Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	king_n	say_a	2,970	5	7.0430	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61547	A discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation, on account of the oaths with an answer to the History of passive obedience, so far as relates to them.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1689 (1689)	Wing S5584; ESTC R16935	31,376	50

must give an equitable sense of these Oaths or there must be Perjury on all sides For those who had first sworn to Maud could not transfer their Allegiance on any other account either to Stephen or H. 2. during her Life For we never read that she was present at the Agreement or resigned her Right to the Crown The next Instance I shall produce is in the Oaths that were taken during the Controversies between the Houses of York and Lancaster Which was not so plain a Case as Men commonly imagin and in Truth if the just legal Title be the only Rule of Conscience in this Case it was hard to take the Oaths on either side For as on the one side a lineal Descent was pleaded from the Daughter of the Duke of Clarence who was elder Brother to Iohn Duke of Lancaster from whom by Marriage the Duke of York claimed his Title so on the other side it was objected that there was no sufficient Evidence of the Legitimacy of Philippa Daughter to the Duke of Clarence because as Fortescue observes the Duke of Clarence was abroad from before the time of her Conception till after her Birth and that he never owned her Mother after that she never assumed the Arms of the Duke as her Father nor those descended from her till the Duke of York pretended to the Crown that E. 3. made an Entail of the Crown upon his Heirs Male of which I have seen a written Account as old as the time of H. 6. which not only affirms the Absence and Divorce of the Duke of Clarence but that E. 3. seized all his Lands into his Hands and in Parliament soon after entailed the Crown on his Heirs Male and that his Daughters there present agreed to the same But besides they pleaded that so long a Prescription as the House of Lancaster had of above threescore years was allowed by the Ius Gentium to purge the Defects of the first Title These are things which deserved Consideration against such a meer lineal Descent as the House of York insisted upon And against the House of Lancaster the Intrusion of H. 4. upon the Deposition of R. 2. is an invincible Objection to such as found Allegiance on the Right of Succession But that which I lay the greatest weight upon is the Way of ending this Difference in Parliament which hath several remarkable things in it 1. That the Duke of York notwithstanding his Title takes an Oath of Allegiance in Parliament to H. 6. during his Life reserving to himself the Right of Succession after him For he swears to do nothing to the Prejudice of his Reign or Dignity-Royal nor against his Life or Liberty and that he would to the utmost of his Power withstand all Attempts to the contrary The same Oath was taken by his Sons Edward Earl of March afterward E. 4. and Edward Earl of Rutland Was this a lawful Oath or not To say it was unlawful is to reflect on the Wisdom of the Three Estates who looked on this as the best Expedient for the Publick Good as being the way to prevent the Effusion of Christian Blood. And it is not easy to prove such an Oath unlawful as containing nothing unlawful nor to the Prejudice of a third Person when he who was chiefly concerned voluntarily took it If it were a lawful Oath then an Oath of Allegiance on the account of Possession is a lawful Oath For the matter of Right is not mentioned in it and Richard Duke of York did not renounce the opinion of his own Right hereby whether true or false but did bind up himself to do nothing to the Prejudice of the Royal Dignity of H. 6. and yet he look'd on him as meer Possessor of it therefore in his Judgment and the Parliament's an Oath of Allegiance may lawfully be taken on the account of the Possession of the Crown although Persons be not satisfied of the Right of it The Words of his Agreement are remarkable to this Purpose as they are to be found in the Parliament-Rolls The said Title notwithstanding and without Prejudice of the same the said Richard Duke of York tenderly desiring the Weal Rest and Prosperity of this Land and to set apart all that might be trouble to the same and considering the Possession of the said King Henry the sixth and that he hath for his time be named taken and reputed King of England and France and Lord of Ireland is content agreeth and consenteth that he be had reputed and taken King of England and of France with the Royal Estate Dignity and Preeminence belonging thereto and Lord of Ireland during his Life natural and for that time the said Duke without hurt or prejudice of his said Right and Title shall take worship and honour him for his Sovereign Lord. Here was certainly an Oath taken to a King whom the Person taking it looked on only as a King de facto and not de jure and yet this Oath was taken and allowed nay contrived in Parliament and that for no less an end than for the Weal Rest and Prosperity of the Land i.e. for the Publick Good. It may be said That the Case is different for Richard Duke of York parted with his own Right but we cannot with anothers which we have sworn to preserve I answer That he did not look on such an Oath as parting with his Right but as a thing fitting to be done on the account of Possession for the Publick Good. And so many others taken such another Oath of Allegiance wherein there is no Declaration as to Right but the same things required which the Duke of York promised in his Oath to Hen. 6. But Allegiance is not due but where there is a Right to claim it and that cannot be where there is no Right to the Crown I answer That an Oath of Allegiance may be twofold 1. Declarative of Right and in that case none can be owned to have Right but he that hath it 2. Submissive Allegiance where no more is required than is contained in the Duke of York ' s Oath and yet he declared this was no Prejudice to his Right But it may be said He declared so much before he took the Oath and so gave the Sense in which he took it I answer That His putting in his Claim and his Title being allow'd after the King in being had been sufficient but in our case there is no need of a Declaration since the declaratory part is left out which is a fuller Declaration of the sense of the Oath than our Words can make But to proceed 2. The first Objection the Parliament made to the Duke of York's Claim was from the Oaths they had taken to H. 6. To which the Duke of York gave a large Answer that Oaths must not bind against Truth and Iustice. But this was to take it for granted that he had the Truth and Justice of his side whereas there was a long Possession

lawful or not If it be lawful to testify it one way why not another If in paying Tribute why not in solemn promising to pay it If in promising why not in swearing i. e. in calling God to witness that I do it Thus far then we may go we may swear to pay Tribute But on what account Is it not as a Token of Allegiance i. e. of a Duty owing on the account of Protection Then we have gained one step farther viz. that we may swear to perform some parts of Allegiance But why then may we not do so as to all that such an Oath implies If it respects no more than the Duty which we owe with respect to the Publick And that is certainly the meaning of an Oath when all Declarations of Right are left out and only those of Duty expressed as it is in our present Case As to the dreadful Charge of Perjury and Apostacy which some of much greater Heat than Judgment have made use of against those who hold it lawful to take the Oaths If what I have said be true it is little less than ridiculous And it would have had more appearance of Reason if the Pharisees had urged it against our Saviour's Resolution of the Case about Tribute-Mony For had not God by his own Law settled the Government among them And was it not a Fundamental Article of that Law that none should rule over them but one of their Brethren Was the Roman Emperor or Pontius Pilate such Have not all the ancient Zealots of the Law opposed any such Foreign Power What can it be then less than Perjury and Apostacy to give any Countenance to such an open Violation of this Law and to incourage Men to renounce it when they find such Liberties allowed by such a Teacher But I forbear To conclude then I have at your earnest Desire taken this Matter into serious Consideration and have impartially weighed the most pressing Difficulties I have met with I cannot promise to give you Satisfaction but I have satisfied my self and have endeavoured to do the same for you I am heartily sorry for any Breaches among us at this time and it is easy to foresee who will be the Gainers by them But I am glad to understand that the chiefest of those who scruple the Oaths have declared themselves against the Attempts of such an unseasonable Separation and I hope others will be so wise as to follow their Example I am Sir Yours Octob. 15. 1689. Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell THE Case of Allegiance in our present Circumstances considered in a Letter from a Minister in the City to a Minister in the Country 40. A Breviate of the State of Scotland in its Government Supream Courts Officers of State Inferiour Officers Offices and Inferiour Courts Districts Jurisdictions Burroughs Royal and Free Corporations Fol. Some Considerations touching Succession and Allegiance 4to Reflections upon the late Great Revolution Written by a Lay-Hand in the Country for the satisfaction of some Neighbours The History of the Desertion or an Account of all the publick Affairs in England from the beginning of September 1688 to the Twelfth of February following With an Answer to a Piece called The Desertion Discussed in a Letter to a Country-Gentleman By a Person of Quality K. William and K. Lewis Wherein is set forth the inevitable necessity these Nations lie under of submitting wholly to one or other of these Kings And that the matter in Controversy is not now between K. William and K. Iames but between K. William and K. Lewis of France for the Government of these Nations A Sermon preached at Fulham in the Chappel of the Palace upon Easter-Day 1689. at the Consecration of the Right Reverend Father in God Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum By Anthony Horneck D. D. The Judgments of God upon the Roman Catholick Church from its first rigid Laws for universal Conformity to it unto its last End. With a prospect of these near approaching Revolutions viz. The Revival of the Protestant Profession in an eminent Kingdom where it was totally suppressed The last End of all Turkish Hostilities The general Mortification of the Power of the Roman Church in all parts of its Dominions In Explication of the Trumpets and Vials of the Apocalypse upon Principles generally acknowledged by Protestant Interpreters By Drue Cressener D. D. A Discourse concerning the Worship of Images preached before the University of Oxford By George Tully Sub-Dean of York for which he was suspended Two Sermons one against Murmuring the other against Censuring By Symon Patrick D. D. now Lord Bishop of Chichester An Account of the Reasons which induced Charles the Second King of England to declare War against the States General of the United Provinces in 1672. And of the Private League which he entred into at the same Time with the French King to carry it on and to establish Popery in England Scotland and Ireland as they are set down in the History of the Dutch War printed in French at Paris with the Priviledg of the French King 1682. Which Book he caused to be immediately suppress'd at the Instance of the English Ambassador Fol. An Account of the Private League betwixt the late King Iames the Second and the French King. Fol. Dr. Wake 's Sermon before the King and Queen at Hampton-Court Dr. Tennison's Sermon against Self-love before the House of Commons Iune 5. 1689. Mr. Tully's Sermon of Moderation before the Lord-Mayor May. 12. 1689. An Examination of the Scruples of those who refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance By a Divine of the Church of England A Dialogue betwixt two Friends a Iacobite and a Williamite occasioned by the late Revolution of Affairs and the Oath of Allegiance The Case of Oaths stated 4to A Letter from a French Lawyer to an English Gentleman upon the Present Revolution 4to The Advantages of the present Settlement and the great danger of a Relapse The Interest of England in the Preservation of Ireland The Answer of a Protestant Gentleman in Ireland to a late Popish Letter of N. N. upon a Discourse between them concerning the present Posture of that Country and the Part fit for those concern'd there to act in it 4to An Apology for the Protestants of Ireland in a brief Narrative of the late Revolutions in that Kingdom and an Account of the present State thereof By a Gentleman of Quality 4to A true Representation to the King and People of England how Matters were carried on all a long in Ireland by the late K. Iames in favour of the Irish Papists there from his Accession to the Crown to the 10th of April 1689. The Mantle thrown off or the Irish-Man dissected 4to Reflections upon the Opinions of some Modern Divines concerning the Nature of Government in general and that of England in particular With an Appendix relating to this Matter containing 1. The Seventy fifth Canon of the Council of Toledo 2. The Original Articles in