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
A70705	The letter which was sent to the author of the doctrine of passive obedience and jure divino disproved, &c. answered and refuted wherein is proved, that monarchy was not originally from God. That kings are not by divine appointment, but that all government proceeds from the people. That the obedience required in Scripture, is to the laws of the land, and no otherwise. That resisting of arbitary power is lawful. That the oath of allegiance to to the late King James was dissolved before the Prince of Orange (our present King) landed. That upon the non-performance of an oath on one side, the other becomes void, is plainly prov'd from several examples in scripture. That protection is the only cause of allegiance, and that obedience or allegiance is due to the present government is proved from Scripture, law and reason; and those texts of scriptures which relate to government, or monarchy, are explained.	True son of the Church of England.; True son of the Church of England. aut; N. N. aut; A. A. aut	1689 (1689)	Wing N45; ESTC R223803	26,704	41

Simnel and Warbeck ●ad either of the Cheats succeeded might properly have been cal●ed Counterfeit Kings but a King who ascends the Throne ●y a regular Title is a true and real King though he doth not as he ought make the general good of the people his chief and main end Were the Kings over the Children of Israel counterfeit Kings because they were not by regular Descent of which there are many Instances 2 Kings 23.30 2 Kings 23.26 〈◊〉 Chron. 3.16 c. and Obedience was paid to them as much as to the others a King is a true and real King when in possession of the Throne though not by regular Descent having taken the Coronation-Oath and Governing according to the Laws of the Land 't is not the Title but the Office that makes him a King which if any King derogates from he forfeits his Right of Governing For Example Sigisbert King of the West-Saxons for his male Administration was driven out of his Kingdom by the Nobles and People assembled together and King John. King Edward the Second and Richard the Second were for breaking their Oaths and Governing contrary to the Laws of the Land turn'd out out of their Thrones and others appointed in their stead and a Clause of King Henry's Charter says If the King invades those Rights meaning the Rights of the people it is lawful for the Kingdom to rise against him and to do him what injury they can as though they ow'd him no Allegiance Whilst the Lady Elizabeth the true Heir of the Crown was living Henry the Seventh was declared King without joyning her in the Title or so much as making any mention of her Right yet notwithstanding the Kingdom bore Allegiance to this King de facto before he confirmed his Title to the Crown by marrying her By a Law made in King Edward the Confessor's Reign it is declared That if the King doth not perform his Office he shall not so much as retain the Name of a King. If a King that comes to the Throne by regular Descent shou'd refuse to take the Coronation Oaths the People are not bound to swear Allegiance to him and he neither ought nor can be obeyed as a King in the least Command though he shou'd promise to govern according to Law he being not qualified according to Law therefore could not be Head and Governour A King acting contrary to the Laws of the Land is so far from being a true and real King that in every such Action he is no King at all because his Kingly Office is to Act according but not contrary to the Laws 20. Here let me speak to you in the words of Solomon 〈◊〉 counsel thee to keep the King's Commandment and that because of the Oath of God Eccless 8.2 The Obligation of our Oaths doth not cease though the King be not in a capacity to prote●● us If protection be the only ground and foundation of Allegiance we ought to become Subjects of the strongest Monarchy If the King of France be best able to protect me it is not only my Interest but Duty according to this Doctrine to swear Allegiance to him though he be as you say one of the greatest Tyrants that ever the World produced The Oath of God that is mentioned Eccles 8.2 was the Oath of Obedience which the People had taken to the King of obeying him in the Execution of the Laws which were the Laws appointed by God for Kings to Govern by 1 Sam. 10.24 Nehem. 10.29 the Children of Israel took a Curse and a● Oath to walk in God's Law and to observe all the Commandments of the Lord his Judgments and his Statutes which were the Laws of the Kingdom but when they did ●bey their Kings contrary to Law God did punish them ●nd likewise their Kings by delivering them into the hands ●f their Enemies c. Ezek 17. The King of Babylon made ●he King of Jerusalem's Son King of Jerusalem during his father's life whom he had taken Captive with him and ●ade a Covenant with him and took an Oath of him Vers ●2 13. The King of Jerusalem broke this Covenant in ●ending for Horses and much people from Egypt Vers 15. ●ut Vers 16. the Lord does declare he shall die for breaking ●he Covenant which is called the King of Babylon's Cove●ant What is breaking of a Covenant but one's cancel●ng of the obligation to the other by the non-performance ●n his side 'T is plain from hence that the sin lieth at his ●oor who breaks the Covenant and that it thereby becomes ●s void to the other as if never taken Jos 2. The two ●pies that were sent by Joshua to Jerico swore to Rahab ●hat she and all her Father's house should be saved alive ●ers 20. But if thou utter this our business then we will be quit ●f thine Oath which thou hast made us to swear What can be ●nore plain but that upon the Non-performance of an Oath ●n one side the other becomes void Can any man believe ●he Nation would have been so mad as to have taken the Oath of Allegiance if King James should have refused to ●ake the Coronation-Oath which are mutual Ties of Faith●lness one to the other What greater Nonsense can there be ●han to say That one man must be true to another when he ●ath broken his Oath and endeavours to ruine or destroy ●im Certainly in this case his Oath is void and his right●ng or defending and securing himself is no falseness to the ●ther and the mischief that in that case happens is a sin ●o the Invader not to him that endeavours to right him●elf this is allowed on by the Laws of the Land and Nature ●or there is no Oath can bind a man contrary to the Duty which is due to himself then how can a man be true to himself if he lets another ruine or destroy him Numb 30. If a woman vow a Vow unto the Lord and bind her Soul by Bond if her Father disallow thereof the Lord shall forgive her And speaking of a married Woman Vers 13. Every Vow and every binding Oath to afflict the Soul her Husband may establish it or make it void Surely 't is more reasonable to believe that God does absolve men from their Oaths of Fidelity to a Prince upon the breaking of his Oath which is the Covenant by endeavouring to destroy the People or make them Slaves than that a Father or a Husband might make a Woman's Oath void and that God would then absolve her without any considerations of the unreasonableness thereof The obligation of an Oath ceases viz. if I borrow a Sword and swear to return it by such a time and the person grows furiously mad the Obligation is void or if I swear to pay a man so much Money and he forgives me the Debt ceaseth as much as if I had paid him the Debt tho' no such Condition was specified or if two persons bind themselves by Oath to a perpetual Friendship