Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	allegiance_n	king_n	oath_n	2,942	5	7.6429	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28559	The doctrine of non-resistance or passive obedience, no way concerned in the controversies now depending between the Williamites and the Jacobites by a lay gentleman of the communion of the Church of England, by law establish'd.	Bohun, Edmund, 1645-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing B3451; ESTC R18257	35,035	42

same service what fortune ever fall by chance in the same Battle against the Mind and Will of the Prince as in this Land some time passed hath been seen that it is not reasonable but against all Law Reason and good Conscience that the said Subjects going with their Sovereign Lord in Wars attending upon him in his Person or being in other places by his commandment within this Land or without any thing should lose or forfeit for doing their true Duty and Service of Allegiance c That for the said deed and true Duty of Allegiance he or they be in no wise Convict or Attaint of high Treason ne of other Offences for that cause by Act of Parliament or otherwise by any Process of Law whereby he or any of them shall lose or forfeit Life Lands Tenements c. or any other things but to be for that Deed and Service utterly discharged of any vexation trouble or loss And if any Act or Acts or other Process of the Law hereafter thereupon for the same happen to be made contrary to this Ordinance that then that Act or Acts or other Process of the Law whatsoever they shall be stand and be utterly void 5 Provided always that no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Which is to be understood of the King in being as the rest is and against the same King. To this Statute it is alledged That the Title of the Crown was then so ambiguous and uncertain that it was hard to know where the Right lay which is a meer Cavil The Title was as well known then as it is now and is a thing of that Nature that it can never be universally known but the greatest part of Mankind take those that are set over them without further inquiry nor is it reasonable any Man should suffer for obeying them whom he cannot nor ought to resist So that what some have said That every one is bound to take notice of the right Title at his Peril is true if the Person is in Possession but false if he is out of Possession Conquest a voluntary Surrender and a wilful Desertion of a Crown will put an End to the best founded Title in the World as I think is universally agreed so that if the Party pretending has a Title why is he not in Possession too if he is outed by his own Act I am absolved if by the Force and Power of another why then he is conquered and both waies especially if I had no hand in it I am and ought to be absolved before God and Man. But then not only the three Estates of England but all the Princes and Sovereign States in Christendom except the King of France have allowed King William and Queen Mary as the rightful Sovereigns of England which is a kind of giving Judgment against the late King after hearing what has been alledged on both sides So that this Case is determined by all the ways that are possible and must absolve any Man that submits now to that which is the only Supreme Power in England As to the Oaths taken to the late King they create no new Obligation upon us as to the Extent or Duration of our Allegiance I was under the same Obligations of Allegiance before I was sworn as I was afterwards and every Subject of England oweth by the Laws of England a natural Allegiance to his Prince before he is sworn as every Man ows naturally Obedience to God before he entreth into the Baptismal Covenant And so the Primitive Christians were under the same Obligation to their Princes we are tho' I do not find they ever swore any Allegiance to them 2. This Allegiance is no everlasting Obligation as to time Death a voluntary Resignation a wilful Desertion or a lawful Conquest will put an End to it 3. It is no wild unlimited Obedience whilst it lasteth but is plainly limited by the Laws of God and the Laws of the Land and if I obey further actively I am responsible to God and Man for it I come now to the Words of the Oaths which may seem to create any Scruple which in the Oath of Supremacy I suppose may be these I do promise that from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness his Heirs and Lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Where first I observe No Man is bound beyond his Power but that all those who stuck to the late King till he left the Nation and another took Possession of his Place are thereby disabled and freed from attempting any further 2. That the Authorities I am to defend are such only as belong to the Crown of England by the Laws of England which are to limit my Allegiance but by the Law of England my Allegiance is now transferred to another and cannot be due to two in opposition each to other so that if I persist in my Allegiance to James II. I am punishable by these very Laws therefore my Allegiance which was a legal Allegiance is determined That in the Oath of Allegiance which may be objected is this I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or otherwise c. Now this Oath which binds us to the Person as the other did to the Power is capable of the same Limitation and is to be limited both as to its Duration and extent by the Laws of England and the Law of Nations and therefore is determinable the same way the other was The Power and uttermost Power reserved and expressed in these Oaths is a Legal Power and therefore no Man is by these Oaths bound to exert his Natural Power for any Prince when he may by the Laws of England be punished as a Traytor for so doing it being a Legal and not an Illegal Allegiance we promise by them If King James would have been contented with the Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions granted and annexed or belonging to the Crown of England I believe no Body questions but he had been still King of England but by grasping at others which did not belong to him he cut off his own Succours and hindred those that otherwise would have defended him and them from doing it He would not be content with those that belonged to him and they could not fight for or defend any other and between these two his Power fell to the Ground by his own Default and his withdrawing put an End to his Sovereignty

number Julian and Valens were cut off by the Justice of God for Persecuting his Church Now the force of all this Argument lies in this That the Providence of God watcheth over Pious Princes to preserve them from Violence and as he suffereth not persecuting Princes to end their daies in Peace he looks graciously upon his Servants to preserve their Souls from violence and wrong because they are such But if it is said he has suffered some good Princes to be oppressed as he did Henry the Sixth and Charles the First I say the Judgments of God are sometimes unscrutable and those that have any hand in such Actions shall doubtlessly be responsible for it But as for those who are meerly passive as they could not hinder the ill things that happened in their times they may and ought to commit them to God who in his due time will punish all unjust Usurpers either in their Persons or in their Posterity But then this new Doctrine of standing by wicked persecuting Princes to the apparent and visible Ruine of the Church or at least of those that imbrace it was never heard of in the Church before was never taught or practised by the Primitive Christians and is not any part of the Doctrine of Passive Obedience or Non-resistance As they would not rebel against their Princes how wicked or cruel soever they were so neither would they against God whose only Right it is to dispose of the Kingdoms of the World without whose Approbation as well as Permission no Force ever did or ever shall prevail who when he pleases punisheth the Wicked and when he pleaseth pulls down not only unjust Usurpers but those who have the justest Title The great Thuanus makes this Reflection on the Deposition of Christian the Second King of Denmark if Princes will Reign well and happily they must govern their Affections and not out of a violent lust of insulting over their Subjects give up themselves to the Conduct of their Passions or otherwise they ought to assure themselves God is a severe revenger alway ready and delighting to pluck off their Thrones the most Proud and Insolent who shall abuse that Power he has intrusted them with Nor is this less true of lawful Princes than of unlawful Usurpers no Title can exempt a Prince from being responsible to the Justice of God and he will use his Power as he thinks fit and punish one Man after one manner and another in another some in this World and others in the next and the Church in the best of times accordingly left it to him to dispose of the Government of the World and as she did not anticipate his Judgments by disturbing the Peace of the World whatsoever she suffered so neither did she think her self more wise or just than he but submitted to those he was pleased in his Providence to set over her and would certainly have been very thankful for such a Deliverance as we of the Church of England have had by the Ministery of our King who like another Constantine has delivered us out of the hands of our Enemies who designed to enslave and ruine us and our Posterity for ever The Primitive Church in the best times took the words of St. Paul in their plain and literal sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The powers that are i. e. in Possession are ordained or ordered of God. They never formalize or make any Exception but Conquest Election Usurpation were to them all alike if once the Man was Established in the Throne And whereas they so frequently affirm Empires are given by God according to that of Tertullian Apolog. cap. XXX We Invocate for the Preservation of the Emperors the Eternal True Living God him whom the Emperors themselves would wish propitious above all others for they know who gave them the Empire they know it as Men and who ga●e them their breath They feelingly know that he i● the only God in whose Power they only are c. There is no power but that of God that can touch the Person the Power or the Life of any Prince Thus Soz. in his Ecclesiastical History Lib. VI. c. 35. reprehends the vanity of the Pagan Philosophers who had been too Inquisitive to find who should succeed Valens and the over great severity of that Prince in Executing many who had no hand in it because their Names began with the Letters pretended to be discovered If saith he these things are once agreed to depend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Motion or Course of the Stars we ought to expect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Prince that is thus decreed for us whosoever it is But if these things are ordered by the counsel of God why do Men prie curiously into them for the fore-sight or endeavours of Men can never find out the Will of God. And if is were possible it is not fit to be done because the wisest of Men cannot order them the succession of Princes better than God. The Ancient Fathers and Primitive Christians do every where ascribe the Setting up and Pulling down of Princes to God only as they do Raine and other such things and you shall never find any Exception of lawful or unlawful Powers that were supreme in Fact in the Writings of the first Ages To this purpose see that Passage of St. Augustin De Civitate Dei lib. V. c. 21. cited above Some have alledged in answer to this That we in England are under other Circumstances than the Primitive Church were both in Relation to our Laws and our Oaths for the Law Sir Edward Coke in his Pleas of the Crown Chap. 1. p. 7. saith upon the 25 E. 3. c. 2. This Statute is to be understood of a King in Possession of the Crown and Kingdom for if there be a King Regnant in Possession of the Crown although he be Rex de facto non de jure yet he is Seignior le Roy within the Purvieu of this Statute and the other that hath Right and is out of Possession is not within this Act. Nay If Treason be committed against a King de facto non de jure and after the King de jure cometh to the Crown he shall Punish the Treason done to the King de facto And a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void for which he cites 11 H. 7. c. 1. 4 E. 4. 1. 1 Ed. 4. 1 2. The words of the Statute are as followeth The King our Sovereign Lord calling to his remembrance the Duty of Allegiance of his Subjects of this Realm and that they by reason of the same are bound to serve their Prince and Sovereign Lord for the time being in his Wars for the Defence of him and the Land against every Rebellion Power and Might reared against him and with him to enter and abide in service in Battel if case so require 2 and that for the