Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
prince_n	day_n	king_n	wales_n	2,304	5	9.9362	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50336	The lawfulness of taking the new oaths asserted	Maurice, Henry, 1648-1691.	1689 (1689)	Wing M1364; ESTC R16133	6,567	16

THE LAWFULNESS Of Taking the New Oaths ASSERTED Licensed and Entred according to Order LONDON Printed for J. Mills and are to be Sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1689. The Lawfulness Of Taking the New Oaths c. THough our late Common Danger united us all in hearty Desires of Deliverance yet when those Desires are granted we are so unfortunate as to divide again about the Methods of securing that Blessing We all agreed That upon the late King's withdrawing we were left without Government or else Why was the Government seized It was then thought not only necessary but lawful to put the Supreme Administration into his hand who had been the Instrument of our Deliverance and therefore the Prince was desired to take it on him We generally believed a further Settlement necessary and that a Convention was the best way to make that Settlement otherwise Why was a Convention advised Or Why were the Members so unanimously Chosen But 〈◊〉 they met and happened to 〈◊〉 abou● 〈…〉 Ex●e●●●n 〈◊〉 who 〈…〉 without Scruple or Regret began then to fly off and grow discontented Now since all the People virtually or actually chose their Representatives or sate there in their own Right or by virtue of this Election it 〈◊〉 to me that all Persons did refer this Matter to the Arbitration of this Convention and are obliged to submit to the major Vote of this Assembly which were Judges of their own Choosing And if we consider how various and how positive particular Men and Partys were in th●●r Opinions of the ●es● mea●s to settle 〈◊〉 we shall conclude there was no way to compose us but by leaving it to our Representatives to adjust for otherwise we must have had an eternal Squabble and no setled Government at all Some were for Treating with and Restoring King James and educating the Prince of Wales a Protestant others for a Regent with Royal Power others for Crowning the Prince of Orange alone some for Crowning the Queen alone and some for a Common-wealth Now in this variety of Opinions whatever way the Convention had taken many would have been disgusted that their Method was rejected wherefore though some are dissatisfyed with the Course which was approved by the major Vote yet if settlement were necessary and this referring it to the decision of a Convention the only way to procure it then all Persons seem oblig'd to submit to the way they have chosen But they say The Decree is unjust because it alters the Succession and injures the Title of both the Princesses to which being sinful they cannot Consent We Answer The Princess who is generally believ'd the Right Heir is made actual Queen and the publick Acts are in her Name but her Modesty and Prudence is such That the deemed herself unfit in this juncture to manage the Supreme Power alone and therefore by the Consent of her self and her Sister the Prince was joined in the Title and trusted with the Supreme Administration for his Life only Now considering his fitness for this place and his high Merit both as to the Princesses in res●●ing their Title from a design'd and final Defeat and as to the People of England in delivering their Religion and Laws from an intended Subversion we cannot think it very unreasonable to requite this unparallell'd Service with the highest Personal Reward especially since it ceases with his Life and then returns into the old Channel It was as small a Deviation from the Right Line as the Case would bear which Case was so extraordinary That since the like Circumstances will scarce ever happen again there is no great danger that this can be made a Precedent It was more irregular in that Convention which while the Lady Elizabeth the true Heir of the Crown was living declared Henry the Seventh King without joining her in the Title or taking Notice of her Right yet all the Nation sware Allegiance to him before his Marrying that Lady and he is to this day owned a Lawful King and his Laws are still in force But here the Right Heir is declared Queen and Allegiance sworn to her and the Prince however is King de facto and it is from him we all principally expect Protection and therefore he may and must expect Allegiance from us even though his Title in our opinion be not without Exceptions We know the Jews were to seek the Peace of that Government by which they were made Captives and to pray for it and the Primitive Christians enquired not whether their Emperours were set up by the Sword or the Senate but prayed for them and were faithful to them when they were set up without any scrutiny into their Title Besides if there were any Injustice in this those Members of the Convention who dissented are clear of the supposed Guilt and have done all in their power to hinder it But being over-rul'd they are to submit and since they as well as others desire to be protected they must consider that it is impossible for this Government if those who are under it will not give security for their Allegiance to preserve it self or defend them in a time when there are so many Divisions at home and so great Dangers threatning us from abroad They desire to live quietly that is to enjoy the benefit of this Government and the necessary means for attaining that Quiet is for all under the Government to be faithful to it otherwise we decline the means and yet would have the end we refuse the Duty and yet expect the Reward Secondly It is Objected That these Persons have Sworn Allegiance to King James his Lawful Heirs and Successors and declared that no Power on Earth can Absolve them from this Oath We Reply All political Writers except some late English Authors do suppose some Cases whereby a King may forfeit his Dignity and consequently his Right to our Allegiance Now if this be the Case of King James we need no absolution for he devests himself of his Right to Govern us and then our Oath cannot oblige us And these Men cannot deny his Breach of his Promises and Oath his Arbitrary Suspension of Laws his manifest Endeavours to subvert our Religion and change the whole Constitution of our Government his open Invasion of Liberty and Property and his first voluntary deserting us in a time of danger leaving us without Government or Means of Defence Now one of these by some Writers is affirmed to be a Forfeiture but all of them concurring as in our Case are abundantly sufficient to take off the Obligation of that Oath And we cannot but think many of those who are now dissatisfyed did once believe they were not oblig'd by that Oath of Allegiance to King James because they did not discover those Plots against him which they could not but have some notice of and were so far from giving him Assistance that they stood by and let him sink yea they seiz'd on the Government upon his withdrawing and