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
A43662	A letter to the author of a late paper, entituled, A vindication of the divines of the Church of England, &c. in defence of the history of passive obedience.	Hickes, George, 1642-1715.; Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714. A vindication of the divines of the Church of England.	1689 (1689)	Wing H1856; ESTC R34460	10,899	22

and of Queen Mary in England You canot deny but the greater number were Apostates then and therefore the greatness of the number cannot secure you but that they may be so now But you say the Author of the History hath blackned those of the Clergy who have taken the Oaths and some of them by name with deserting that Principle which they have formerly published to the World. But Sir it seems-to me he hath blackned none of them unless they have blackned themselves He hath only produced a Cloud of Witnesses for Passive Obedience whereof many have and some have not taken the Oath and if there is a repugnance between that doctrine and taking of it as your Vindication makes men suspect then the Blackning and Apostacy about which you have made so much pother ought not to be imputed to the History or its Author but to the nature of the things The great endeavours the Clergy and their Friends used to prevent the imposing of the Oath the great joy they expressed at the alteration of the Bill in the House of Lords and the visible reluctance with which many good and learned Men have since taken it are sufficient proofs that there is at least a great seeming disagreement between the doctrin and the Oath and yet for all that it doth not follow that they who have taken the Oath have deserted the doctrine which as I hinted before is your own rash invidious consequence but that they have either deserted it or found a way of taking the Oath which they judge consistent with it and that this latter is the case of most that have taken it I will now shew First Then some learned men who stood out very long at last took it because they were perswaded that the Government allow'd them to take it in such a limited and qualified sense as was not inconsistent with the doctrine or their former Oaths and these men are no deserters Some of these again for the greater ease of their Consciences and preventing scandal as they think have taken the Oath with declarations which abundantly secures them from all suspicion of leaving their former Principles But others who have taken the Oath in the highest and most unlimited sense as I perceive you have done have generally taken it upon such Principles as leave the doctrine of Passive Obedience and all its concomitant doctrines secure Those Principles are chiefly three Possession Abdication and Conquest tho' the two last seem plainly inconsistent to some Mens understandings for if the King as you assert was conquered then he had good reason to fly and by consequence did not abdicate his Kingdom Some I confess make a mixt Hypothesis of two or all these together but whatever these mens Hypotheses be simple or mixt if they be true they will reconcile the taking of the new Oath with the old doctrines and so they are secure from the scandal of Apostacy whihc your Vindication more than the History hath fixed upon them There are others again who justify the taking of the Oath upon such Principles as seem indeed to overthrow the Doctine of Non-resistance and the Author of the History I confess is very angry at them for embracing the doctrine of Hobbs Milton and Parsons and if he blackens any in his Book with the imputation of Apostacy it is only these few men They assert that power is originally in the people that the foundation of all Government is in compact that the Crown of England is as conditional as that of Poland that a King falls from the Government when he endeavours to subvert the Constitution of it and these are the sanguine Casuists which boldly cut the Knot which others of you find so difficult to unloose It seems they find enough in the Monastick Historians to satisfy their Consciences and to absolve them from the Laws of the Kingdom and the doctrine of the Church for they make King John's reign the standard of our Government and that which hath always been accounted the Popery of the Kingdom the very constitution of it and tho' these mens Principles if they be true will bravely acquit them of Perjury yet Inconfess I cannot acquit them from revolting from that doctrine which some of them with a witness have preached and published to the World. Conquest of the Kings without a Conquest of the Kindom is the bottom upon which you have undertaken to reconcile that doctrine with taking the Oath This is a nice subject for me to discuss but however I hope I may ask you two or three Questions upon it without danger or offence I. Whether in all the Casuistical Writers about Conquest you have ever read that such a Revolution as ours was brought as an instance of Conquest It is nothing like the usual Examples of Alexander's Conquest over the Persians the Conquest of the Israelites over the Canaanites and that of the Romans over their Provinces II. Whether they allow a King to be conquered when his Kingdom is not conquered and if they do whether they allow a King so conquered can loose his rights to the Crown and the allegiance of his People King John of France did not loose his right to the Crown and his Peoples allegiance when he was so conquered by the black Prince and brought captive into England nor Francis when he was conquered so by Charles the Fifth III. Whether they allow subjects voluntarily to give away their allegiance when they are not conquered for what subjects give up to a foreign Prince without Conquest is freely Given IV. Whether they determine a King to be conquered as long as he is in a condition to prosecute his Right by War for Conscience will be apt to think that he is not yet conquered enough who is in a Condition to resist V. Whether allegiance can be due to a foreign Prince by vertue of Conquest who never pretended to be a Conqueror but disclaims the Rights of Conquest VI. How far they extend the right of Conquest and allow the Conqueror to make use of it These and some other Questions which I could ask you must be clearly discussed and stated before you can pin the taking of the new Oath upon the Highest Peg of Non-resistance according to your Hypothesis of Conquest From the several accounts which I have here set down of Mens taking the new Oath and particularly from the insufficiency of your own you may see it is not so easie a task as you would make it to reconcile the taking of it with the old doctrine of the rights of soveraign Princes and the duties of Non-resistance If it were so very easie those who take the Oath could not take it in so many senses and upon so many different Principles and since you are not satisfied with one anothers senses and Principles you ought to have a great tenderness for those who cannot take it in any of your disagreeing senses nor upon any principle at all You do not seem to have