Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	allegiance_n	king_n	subject_n	2,355	5	7.0118	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48169	A letter to a friend in ansvver to the enquiry into the present state of affairs		1690 (1690)	Wing L1647; ESTC R218607	6,921	4

A LETTER to a Friend IN ANSWER TO THE Enquiry into the present State of Affairs SIR I Thank you for sending me the Enquiry into the present State of Affairs for I am very glad to find that it is a question still whether we should treat with the King and call him back which I was afraid was quite out of doors but the Zeal of this Author who seems to be a dear Friend to Kings to prove we ought not to treat makes me hope that a great many are of the mind we should and his Reasons against it I hope will make a great many more of that mind It is a great satisfaction to me to find a Man who seems neither to want Wit nor Words not to be able to speak common Sense in this Argument There needs no other reason to prove that we are bound in Conscience to treat with our King and to bring him back if we can than that he is our King still and therefore the Enquirer begins with this to prove that he is no King and if he can prove it then fare him well But how does he prove this His Argument is That the reciprocal Duties in Civil Societies are Protection and Allegiance and wheresoever the one fails wholly the other falls with it pag. 3. Now if the relation between King and Subjects did depend on their mutual Duties to each other and not the Duties result from the antecedent Relation there might be somewhat in this But if the King be a King not by governing well but by Birth-right and an hereditary Succession he no more ceases to be a King by governing ill as far as this reason goes than a Subject who is a Traitor and Rebel ceases to be a Subject the Relation continues tho the Duty fails because the Duty is not the Foundation of the Relation but a moral Obligation resulting from the Relation But I confess I thought the Enquirer mad when I found he would prove this from the paternal Relation and absolve Sons from all Duty and Obedience When a Father ceases to be a Father by becoming an Enemy For this is so sensible a Confutation of his Maxim that every Father understands it A Father can never cease to be a Father how great a Tyrant soever he be nor can a Son ever cease to be a Son or to owe the Duty of a Son to his Father he is not indeed bound to obey his Father to his own apparent Ruine and Destruction but he is bound to pay all the Duty of a Son to him as far as he can and if the Father ever return to a better Mind the Relation is not dissolved nor new made by it As Fathers like our Casuist in this let them swallow the rest only remembring that their Sons may deal by them as they deal by thier King But I can pardon his hardiness in this when I find he ventures upon S. Paul and hopes to prove the Doctrin of Deposing Kings from 13. Rom. read the first seven Verses at leisure and judg of the Enquirers Comment I shall only observe the Apostle assigns the reason and foundation of our Obedience and gives a motive to it the reason is that the powers that be are ordained of God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and must be damn'd for it Now this reason I think is not for Deposing the King and refusing to treat with him and yet this reason eternally holds for all Sovereign Princes if all Powers be the Ordinance of God and the Ministers of God But then the motive or encouragement to Obedience is that they are the Ministers of God to thee for good which is generally true as moral Motives are and if they fail in any instance our Motive to Obedience is lost but not the reason of it for if we were excused from every Duty when any Motive to the Duty fails especially such Motives as concern present and sensible Advantages there are few Duties of Religion which would always oblige us It is a good Motive to Temperance Sobriety and Chastity that these Virtues preserve our health and increase our Estates but I hope our obligation to these Virtues don't cease when it is for our health to Fornicate or gives us great Advantages in our Trade to drink with drunken Customers this is all he has to say why the King is no King and those who can be satisfied with this may be his Disciples The sum of his next Section is p. 4. That the King attempted the Subversion of our Government and Laws Suppose that then Nature teaches a short way of reasoning to forget that one is their Governor when they clearly see that he intends to turn their Destroyer Grant this too that Nature will teach Men to resist unjust Violence and suppose that this will justifie what has hitherto been done what is this to what some Men are now a doing When this illegal Power is broken by the glorious undertaking of the Prince of Orange and we may have all just Securities that it shall never hurt us more Is this any reason against treating with the King who is our King still and may be our Governor without any danger of being our Destroyer But there is an untoward Maxim in our Law which greatly troubles him that the King can do no wrong for if this be true it is a demonstration by our Law that the King can never forfeit his Crown unless he may be deposed without doing any wrong To get rid of this he tells us p. 11. the meaning of it is only this that the King's Power cannot go so far as to support him in the doing any Injustice or Wrong to any that is the meaning of the King can do no wrong is not that he can do no wrong but that if he do wrong he shall be as accountable for it as any of his Subjects which is a great priviledg Kings have This he proves from the Examples of Ed. 2. and Rich. 2. Who were judged in Parliament for Mal-administration and since these Judgments were never vacated by any subsequent Parliaments these Proceedings are a part of our Law I shall not trouble you with an account of these particular Stories which are wide enough from our Case But suppose what he would have Have such Practices as these never been condemned No Laws ever made against the like Practices Yet he dares not say nay confesses the contrary but yet as long as the Proceedings remain upon record they are good Presidents and justifie our right to defend our selves in extreme necessity as if it were not enough to make a Law against such Practices without an express condemnation of all contrary Proceedings in former times As if the contrary Proceedings of former Ages could justifie us in the breach of express Laws now But to return to our Maxim Our Law is not so absurd as to suppose that it is impossible for a King to command perswade solicit his