Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	richard_n	15,475	5	9.2713	4	true

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