Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	john_n	king_n	normandy_n	5,766	5	11.9981	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39119	A vindication of the letter out of the north concerning Bishop Lake's declaration of his dying in the belief of the doctrine of passive obedience, &c. : in answer to a late pamphlet, called, The defence of the profession, &c. of the said Bishop : as far as it concerns the person of quality.	Eyre, William, 1612 or 13-1670.	1690 (1690)	Wing E3946; ESTC R6258	27,474	36

the Safety of my own Country ought to be dearer to me than all the World besides and I have more Reason to defend the Rights and Priviledges of that than all the Princes Titles in the World But if our Author should not allow all the Inferences I have made from his Concessions yet I have a great deal of Reason to thank him for them because they will not only be of use to me hereafter but do at present in great measure supercede what I should else have said to his History For 't is perfectly indifferent to me whether Queen Elizabeth did assist the French and Scotish Protestants or no since by his first Position he grants She might have serv'd her self of the Treachery and Revolt of other Princes Subjects For 't was the lawfulness of the Action and not the Fact it self that was the great point in question and since he allows she might have assisted them though they had been Rebels we will never quarrel about it whether they were so or no. For truly the Person of Quality is very well pleased that he has so learned an Author of his side that proves all he desires should be asserted in the point For since he will allow the French Protestants were not Rebels because they had the Law of their side Nor were the Netherlands guilty of Rebellion against the King of Spain because he first acted contrary to the Laetus Introitus and disengaged them from their Obedience when he had broke the Condition of it If he will but please to be as gracious to his own Country-men and allow them the benefit of their own Laws and suffer the Oaths of Princes to be as binding in England as it seems they then were in Spain I know no body that will desire any more of him Nay I will go farther than this for if he can name any one Person that was a Rebel to King James after the Allowances above are granted him rather than he should go unpunish'd I think I should be his Executioner for I hate those that rebel against and break the Laws as much as the Author can do And since Rebellion is so horrid a Sin I would not have England to have the Enclosure of it but only desire that we may be allowed to fight for our Laws and Liberties as other Nations do without being thought Rebels for so doing But if our Author will not allow us the same Priviledges he gives to all the World beside there would be some reason to suspect that he designs us the Monopoly of that he so exclaims against and is so particularly kind to his own Country as sometimes to lay them under the unhappy necessity of being either Rebels or Slaves And I have something the more Reason to fear this because I find he is not so sollicitous to clear the Scots from the imputation of Rebels as he is the French and Dutch But let them be what they will you see 't is evident Queen Elizabeth did not assist them she only furnish'd them with Men Money and Ammunition And when the Queen of Scots came and flung her self into her Protection and implored her Aid for restoring her to her Crown she then asserted her Cause with a witness For had that unhappy Princess trusted to the Mercy of her Subjects as great Rebels as they were I am sure they could not have treated her worse than she was used by that Queen who our Author tells us always declared against any Protection of Subjects in their Resistance which she always called Rebellion But I suppose Princes are no more obliged to speak Truth than they are tied to do Justice for which our Author gave them a Dispensation before But I think it now time to proceed to the 2d thing he undertook to prove which is That it was the Doctrine of the Church of England at that time that it is unlawful for Subjects to resist and that therefore our Divines justified the French and Dutch no otherwise than upon Principles which are consistent with this Doctrine And truly if our Author hold in the same mind he was when he promised the two Positions before enlarged on and acquitted the French from Rebellion because they had the Law of their Side and the Dutch because their King had forfeited his Right to their Obedience by breaking his part of the Pact and Stipulation between them I do not see but he and I shall agree in this as well as the Divines of this Age do with those in Queen Elizabeth's Days For I suppose the Convocation at that time did approve of Bishop Bilson his Sentiments as to that matter for the Author tells us the Book was perused and allowed by publick Authority and also dedicated to the Queen so that it seems to be that which they were all willing to stand by And I heartily wish that all our Bishops would do so too and make that very Passage he cites out of Bishop Bilson the Judg of the Controversy for then I think it would be pretty soon decided and therefore I shall transcribe the Place in the very same words he has done page 33. In France the King of Navar and the Prince of Conde might lawfully defend themselves from Injustice and Violence and be aided by other Princes their Neighbours If the King as too mighty for them sought to oppress them to whom they owe not simple Subjection but respective Homage as Scotland did to England and Normandy to France when the Kings notwithstanding had bitter Wars each with other The rest of the Nobles that did assist them if it were the King's Act that did oppress them and not the Guises except the Laws do permit them means to save the State from open Tyranny I will not excuse and yet the Circumstances must be fully known before the Fact can be rightly discerned with which I confess I am not so exactly acquainted Now in this Passage here are three several things observable First He absolutely acquits the King of Navar and Prince of Conde but their Associates only upon Supposition that the Law permitted them to oppose the King's Tyranny but the Guises Oppression they might without Law But although the Bishop says he will not excuse those that resist the King without Law yet it is pretty remarkable that he seems to suppose that even in such a Case there may be Circumstances which may render them excusable and which ought to be fully known before the Fact can be discerned and therefore he does forbear passing his Judgment on them because he is not thorowly acquainted with the Circumstances And now were all our Divines of this good Bishop's Faith in this Point or at least had they but his Charity and would not condemn their Brethren before they understood the Cause they would certainly understand one another a little better than they do or however there would be no Divisions nor Schismes about it which God grant they do not now make in the

Church But whatever others do we are I hope sure of our Reverend Author for he has proved that the Clergy in Q. Elizabeth were of his Faith as to this Question therefore should have thought it unnecessary to have said any thing more but that for the Authors Information I must answer an Objection or two about David whose Example though so much recommended might perhaps carry us farther and give greater Liberties than the Person of Quality ever desired for I 'le assure you defensive Arms will at any time content him But our Author is pleased to ask how it appears David took up defensive Arms for the Homily tells us of no such thing But I can tell him of as Authentick a Book that does nay that tells us a little more of David for if he will please to read 1 Sam. 28. 2. and 29. 8. he will find it was not David's Fault that he did not use offensive Weapons against Saul if fighting against him be to be called so for if we may believe his own Words he certainly intended that as you may see 1 Sam. 28. And it came to pass in those Days that the Philistines gathered their Armies together for Warfare to fight with Israel and Achish said anto David Know thou assuredly that thou shalt go out with me to battel thou and thy Men. And David said to Achish Surely thou shalt know what thy Servant can do And Achish said to David therefore will I make thee Keeper of mine Head for ever And in Pursuance of this we find David and his Men attending Achish the very Day before the Battel as his particular Guard which perhaps might be one thing that disgusted the Lords of the Philistins so that they would not let him go to fight with them and Achish against his Will is forced to dismiss David whose Expostulation Chap. 29. 8. is very remarkable for I think 't is one of the most passionate things of the kind I have met with And David said unto Achish But what have I done and what hast thou found in thy Servant so long as I have been with thee unto this Day that I may not go fight against the Enemies of my Lord the King And Achish was forced to command him a second time for you see he disputed the first which satisfies me that he was in earnest and was unwilling to return And now what can be said against so plain a Text For my own part I can foresee but two things the First That David did dissemble with Achish and did not intend to fight but that I think is a very unworthy Thought for David had been a very base and ungrateful Man to have either deceived or betrayed Achish who had given him Protection and was so truly kind to him The second thing is That a Subject may list himself under a Forreign Prince and in his quarrel lawfully fight against their own King and if so then all that listed themselves under the Prince of Orange might still be as good Subjects to King James as David at that time was to Saul And as to the proof of his taking up defensive Arms he may find that 1 Sam. 22. 2. And every one that was in Distress and every one that was in Debt and every one that was discontented gathered themselves unto him and he became Captain over them And here is as formal levying of War as I think can be desired and if it was not to defend himself I know not to what purpose it was for if he desired only Flight he might have done that safer as well as privater by himself than with an Army Nor was that Army of any use as to the gaining of the Crown after Saul's Death for God commanded him to go and live at Hebron where the Men of Judah of their own Accord went down and made him King as he will find 2 Sam. 2. So that so many hundred Men from the beginning to the ending were of no use unless it were to defend him against Saul and that he did design to have garison'd Keilah but that God told him the Men of the Place would betray him I think nothing can be more evident from any Text in Spight of all the Author's Comments But now he refers me to the last Homily against Rebellion as I did him to the second and asks me whether King John's Subjects took up only defensive Arms But by Bishop Bilson's excellent Rule above cited neither he nor I ought to judg them because we do not nor cannot know all their Circumstances For Historians are seldom so impartial as to give us all things in their true Colours But the Design of that Homily was only to shew the Intolerableness of the Romish Yoke and how impossible it was for them that depended on and obeyed the Pope to be good Subjects But as for King John himself he had been as great a Traitor and used him that should have been his Soveraign as ill as his Subjects could do him for all the World knows that he first usurp'd the Crown and then killed Prince Arthur that was the true Heir And truly if their present Majesties would have pursued King John's Method they might before this have had as indisputable a Title and had as much Right to have been called Natural Soveraign Lord as King John had But shall they have the less Respect and be the worse thought on because they spared the Life of our late unfortunate King and suffered him to escape when he was in their Power nay would not abridg him of his Liberty although they knew he would use it against their Interest If this be the Quarrel that the Clergy have against King William I shall admire their Politicks a great deal more than their Divinity But to return to King John What Cause our Ancestors might have to repent them of their Wars against him I know not but I believe their Posterity think they have not much for it produced those great Priviledges wherein the English Subjects glory The Charter obtained from him being the first part or first Draught if you please of the famous Magna Charta confirmed afterwards by Henry the 3d. whom the Homily might have cited as well as King John if it had been the Subjects Rebellion and not the Pope's Usurpation that they designed to declaim against But although I am very far from justifying all that was done in those two King's Reigns yet I think verily the Author would have a harder Task to perswade the People of England to give up the Advantages they hold from it And I think I may undertake to call back both King James and Popery for they deceive themselves that think they are to be separated for could they have been divided he need never to have forsaken his Crown and Kingdom when he shall prevail with the People of this Nation to give up their Magna Charta For if the former never return as I pray God they