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
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
A85047 Obedience due to the present knig [sic], notwithstanding our oaths to the former written by a divine of the Church of England. Whitby, Daniel, 1638-1726.; Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693. 1689 (1689) Wing F2512; ESTC R42367 5,073 10

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

before 24 Sep. 1689 OBEDIENCE Due to the Present KNIG Notwithstanding our OATHS To the FORMER Written by a Divine of the Church of England 1. THE Oath of Allegiance is the Expression of our Natural Duty to the King as the Coronation Oath is of the Regal which in Nature is antecedent to it 't is especially signifyed in these Words He must be King before we can be bound to him as such I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend against all Attempts which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity 2. If the King do manifestly separate his Person from and engage it against his Crown and Dignity so that we cannot Defend them both I mean if his Personal Actions contrary to Law do directly and openly tend to the prejudice and spoiling of his Crown and Dignity by his voluntary subjecting them to a Foreign Power contrary to the plain and primary Intention and Letter of the Oath subverting the Legal Constitution and enervating the very Laws by which his Crown is supported his Prerogative is measured and the Dignity of the King as such hath its very Being as well as the safety of his People is maintained certainly in such a Case none can be bound by this or any other Oath to defend the King's Person in attempts so contrary to the very Reason and End of all Government with the neglect of the other part of our Duty which is to defend his Crown and Dignity 3. The Oath of Supremacy seems to direct us more clearly in this difficulty the Words are I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness but how It follows and to my Power shall Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities Granted or belonging to the King or annex'd and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is thus we are to bear Faith and Allegiance to the King. 4. For if we should be bound to Assist and Defend his Person when it is and as it is engaged against his Crown and Dignity we seem bound toto posse totis viribus so far Defence is expounded to Assist and Contribute to the Ruine both of our King and Country and perhaps to the cutting of our own Throats 5. If any should imagine That the Oath will not suffer us to consider the Person and Crown of the King thus divided but that it binds us to assist and defend them together 't is true while they are kept together But if the King himself divide them and 't is become impossible for us to Assist his Person but we must betray his Crown nor Defend his Crown without forbearing to Assist his Person to say now we are bound to Assist and Defend both makes a plain Repugnancy in the Oath and in our Duty to do and not to do the same thing and consequently the Obligation ceaseth 6. That we are bound by our Allegiance to Assist the Person of the King to the prejudice of his Crown and People seems not only to be against the light of Nature the primary End of it being the safety of his Kingdom and the safety of the King but the secondary end of it but most agreeable to the sense of our Ancient and Learned Lawyers and also Bract Fleta Ei fraenura ponere of the plain acknowledgment and profession of Ancient Kings and Parliaments King Henry I. five Hundred Years agone told the Pope whilst live the Authorities and Vsages of the Kingdom shall never be diminished But if I would so Debase myself which God forbid Magnates mei totus Angliae populus nullo modo paterentur The Lords and People of England would by no means suffer it And Edward I. wrote himself to the same purpose Besides with his consent the Lords and Commons in Parliament in their Letter to the Pope have these Words We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the premises by owning the Popes Authority touching his Right to Scotland so strange a thing so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King himself would Once more on Record in the Fourth of Henry III. the Commons Declare Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent Adomer's Revocation upon the Popes Order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret Now what 's the meaning of all this but that the King 's Personal Will contrary to Law however expressed for it must be signifyed by his Word or Actions if the performance of it would prejudice his Crown and Dignity may be resisted Much less are we bound by our Allegiance to Assist or Defend him in so doing in Reason Law or the sense of our Ancient Kings or Parliaments Objection But we Swear to Defend not only the King but his Heirs and Lawful Successors Answer 1. T●ue but Haeres non est viventis and the Successor in Law and Common Sense is the Person that doth actually succeed or is in possession Now if the Actual Successor be the Lawful Successor we are bound by our Oaths to Defend him but if he be not the Lawful Successor none else is so because none else is the Successor and consequently so far the Object and Reason of our Oaths ceasing our Obligation by them ceaseth and we are bound to none besides the Person in Possession 2. 'T is farther remarkable That though the word Lawful be once in the Oath of Supremacy 't is only there where we Swear Faith and Allegiance in General But as if it were intended that the Subject should not trouble himself about the Title of the King in Being where that Allegiance is explain'd with respect to practice the word Lawful is left out in that Oath It follows there in these Words Shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Granted or belonging to the King's Highness his Heirs and Successors without the Word Lawful And agreeable hereunto we find the word wholly left out in the Oath of Allegiance both in the same place where we Swèar Allegiance in General as well as in the other place of our more particular Duty and it looks as if this was done de Industria for the same Reason namely that such as take the Oaths might not think themselves bound thereby to be Sollicitous about the Title of the Crown 3. The Holy Scriptures seem not to involve the Consciences of private Christians about Princes Titles but expresly require their Subjection to the Powers that are as a great and necessary Instance of that Humility and peacable Behaviour which their Religion teacheth them 4. In the same Holy Books we are farther most plainly admonish'd that by what means soever obtained 't is God that puteth down one and setteth up another and upon that ground too Rom. 13. we