Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
state_n lord_n say_a unite_a 1,066 5 10.8816 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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