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
B21412	The vindication, or, The parallel of the French Holy-League and the English League and Covenant turn'd into a seditious libell against the King and His Royal Highness by Thomas Hunt and the authors of the Reflections upon the pretended parallel in the play called The Duke of Guise / written by Mr. Dryden.	Dryden, John, 1631-1700.	1683 (1683)	Wing D2398	39,244	65

what I have said to Mr. Hunt but I thank them by the way for their instance of the fellow whom the King of Navarre had pardon'd and done good to yet he wou'd not love him for that Story reaches home somewhere I must make haste to get out of hearing from this Billingsgate Oratory and indeed to make an end with these Authors except I could call Rogue and Rascal as fast as they Let us examine the little reason they produce concerning the Exclusion Did the Pope the Clergy the Nobility and Commonalty of France think it reasonable to exclude a Prince for professing a different Religion and will the Papists be angry if the Protestants be of the same Opinion No sure they cannot have the impudence First here 's the different Religion taken for granted which was never prov'd on one side though in the King of Navarre it was openly profess'd Then the Pope and the three Estates of France had no power to alter the Succession neither did the King in being consent to it or afterwards did the greater part of the Nobility Clergy and Gentry adhere to the Exclusion but maintain'd the lawful King succesfully against it as we are bound to do in England by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy made for the benefit of our Kings and their Successors The Objections concerning which Oath are fully answer'd by Doctor Hicks in his Preface to Jovian and thither I refer the Reader They tell us that what it concerns Protestants to do in that case enough has been heard by us in Parliament Debates I answer that Debates coming not by an Act to any Issue conclude that there is nothing to be done against a Law establish'd and fundamental of the Monarchy They dare not infer a Right of taking up Arms by vertue of a Debate or Vote and yet they tacitly insinuate this I ask them what it does concern Protestants to do in this case and whether they mean any thing by that expression They have hamper'd themselves before they were aware for they proceed in the very next lines to tell us they believe the Crown of England being Hereditary the next in Blood have an undoubted right to succeed unless God make them or they make themselves uncapable of Reigning So that according to them if either of those two Impediments shall happen then it concerns the Protestants of England to do that something which if they had spoken out had been direct Treason Here 's fine Legerdemain amongst them they have acknowledg'd a Vote to be no more than the Opinion of an House and yet from a Debate which was abortive before it quicken'd into a Vote they argue after the old Song that there 's something more to be done which you cannot chuse but guess In the next place there 's no such thing as Incapacity to be suppos'd in the immediate Successor of the Crown That is the rightful Heir cannot be made uncapable on any account whatsoever to succeed It may please God that he may be inhabilis or inidoneus ad gerendam Rempublicam unfit or unable to govern the Kingdom but this is no impediment to his right of reigning he cannot either be excluded or depos'd for such imperfection For the Laws which have provided for private men in this case have also made provision for the Soveraign and for the Publick and the Council of State or the next of Blood is to administer the Kingdom for him Charles the sixth of France for I think we have no English Examples which will reach it forfeited not his Kingdom by his Lunacy though a victorious King of England was then knocking at his Gates but all things under his Name and by his Authority were manag'd The case is the same betwixt a King non compos mentis and one who is nondum compos mentis a distracted or an Infant King Then the People cannot incapacitate the King because he derives not his Right from them but from God only neither can any Action much less Opinion of a Soveraign render him uncapable for the same reason excepting only a voluntary Resignation to his immediate Heir as in the case of Charles the fifth for that of our Richard the second was invalid because forc'd and not made to the next Successor Neither does it follow as our Authors urge that an unalterable Succession supposes England to be the Kings Estate and the People his Goods and Chattels on it For the preserv●tion of his Right destroys not our Propriety but maintains us in it He has ty'd himself by Law not to invade our Possessions and we have oblig'd our selves as Subjects to him and all his lawful Successors By which irrevocable Act of ours both for our selves and our Posterity we can no more exclude the Successor than we can depose the present King The Estate of England is indeed the Kings and I may safely grant their supposition as to the Government of England but it follows not that the People are his Goods and Chattels on it for then he might sell alienate or destroy them as he pleas'd from all which he has ty'd himself by the Liberties and Priviledges which he has granted us by Laws There 's little else material in this Pamphlet for to say I wou'd insinuate into the King a hatred to his capital City is to say he shou'd hate his best friends the last and the present Lord Mayor our two Honourable Sheriffs the Court of Aldermen the worthy and Loyal Mr. Common Serjeant with the rest of the Officers who are generally well affected and who have kept out their factious Memfrom its Government To say I wou'd insinuate a scorn of Authority in the City is in effect to grant the Parallel in the Play For the authority of Tumults and Seditions is only scorn'd in it an Authority which they deriv'd not from the Crown but exercis'd against it And for them to confess I expos'd this is to confess that London was like Paris They conclude with a Prayer to Almighty God in which I therefore believe the Poet did not club to libel the King through all the Pamphlet and to pray for him in the conclusion is an action of more prudence in them than of piety perhaps they might hope to be forgiven as one of their Predecessors was by King James who after he had rail'd at him abundantly ended his Lampoon with these two Verses Now God preserve our King Queen Prince and Peers And grant the Author long may wear his Ears To take a short review of the whole 'T is manifest that there is no such Parallel in the Play as the Faction have pretended that the Story wou'd not bear one where they have plac'd it and that I cou'd not reasonably intend one so contrary to the nature of the Play and so repugnant to the Principles of the Loyal Party On the other side 't is clear that the Principles and Practices of the Publick Enemies have both formerly resembled those of the