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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A75533 The necessity of altering the present oath of allegiance made evident also the declaration signed by above 28000 in Lancashire, when they expected a late French invasion, compared with the association signed in this present Parliament / in a letter to a nobleman. W. A. 1690 (1690) Wing A35A; ESTC R42793 8,057 6

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

with which others seem to quiet their Consciences or to keep up their Reputation all that wish well to the Princess and indeed to the Peace of this Kingdom are bound to use their endeavours for another Oath of Allegiance 10. It being generally agreed that Oaths ought to be taken in the sense of the Imposers and the Parliament which enjoyned the Oath having recognized his Majesties Right together with the late Queen honest Men could not with any colour of Reason scruple an Oath declaratory of the Right more than they do the present Oath 11. An Oath more express were requisite if it were only to acold that material Perjury into which too many run in taking the present Oath in a sense directly contrary to the plain intention of the Law-makers 12. It is to be considered That there is no Act of Parliament for the Oath to his Majesty alone but the subject matter fayling as to her late Majesty the intendment of Law is supposed to authorize the present Oath which may not be so satisfactory to nice Formalizers as a New Oath declaratory of the Right and obliging to adefence of the settlement 13. All the Declaration against rebellion required by the late Act is only against the King not naming his Majesty King William So that the Men who will have the late King ●…ill to be Rightful King must according to the principie of most of 'em except such as hold Non-resistance to be all that can be required by the Sovereign Power think themselves bound to take Arms against King William whenever they have an inviting opportunity and Commission from King James Which makes it highly reasonable if not necessary to distinguish 'em from them who are resolved to do their Duty in Fighting in Defence of King William and the Succession by Law Establish'd 14. An Oath to Defend the present Government and in effect to declare it Lawful and Rightful is yet in force at Common Law ought to be generally enforced at Leets and elsewhere and may be required of all the Subjects by special Commission Wherefore an Oath expresly declaring the Right would induce nothing new unless in the penalty for refusal 15. Allegiance to the Prince is in its own Nature the Duty of Loyal or Liege Subjects to their Liege Lord and is founded upon his Right to the Government or being Lawful and Rightful King As therefore whoever Swears Allegiance to his Majesty virtually acknowledges his Right he that shall refuse to Swear to the Right when duly required will effectually shew ●hat he resolves not to pay the Allegiance which is due 16. Allegiance at Common Law binds to the Defence of the Kingdom as well as the King and therefore the Subjects of this Realm are in a double respect under an Allegiance contrary to any pretence of Right in the Late King 17. It having been duly and Authoritatively declared that the Late King had broken the Original contract between Prince and People and his Majesty King William having been in like manner declared King there is as much reason to Swear that his Present Majesty is Lawful and Rightful King as there ever was to take the like Oath to J. I. C. I. C. II. and J. II. 18. An Oath expresly Abnegatory of any pretence in the Late King is fully as Just and as expedient as the Oaths required in several Reigns declaring against the pretended Authority of the See of Rome or of any Forreign Prince or Potentate 19. As Cowardice or some mighty expectations upon a Change rarher than Conscience must be thought to have made many backward to acknowledge his Majesties Right if the present Power should not work upon Men's hopes aad fears more than a Power in a Remote and as it is to be hoped Vain possibility it would argue great neglect or treachery somewhere 20. If fear be more prevalent than sense of Duty it were to be thought that Men should secretly desire to be under the obligation of an Oath expresly requiring the Defence of the settlement that if a Change should happen they might plead necessity in excuse of their honest endeavours to have prevented it 21. By the Law of God and of Nations as well as of this Land the Obligation of Protection and Defence is reciprocal and the Subjects are as much obliged to Defend their Prince as he to Protect his Subjects But the Doctrine of Non-assistance or of Obedience meerly Passive is New and of pernicious consequence suited to the late Doctrine of providence or of God's ways of Disposing of Kingdoms which makes Allegiance as uncertain as the events of War or publick counsels 22. An Oath by which few if any think themselves obliged to more than they would certainly do without any Oath is in effect to have none but to have none were to condemn the Wisdom and Experience of all Ages I should not think it enough barely to assert so many propositions were it not for a Labour'd Treatise publish'd An. 1694. making evident from Records History and Law Books all that may stand in need of proof upon this Subject and answering the most plausible Objections against such an Oath as is here contended for Upon the whole to engage by Oath to defend his Majesties Person and maintain the Act of Settlement would be so far from engaging to Fight against God's Providence that to refuse it would argue a distrust of Providence and to incur the imputation of being against the Present Government rather than disoblige any Body who possibly may come into power were in Truth to oppose that Providence which has made the presentsettlement and is likely to protect us in the discharge of our Duty to it For the Government to require such an Oath would be so far from implying its being in as desperate a condition as a Papist brought to Extream Vnction That on the other side to decline it would argue an unsoundness in some Vital Part and such a weakness as will not admit of a gentle Purge This would be far from obliging Men to Swear to a moot point as possibly some of superficial knowledge in our Constitution may hold while they with all their Sophistry can never reconcile their two contrary Allegiances to the Law of God or of this Land or to common sense If the example of general Insurrections in former Ages be urged to shew the insecurity of the most expressive Oaths of Allegiance it is to be considered 1. That most if not all of 'em were in Defence of the Kingdom which comes not within the present Question 2. It may easily be prov'd that few if any of 'em have been against any King till he by the Corstitution of this Monarchy ceased to be King 3. No Rising against any Government which never had Legal Settlement and had no other foundation but Force can come within this Question the obligation continuing no longer than the Force did which is a full answer to the rejecting the Protector Richard Cromwell after