in this High Court of Parliament and Enacted by Authority of the same That we do recognize and acknowledg Your Majesties were are and of Right ought to be by the Laws of this Realm our Sovereign Liege Lord and Lady King and Queen of England France and Ireland c. And if this be not a Legal Title I know not what a Legal Title means It is as good a Title as Edward the Confessor had as good a one as W. 1. W. 2. Hen 1. K. Stephen Hen. 2. K. John Hen. 3. Edw. 3. Hen. 4 5 6 7. Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of those two Queens either had or could pretend to and these whom I have mentioned had as truly a Legal Right to the Crown as any of the rest whom I make no mention of And the true Reason why I instance in these is this Because it is certain that none of these were Kings by any Divine Right of Succession If Proximity of Blood be absolutely necessary to a Legal Title then Edw. the Confessor had none for when he ascended the Throne Edgar Atheling his Elder Brother's Son was alive Then W. 1. had none both because he was illegitimate and also because Edgar Atheling was still living Then W. 2. and Hen. 1. could have none while their Elder Brother Robert was living Then K. Stephen could have none for the Right of Blood was in Maud the Empress Hen. the first 's Daughter Then Hen. 2. could have none so long as his Mother Maud was alive Then K. John could have none for Arthur his Elder Brother's Son had all the Right that Proximity of Blood could give Then Hen. 3. could have none at least not before the 24th year of his Reign or thereabouts at what time Eleanor Sister to Prince Arthur died Then Edw. 3. could have none during the Life of his unfortunate Father Edw. 2. who was Depos'd Then Hen. 4 5 6 7. could have none there being another Family which had the proximity of Blood on their side Then Q. Mary or Q. Elizabeth one or other of them could have none for it is certain that one of the two must be illegitimate because Katherine Q. Mary's Mother was living at the time when Q. Elizabeth was born And yet we do not find that any Learned and Pious Bishops or any other dignified Clergy-men ever refused to accept of Ecclesiastical Preferments from any of the forementioned Princes and to swear Allegiance to them Nor can it be said that they swore Allegiance to them as to Kings de facto but not de jure at least wise this cannot be affirmed of those who lived before the Reign of Edw. 4. for then arose this distinction and not before The Scotch Parliament calls this a Villanous distinction I think I may say it is a distinction that is not well grounded for it seems to me to be founded on a false Principle That Proximity of Blood gives such an indefeasible Right or Title to the Crown that he who is next on the Royal Line whatever his natural or moral incapacities are cannot be barr'd from succeding to the Throne Which is directly contrary to a Statute made in the 13th of Q. Eliz. ch 1. wherein it is affirmed That the King Lords and Commons have right to limit and bind the Crown of this Realm and the Descent Inheritance and Government thereof And 't was by the said Statute made Treason during the Life of that Queen to hold affirm or maintain the contrary and after her decease forfeiture of Goods and Chattels and I know not of any Law of God that the Queen and Parliament broke when they made that Statute A King de facto is not as the Doctor imagines an Usurper but he is a Lawful King He is one to whom our Allegiance is due as appears from a Statute made in the 11th of Hen. 7. ch 1. and Allegiance is due to none but him who has a Legal Right for Allegiance is Obedience according to Law and consequently must be paid to him to whom the Law directs us to pay it and to say that the Law directs us to pay our Obedience to one who has no Legal Right to it does not sound well 4. It follows from hence that our Allegiance is due to K. VVilliam and Q. Mary for it is due to a Lawful King and it has been shew'd That Their Majesties are Lawful and Rightful King and Queen And this is the foundation of my Allegiance II. I must now examin Dr. Sherlook's Opinion concerning this matter His notion is this Page 10. That all Sovereign Princes who are settled in their Thrones are plac'd there by God and invested with his Authority and therefore must be obeyed by all Subjects as the Ministers of God without enquiring into their Legal Right and Title to the Throne And he tells us That the Convocation has determin'd two great points whereon this whole Controversy turns 1. That those Princes who have no Legal Right to their Thrones may yet have God's Authority 2. That when they are throughly settled in their Thrones they are invested with God's Authority and must be reverenc'd and obeyed by all who live within their Territories and Dominions as well Priests as People This is his Doctrine And this says he I will endeavour to prove from the Authority of Scripture and Reason Scripture and Reason I am always ready to hear he that brings me a plain Scripture proof commands my assent and he that gives me a good Reason will easily persuade me And therefore though the Venerable Authority of a Convocation stands in the front of his Book yet I intend it shall Lackey after his Reasons and his Scripture Proofs SECT I. Dr. Sherlock's Proofs from Scripture and Reason Examined HIS Proofs from Reason and Scripture must he says necessarily be intermixt and interwoven with each other and to set the matter in as clear a light as he can he reduceth the whole