Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	answer_v	good_a	think_v	778	5	3.6818	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28440	King William and Queen Mary, conquerors, or, A discourse endeavouring to prove that Their Majesties have on their side, against the late king, the principal reasons that make conquest a good title shewing also how this is consistent with that declaration of Parliament, King James abdicated the government, &c. : written with an especial regard to such as have hitherto refused the oath, and yet incline to allow of the title of conquest, when consequent to a just war.	Blount, Charles, 1654-1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing B3309; ESTC R23388	40,332	68

they are and run to another But is that thought a Reason why the Victors should quit any thing that their Swords do gain If their Declarations be untrue or in any respect unreasonable there is Sin in that and in making any Advantage of them but the Prince's was not and therefore as there was no Evil in it so is there no reason why he should quit any Advantage gained by it 2. But it may be said That the Nation was not conquered nor was it possible it should be by such a small number of Forces as the Prince brought over with him And that no Right of Conquest could accrue to the Prince so long as the King had Subjects enow able to have defended him Had the Nation done its utmost in defence of the King and yet been overpowred the Assertion had been true but it was so far from it that it was the Poisoned Nation K. James feared more than the Foreign Army A great part of the Nation took against the King and almost all the rest looked on while he was driven out of his Dominions And call you this a Conquest To this I reply 1. That this was much-what the Case in the two Instances I have given and yet as has been shewn it was the Opinion of those Times that the two Princes I have mentioned were conquered 2. As to the Nation 's standing Neuter or taking against the King I have considered it already and need not now repeat This Objection is much-what the same with the former only it appears in a different Dress 3. As to the Prince's conquering England I say he never pretended to it nor could he have done it justly for he had no Quarrel against the Nation It was so far from it that he never pretended any His Quarrel against the King was likewise the Nation 's Complaint against him and at the same time he asserted his own Right and in that very Particular he asserted the Right of the Nation For as he had a Right to be satisfied about the Succession so also had the Nation and the Nation too desired Satisfaction as well as he Nay he came not only to assert his own Right jointly with ours in this Particular but even all our Rights and Liberties which were struck at and in great danger of being utterly subverted So that this Glorious Prince was so far from being our Enemy that he was our Champion and Deliverer He conquered nothing but our Hearts And if he never pretended to be our Enemy he could not be said to conquer us Had he conquered the Nation he would have had a Right to somewhat else besides the Crown viz. to our Laws Liberties and Estates and we should have been in a very ill Condition until by submitting all to the Convention and suffering the Government to settle upon the Antient Basis he gave us all back again It is true many times the Quarrel of Prince and People are twisted together and then they stand or fall together but here they were severed and therefore the King fell by himself And although it be a hard Saying yet is it too true that his Fall was his Countrey 's Rise The Nation was never conquered since the Days of William the First supposing that may be called such a Conquest Nor is such a Conquest necessary to give the Victorious Prince a Right to the Throne of the Vanquished Enough it is that he be reduced to such a Condition as to be unable to help his Friends and they to help him Such a Conquest was that of Henry the 4th over Richard the 2d although he thought not to have made use of that Title because his Quarrel was not just nor his Success gained without Dissimulation and Perjury And such a Conquest was that of Henry the 7th over Richard the 3d. And yet both these as I have said thought they had good Titles as being Conquerors And such a Conquest was this of our present Soveraigns over King James the 2d 3. It may be said All this would be true were King James out of all possibility of ever helping his Friends or of receiving Help from them But he is only retired into a Neighbouring Kingdom And there he is within Call whenever the Nation 's Eyes shall be opened He only waits for a fair Opportunity of returning to succour his Friends and right himself To this I answer 1. King James is in such a Kingdom as we can expect no Good from and if ever he returns out of it we have reason to think he will succour no Friends but those of his own Religion and such as are for Arbitrary Power But as for all the rest which are the main Body of the Community we have great cause to fear they will be in a much worse Condition than they are under the present Government It is highly probable that he went away with hopes that the Distractions he took care to throw us into and our own mistaken Notions of Loyalty with the Assistance of the French King would in a short time bring him back a Conqueror upon the Necks of our Laws and our Religion And what Encouragment can a wise Protestant find in this to be undone by suspending his Allegiance to our present most gracious Soveraigns Shall we for the present make our selves miserable and do our utmost to make the Nation so too in hopes that e're long he will return and be in a Condition to make both us and it more effectually so But 2. It is not essential to a Conquest nor to the Right it gives that the Prince supposed to be conquered be out of all possibility of ever helping his Friends or of receiving Help from them No Prince is in such a Condition while he lives It is sufficient that the main Body of a Kingdom have submitted to the Conqueror and the greatest Part of such as have been required to fwear Allegiance to him have done it so as that he is fully possessed of the Government and that the vanquished Prince is not able to protect those that refuse to submit to him but that they may be ruined before he could come in to their Assistance and would be so were it not for the meer Mercy of the Conqueror For one great Reason why Conquest in a just Quarrel gives the Subject a rightful Liberty of transferring his Allegiance to the Conqueror is Because his former Soveraign is by his own Fault fallen into such a Condition as that he cannot to him answer the Ends of Government nor he to his Soveraign the Ends of Allegiance and Subjection And as it would be very hard that a King should be obliged to throw away himself for the sake of his Subjects when his doing so would not in the least advantage them so is it no less hard that Subjects should be obliged to throw away themselves for the sake of their King when their doing of it will not at all advantage him

KING WILLIAM AND QUEEN MARY Conquerors OR A DISCOURSE Endeavouring to prove that Their MAJESTIES have on Their Side against the Late King the Principal Reasons that make CONQUEST a Good TITLE Shewing also how this is consistent with that Declaration of Parliament King James Abdicated the Government c. Written with an especial Regard to such as have hither-to refused the Oath and yet incline to allow of the Title of Conquest when Consequent to a Just WAR Licensed January 11. 1693. Edmund Bohun London Printed for Richard Baldwin near the Oxford Arms in Warwick-Lane and at the Black Lyon between the Two Temple Gates in Fleet-Street 1693 THE PREFACE THE very hard measure that King Charles the First met with hath raised in the Minds of all good Men a just Abhorrence both of the Persons and Principles that caused his Sufferings And as it commonly falls out we have been apt to run into extreams on the other Hand We are not content to disown with Indignation the Barbarities that he endured but are apt to think that a Crowned Head can never ake but the Subject is in some fault let the Occasion be what it will The Church of England is very Loyal to all Kings by Principle but she was so to him likewise by the superadded Ties of Friendship And the singular Affection all her Members bore to that blessed Prince hath made them very favourable to the Sovereign's Cause however different from his and of this we have now a plain instance in the Adherence of so many of her Members to K. James in favour of whose Interest they are very partial even against their own K. Charles the First was a Friend to our Church and our Liberties and was ready upon Complaint to have redressed all our Grievances and to have confirmed our Rights before there appeared any armed Force to have compelled him But K. James the Second was the avowed Enemy of our Church and in order to her Ruin as well as out of a Desire of Arbitrary Power had many ways struck at the very Root of all our Civil Rights Nor did he ever shew the least Inclination to redress what had been done amiss it was so far from it that he threatned and imprisoned the Reverend Prelates for but petitioning to be excus'd from giving their helping Hand to the Destruction of the Church Themselves and the Laws until meer Necessity forced him to it and even then he gave us only Words some Superficial Promises of a Parliament to be held when we should have assisted him to drive our Champion out of the Nation ruin'd our Friends and left our selves wholly at his Disposal i. e. at the Mercy of the Jesuits And yet I am apt to think that one Reason that hath made some Men so very angry at such as were in Arms in favour of the Prince of Orange at his first Land was the black Idea of all Resistance against Sovereign Power formed in their Minds by that Rebellion against King Charles the First And I verily believe had not the Crown as well as his Life been most uunjustly ravished from him few would have hlamed the Estates for setting it upon the Head of his Grand-children after his Son had thrown it away However I mean not at this time at all to meddle with the Case of Subjects resisting their Sovereign much less to determine either way about it What I now intend is to assert the Right of King William and Queen Mary to the Crown of England and its Depednencies and consequently to the Allegiance of the Subject And I doubt not but to do it upon Principles not in the least Antimonarchical or suspected to be so without either asserting the Popish deposing Doctrine or that the People of England are the Sovereigns Masters and may call him to an Account and either depose or other ways punish him for his Misgovernments or even affirming that a King of England may be resisted there are other Principles not in the least scandalous that do intitle their Majesties to the Crown and to the Allegiance of the Subject But some will be ready to ask why I write on this Argument at this time of Day after the Matter hath been so canvassed and so many learned Men having already written upon it may be supposed to have aid all of Moment that is to be said upon it But my Answer is That notwithstanding all that hath been written a great many do yet remain unsatisfied And it grieves me to think that their Majesties who have run such mighty Hazards and done so much for us should still have so many secret Enemies in the Nation or if that be too hard a Character for some that have refused the Oath so many that are not yet such Hearty Friends as they ought to be That Protestants are so backward at making use of the fairest Opportunity of securing themselves and fencing against Popery that they have had these many Years which the Papists have given them by an over-active Zeal for their Destruction while Papists do readily embrace and make use of all Advantages against them tho never so foul That some who are seemingly zealous Sons of the Church of England should take such Measures as tend to her Destruction That such as have most bitterly declaimed against Separation from our Assemblies as a great Sin should themselves hold separate Meetings upon a meer State-point and as it seems to me be in the wrong Opinion too That any who mean honestly should be doing the French King's and the Papists Business at a time when the Protestant Cause and the Fate of Europe lie at Stake And lastly that any Conscientious and Learned Men should lose Preferments and that the Church should be deprived of the benefit of their Labours These are the Reasons that have at length overcome my great Aversion to writing The Argument I make use of hath indeed been lightly touched upon by some others and it could not well fall out otherwise within the compass of so much time as this Dispute hath been on Foot in But let not this Acknowledgment at the Entrance at all prejudice any Man against reading what I have written upon a Belief that I offer nothing new nothing but what he hath already met with and can answer for For any thing I know my manner of prosecuting it is different from what hath yet been published whether it be to better purpose or no the Reader is to judge But although it should not be so yet may it be of some use since oftentimes the same Arguments that have been rejected do prevail when urged in a different way although with a great deal less Skill But whether I have written better or worse upon this Subject than other Men is not at all the Question But whether or no I have made good my Undertaking I confess when I consider how subject all Men are to mistake and what Cause my after-thoughts have many times found of altering my