Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	act_n	office_n	power_n	1,539	5	6.7111	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49781	The right of primogeniture, in succession to the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland as declared by the statutes of 24 E.3 cap 2. De Proditionibus, King of England, and of Kenneth the third, and Malcolm Mackenneth the second, Kings of Scotland : as likewise of 10 H.7 made by a Parliament of Ireland : with all objections answered, and clear probation made : that to compass or imagine the death, exile, or disinheriting of the King's eldest son, is high treason : to which is added, an answer to all objections against declaring him a Protestant successor, with reasons shewing the fatal dangers of neglecting the same.	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1681 (1681)	Wing L691; ESTC R1575	180,199	230

of his dead Father but his Oath to his Loving Subjects which was his Ruine for his entertainment of French Councels endammaged his English Subjects and his nearest French Relation Isabel his own Queen Persidiously by the help of her Brother the French King raised a Rebellion here of his own Subjects against him which caused him to be Deposed from his Kingdom and shortly after to be Murdered in an hideous manner in Barckly Castle So here are four Kings Great Grandfathor Grandfather Father and Son all Papists all Confirming and Breaking Magna Charta and their Oaths and their Subjects to whom they have broken them have been all Papists Magna Charta no less than Thirty times Sworn or confirmed and forsworn or broken by Papist Kings to Papist Subjects and the same Papist Religion gives no Mutual obligation of an Oath though to Men of the same Religion Yea this Magna Charta of Liberties hath been Thirty times Confirmed by King and Parliament while the Papist Religion lasted which shews the Oath hath been more than Thirty times broken by some or other of their Papist Princes for otherwise it would not need so many new Confirmations and Oaths In the Protestant Religion it is held That once forsworn ever-forlorn In the Papist it appears he is not so thought though Thirty times forsworn but he may still swear and forswear and begin again anew as many times as he will were it not therefore more secure for the Papist himself to Covenant with a Protestant Successor who dares not break his Oath lying under so great a Penalty of Conscience than with a Papist who makes Perjury not to be Penal and whose Religion it self teaches the wicked Doctrine of Lysander that Children ought to be deceived with Promises and Men with Oaths for what Commerce or Humane Society can there be had with those who will keep neither whether they be Kings or Subjects or of what Degree or Religion soever they be 2. Seeing a Papist Successor can be obliged by no Contract or Oath Only two ways of Succession Contract or Conquest therefore he cannot Succeed by Contract And if he Succeed not by Contract then he will Succeed by Conquest for there are but two ways of Succession either by Contract or by Conquest And if he Succeed therefore by Conquest such Power he will say 't is Diis aequa Potestas Deus est Imperator in Coelis and Imperator est Deus in Terris Jure Divino is above all Humane Laws he will therefore be Lawless and no Law shall be but his Will But a Protestant Successor claims only to the Rule according to Laws agreed and assented to by the Subjects themselves by their Representative in Parliament Can any Sober Papist deny it is not better to have his equal Laws than as a Slave to be destroyed at Pleasure by a cruel unjust and lawless Will as they are generally by their Princes in all Catholick Countries Further Examples of the Perfidiousness of Papist Princes to Papist Subjects Henry the Fourth a Papist King forswore himself to papist Subjects HEnry the Fourth was a Papist and a Violent Enemy against the Wicklenite Protestants yet perfidious to his own Papists too as appears Truss Hist fo 73. there are Articles made against him and the first of them is That when he return'd from his Exilement he made Faith only to Challenge and Recover his Inheritance and his Wives and not to intermeddle with the King nor with his Crown by reason of which Oath divers Loyal and good Subjects to King Richard resorted unto him not having any Treasonable intent but after when he saw his Powers so much increased that he might do what he pleased he wickedly brake his Oath and without any Right or colour like Right procured himself to be made and Crowned King Another Article was That no Justice could be expected from his hand because that contrary to the Oath he had taken when he was Crowned he had by Letters sent into sundry Shires thereby procured certain Burgesses of the Parliament Knights of the Shire to be Chosen whom he knew would not fail to serve his turn as occasion should be offered Here we see is a Papist King and Papist Subjects and he takes an Oath to them concerning the greatest Liberty the Subjects can enjoy which is the free Election of their Representative in Parliament yet this Papist King breaks this very Oath not only to his Papist Subjects but to that very party who were of his own party and Crowned him Richard Duke of York a papist Subject forswore himself to Henry the Sixth a papist King Henry the Sixth and Richard Duke of York were both Papists and the Duke of York took his Oath of Allegiance to King Henry After taking King Henry Prisoner He Calleth a Parliament in the King's Name by which Parliament terrified by the Duke's Sword it was agreed and Enacted That Henry during his Life should retain the Name and Honour of a King and that the Duke of York should be proclaimed Heir Apparent to the Crown and Protector to the King's Person his Land Dominions and Countrey And that if at any time King Henry's Friends Allies Favourites in his behalf should attempt the Disanulling this Act that then the Duke should have present possession of the Crown No sooner was the Parliament Dissolved but the Duke by vertue of his Protectorship esteeming himself a King in Office and Power though not in Name dispatcheth Letters to the Queen the Duke of Somerset Exceter and other Nobility who were then in Scotland with all speed to repair to his presence at London they knowing their own Security lay only in keeping out of his Power marched towards him but Guarded with an Army of Eighteen thousand Men and met him at Wakefield who had there but a small Army of Five thousand to oppose them on whose Valour notwithstanding the Duke relying and though advised by his Council to forbear Fight till his Son the Earl of March could bring up his Forces to joyn with him yet the Pride of his former Victori●s make him deaf to good Advice and therefore rashly joyned 〈◊〉 whereby he hasten'd his own Destiny and was Slain on the place with Three thousand of his Men after which Overthrow of the Father his Son the Earl of March and his Confederates having overthrown the Queens Army at the Battel of Mortimor's Cross and fought the Battel of St. Albans and the Earl of Warwick's Forces joyned with him is proclaimed King but before he could be Crowned he was forced to Fight again with another Army which King Henry had raised in the North which Battel continued doubtful with eager Resolution on both Sides the space of Ten hours whereby there were above Six and thirty thousand Men Slain Bak. Hist 203. But in the end the Day fell to Edward and the King flying to Barwick and her Son to France Edward is Crowned King but after Disobliging

ubi Rex pervenerit ipsi sibi curatores Eligere posset That the King being under the Age of Fourteen Years Election should be made of a Guardian of great Estate and Wisdom who should be his Regent in the mean while and Administer his Affairs in the King's Name till he arrived at the Age of Fourteen and when he came to that Age he himself might choose his own Guardians Which Election of a Guardian must be intended to be by Parliament for it appears by the words That the Infant or Minor King must not nor is able to choose himself till he come to the Age of Fourteen And it is contrary to Reason that any other should be his own Judge to choose himself to have to himself to his own use the Custody of the Person of the King Dangerous to Commit the Guardianship of a Minor prince to the next Major in whom all his Subjects have an Interest And it would be very Dangerous to the Infant if he who is next Successor to the Crown should get the Custody of the Heir into his hands There is no Third Power can be therefore above Exception who ought to choose the Guardian of an Infant King but the Parliament And accordingly we find it to be the constant Practice of that Kingdom as appears Buchanan Lib. 19. p. 687. when it is said Sed cum homines usu rerum Edocti Perspicerint vix fieri posse ut in tanta fortunae inconstantia non aliquando in pueros aut alioqui Regno ineundo Impares haeredes jus summi Magistratus inciderit c. But when taught by Experience men saw that it could not be but in so great inconstancy of Fortune but the Right of the Supreme Magistracy might fall amongst Children or other Heirs unfit to Govern a Kingdom they Ordained That in the mean time one should be Elected Regent who Excell'd the rest in Estate and Counsel Guardians chosen by Parliament the only Security of Kings in Minority and our Ancestors following this way for the space of Six hundred Years have transmitted thereby the Kingdom safe to Posterity So Robert Bruce being dead Thomas Randolph Earl of Murray and Donald Earl of Mar Andrew Murray John Randolph Robert Stuart succeeded singly and sometimes more number are by Parliament chosen into that place So James II. being a child Alexander Leviston being of no Kin nor of the chief Rank of Nobility but only a Knight and of more repute for Prudence then Antient Descent was elected to be his Guardian Neither can there be alledged any want of persons of the Royal Stock to have been the cause of such choice for there was at that time John Kennedy chief of his Family and King James his Nephew by his Sister there were his Uncles James Kennedy Archbishop of St. Andrews Primate of the whole Kingdom in all kind of Vertue and his Brother born of the Kings Aunt Douglass Earl of Angus was not remote from the Kings Blood Archibald Earl of Douglas in Power almost equal to the King and superiour to any of the rest yet did none of these complain of any Injustice in the Parliament for making another choice and not long after four Guardians were given to James III. not taken for the Kindred but chosen by Parliament It was but of late that John Duke of Albin was sent for by the Nobility out of France to moderate the Affairs of Scotland James I. being then a child and was confirmed by a publick Act of Parliament Neither was it done because he was next of Kin for he had an Elder Brother called Alexander But James I. being absent Robert his Uncle ruled the Kingdom And with what Right Was he taken for nearness of Blood No he was chosen by the People Nor so neither How then was he created When Robert III. was so sick in body and mind that he was not able to discharge his Office he made his Brother Robert his Vice-Roy and commended his Children to him So his Brother starved to death David his Eldest Son and sought how to destroy likewise James his Younger had he not escaped by slight But he being now placed in possession of his Tyranny and his Brother dead with grief without Parliament or assent of the People he kept it and by force left it to his Son Mordach c. Buchanan proceeds p. 688. Quid enim minus justum esse poterat quam aetatem innoxiam atque infirmam ejus fidei committere qui pupilli sibi crediti mortem semper expectat optat What can be more injust then to commit the innocent and weak Age to one who always hopes for or wishes the death of the Pupil intrusted in his hands And after he saith Laodice the Queen of the Cappadoceans is related to have killed every one of her children as in order they arrived at fourteen years of age to gain thereby a little more time to reign If a Mother will destroy her Children to get the use of a little time what shall we think will their old Enemies dare yea will they not dare to do inflamed with the Brands of Covetousness to cruelty against a Child hindering their hopes of a perpetual Kingdom If this Example seems old and obscure or far-fetch'd I will add more clear and nearer home For who is so ignorant of things so lately acted as he knows not Galeacius Sfortia though at mans Estate though married and the Son in Law of a Potent King to be killed by Lodowick his Uncle Or to whom are the Calamities unknown which ensued that cruel Parricide the most beautiful Region of Italy brought almost to a Devastation the Sfortian Family The not abolishing Episcopal Laws which pretend to Illegitimate whom they please the sense of the Murder of Edward V. and his Brother so fruitful of valiant men destroyed Barbarians let into the most pleasant Country watered by Po. Against whose Rapine nothing was safe against whose Cruelty nothing was secure Who hath been born in the soil of Great Britain and hath not heard of the cruel Murder by Richard III. King of England of the Sons of his Brother Edward IV A great cause of the murder likewise of these Princes was that Papal and Episcopal Laws were not abolished which pretend to illegitimate whom they please Answ 5 Making a Kingdom hereditary to the eldest Son weakens not the Power of Parliaments And 5. as to the Reason against these Statutes which maketh the Crown hereditary to the eldest Son that the same enervate the strength of Parliaments and without a Contract made by every Prince with a Parliament no Government can be just in regard if he receives not the Kingdom by Contract he assumes it by Conquest which over a Free Nation is unjust To which is answered First that these Acts of Parliament of England and Scotland which entail the Crown to the Eldest Son do no way weaken but confirm and establish the Power of Parliaments and