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	law_n	oath_n	1,012	5	7.8657	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52522	Wonderful predictions of Nostredamus, Grebner, David Pareus, and Antonius Torquatus wherein the grandeur of Their present Majesties, the happiness of England, and downfall of France and Rome, are plainly delineated : with a large preface, shewing, that the crown of England has been not obscurely foretold to Their Majesties William III and Mary, late Prince and Princess of Orange, and that the people of this ancient monarchy have duly contributed thereunto, in the present assembly of Lords and Commons, notwithstanding the objections of men and different extremes.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Grebner, Ezekiel.; Nostradamus, 1503-1566.; Pareus, David, 1548-1622.; Torquato, Antonio, 15th cent.	1689 (1689)	Wing N1401; ESTC R261	72,982	73

in the main lose the Name of King then no Man can say that Allegiance continues But that so it was before the reputed Conquest appears by the Confessor's Laws where they declare the Duty of the King. But the King because he is Vicar to the Supreme King is constituted to this end that he should rule his earthly Kingdom and the People of God and above all should reverence God's Holy Church and defend it from injurious Persons and pluck from it Wrong-doers and destroy and wholly ruine them which unless he does not so much as the Name of King will remain in him c. Hoveden shews how this was receiv'd by William 1. The King and his Deputy or Locum tenens in his absence is constituted to this end c. in substance as above Which unless he does the true Name of King will not remain in him And as the Confessor's Laws have it in which there is some mistake in the Transcriber of Hoveden otherwise agreeing with them Pope John witnesses That he loses the Name of King who does not what belongs to a King which is no Evidence that this Doctrine is deriv'd from the Pope of Rome The Pope only confirms the Constitution or gives his Approbation of it perhaps that the Clergy of those Times might raise no Cavils from a supposed Divine Right And to shew that this is not only for violating the Rights of the Church the Confessor's Laws inform us that Pipin and Charles his Son not yet Kings but Princes under the French King foolishly wrote to the Pope asking him if the Kings of France ought to remain content with the bare Name of King By whom it was answer'd They are to be called Kings who watch over defend and rule God's Church and his People c. Hoveden's Transcriber gives the same in substance but thro' a miserable mistake in Chronology will have it that the Letter was wrote by Pipin and his Son to W. 1. Lambart's Version of St. Edward's Laws goes on to Particulars among others That the King is to keep without diminution all the Lands Honours Dignities Rights and Liberties of the Crown That he is to do all things in his Kingdom according to Law and by the Judgment of the Proceres or Barons of the Realm and these things he is to swear before he is Crown'd By the Coronation-Oaths before the reputed Conquest and since all agreeing in Substance every King was to promise the People three things 1. That God's Church and all the People in the Kingdom shall enjoy true Peace 2. That he will forbid Rapine and all Injustice in all Orders of Men. 3. That he will promise and command Justice and Mercy in all Judgments And 't is observable That Bracton who wrote in the time of H. 3. transcribes that very Formulary or rather Abridgment of the Oath which was taken by the Saxon Kings In Bracton's time 't is certain the Oath was more explicit tho' reducible to those Heads and 't is observable that Bracton says The King is Created and Elected to this end that he should do Justice to all Where he manifestly shews the King's Oath to be his part of a binding Contract it being an Agreement with the People while they had power to chuse With Bracton agrees Fleta and both inform us that in their days there was no scruple in calling him a Tyrant and no King who oppresses his People violatâ dominatione as one has it or violentâ as the other either the Rule of Government being violated or with a violent Government both of which are of the like import The Mirrour at least puts this Contract out of dispute shewing the very Institution of the Monarchy before a Right was vested in any single Family or Person When forty Princes who had the Supreme Power here chose from among them a King to Reign over them and govern the People of God and to maintain the holy Christian Faith and to defend their Persons and Goods in quiet by the Rules of Right And at the beginning they caused the King to swear That he will maintain the holy Christian Faith with all his Power and will rule his People justly without regard to any Person and shall be obedient to suffer Right or Justice as well as others his Subjects And what that Right and Justice was in the last result the Confessor's Laws explain when they shew that he may lose the Name of King. These Laws were not only receiv'd by William 1. and in the Codex of the Laws of H. 1. but were the Laws which in the early Contests which the Barons had with their encroaching Kings they always urg'd to have maintain'd and that their Sanction might not be question'd the Observance of them was made part of the Coronation-Oath till some Archbishops careful only of their Clerical Rights provided for no more of those Laws than concerned them By that Oath which is upon Record and in ancient Prints the King is to swear to grant keep and confirm among others especially the Laws Customs and Freedoms granted the Clergy and People by the most glorious and holy King Edward And even after the King 's taking this Oath they were to be ask'd if they would consent to have him their King and Leige-lord Which is the Peoples part of the Contract and thus the Contract becomes mutual To which purpose the Learned Sir Henry Spelman cites Cujacius the great Civilian to shew that Faith between a Lord and Vassal is reciprocal and gives an Instance in the Oath of one of our Saxon Kings Knute for the proof of its being so here between King and Subject And with Cujacius agrees the no less judicious Civilian Pufendorf When says he the Power is conferr'd upon a King there is a mutual Translation of Right and a reciprocal Promise If it be objected That tho' this was at the beginning a Contract with a Free People it ceas'd to be so from the time of the Conquest I answer 1. Till there be a Consent and Agreement to some Terms of Governing and Subjection 't will be difficult if possible to prove any Right in the Conqueror but what may be cast off as soon as there is an Opportunity 2. William 1. was not receiv'd as a Conqueror but upon a mutual Contract upon which old Historians say Foedus pepigit He made a League with the People which comes to the same thing with what the Holy Writ records of King David That the People made a League with him His Coronation-Oath was the same with that which was taken by his Saxon Predecessors except that the Circumstances of that time requir'd an additional Clause for keeping an equal Hand between English and French. 'T is not to be doubted but that the Norman Casuists inform'd him that this related only to Legal Justice but that in Matters of Grace and Favour he

Judges in B. R. in the time of Q. Eliz. on my side King R. 3. had granted certain Priviledges to the Burgesses of Glocester with a Saving to himself and his Heirs and it was agreed by all the Justices That altho' the Words are Saving to himself and his Heirs it shall be taken for a perpetual Saving which shall go to his Successors This therefore they adjudg'd to reach the Queen who 't is well known was not Heir to R. 3. The great Objection is That in the Contests for the Crown between the Families of York and Lancaster each Side pretended Title by Proximity of Blood and as either prevail'd their Right was acknowledg'd to be according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature To which I answer As appears in the very Objection this was apply'd to those who had no such Right of Proximity as well as those who had and thus 't was to R. 3. as well as to E. 4. And even the Election of H. 4. after the Deposing and Relinquishing of R. 2. with his own express Consent is by the same Parliament that says so much of the Title of E. 4. called an Usurpation upon R. 2. Wherefore if this Record be any way leading to our Judgments no Deposing or Resignation whatever be the Inducement can be of any force Whence 't is plain that all these are but Complements to the longest Sword however they neither set aside former Authorities nor establish any Right for the future at least not more for the Heirs of E. 4. than the Parliament of R. 3. did for his Heirs Yet whoever comes next by Right of Proximity according to any Settlement in being I will not deny that they enjoy the Crown according to God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature for as the Great Fortescue has it All Laws publish'd by Men have their Authority from God and upon which the Author of Jovian argues and supposes all Laws of Men to be the Laws and Ordinances of God Yet who can say but these Humane Creatures or Ordinances of Men may be altered as they were made And tho' it may seem strange to some yet I may with great Authority affirm That when the People had determin'd the Right on the Side of R. 3. he was King as much according to God's Law as E. 4. For Pufendorf holds That where the Question is what Degree or what Line is best the declared Will of the People determines the Controversie since every one is presum'd to understand his own Intention and the People that is now is to be thought the same with that by which the Order of Succession was constituted But let Men argue as nicely as they please for a Right or Sovereignty inseparable from the Person of the next in Blood to the last lawful King let this fall upon J. 2. the reputed Prince of Wales or any other Person of unclouded Birth and Fame and let them argue upon the Declaration 1 E. 4. That Allegiance is there due by God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Certain it is that the Statute 11 H. 7. above-mention'd was not only made in an Age of greater Light but being a subsequent Law derogates from whatever is contrary in the former By this last it is declared to be against all Laws That Subjects should suffer for doing true Duty and Service of Allegiance to the King de facto which is as much as if 't were exprest to be against God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature By the necessary Consequence of which Allegiance is due to a King de facto according to all these Laws Wherefore whoever denies Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary or maintains a contrary one to J. 2. offends against God's Law Man's Law and the Law of Nature Nor whatever some imagine can the Proviso at the end of this Statute in the least impair its Force as to what I use it for The Proviso runs thus Provided always That no Person or Persons shall take any Benefit or Advantage by this Act which shall hereafter decline from his or their said Allegiance Where said Allegiance shews it to be meant of Allegiance to the King de facto whose Service is called true Duty and no Man surely can think the meaning to be that if after such Service they turn to the other Side or become Traytors to the present Power they shall suffer for the former Service as Traytors against him that had the Right either during the Reign of the King in being which would be an unlikely owning the ejected Power or hereafter if that should come to be restor'd which would be far from answering the apparent End of that Clause which is to keep Men in Obedience to him who has the Power of punishing the Disobedient Wherefore the plain meaning must be that no Man who departs from his Duty of Allegiance to the present King shall save himself by pleading that he had been in Arms or had done him any signal Service In short this was to be no Corban to answer for any following Departure from Duty 4. I think I have with due regard to all colourable Objections made it appear That Allegiance may in some Cases be withdrawn from one who had been King till the occasion of such Withdrawing or Judgment upon it And this I have done not only from the Equity and reserved Cases necessarily implied but from the express Original and continuing Contract between Prince and People which with the Legal Judicature impowred to determine concerning it I have likewise shewn and exemplified by the Custom of the Kingdom both before the reputed Conquest and since And have occasionally proved That tho' Oaths of Allegiance may reach to Heirs according to special Limitations as was 26 Hen. 8. yet in common intendment by Heirs of a King or Crown no more is meant than such as succeed to it according to the Law positive or implied And that whoever comes to the Crown upon either Allegiance is as much due to him by the Law of God and Nature as it was to the nighest in Blood Or to use the Words of Bishop Sanderson Dignity varies not with the change of Persons Whence if any Subject or Soldier swear Fidelity to his King or General the Oath is to be meant to be made unto them also who succeed to that Dignity And when the Crown continues in the Blood this especially by what I have above shewn puts the Obligation of Allegiance to the King in being out of controversie unless it can be made appear that the Right of the former King remains or that there is some Settlement of the Crown yet in force which ties it strictly to the next I come now to prove That the People of England are actually discharged from their Oaths of Allegiance to J. 2. and were lately restored to that Latitude of Choice which I have shewn to be their Original

than they are lawful and honest 4. Saving the Power of a Superior Whence if a Son in his Father's Family swear to do a Thing lawful in it self but the Father not knowing it commands another thing which hinders the doing that which is sworn he is not bound by his Oath because by the Divine Natural Law he is bound to obey his Father And he who has sworn not to go out of his House being cited to appear before a Lawful Judge is bound to go out notwithstanding his Oath the Reason is because the Act of one ought not to prejudice the Right of another These two last Instances added to the Consideration of a Legal King will qualifie the Oath declaring it not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and abhorring the Traiterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are Commissioned by him This I think I may say with warrant from Bishop Sanderson That no Man is bound by this Oath to act against Law under colour of the King's Commission nor to permit such Actions if it be in his power to hinder them the Common Fundamental Law being in this Case the Superior which he is to obey and which is to explain and limit the Sense of Acts of Parliament seeming to the contrary To Bishop Sanderson I may add Grotius who runs the Prerogative of Kings as far as any Man in reason can Yet he allows of reserved Cases in which Allegiance may be withdrawn tho' there is no express Letter of Law for it As 1. Where the People being yet free command their future King by way of continuing Precept Whether there be any such with us can be no doubt to them who read the Coronation Oaths from time to time required and taken upon Elections of some Kings and the receiving others by reason of prior Elections and Stipulations with their Predecessors 2. If a King has abdicated or abandon'd his Authority or manifestly holds it as derelict indeed he says he is not to be thought to have done this who only manages his Affairs negligently But surely no Man can think but the Power of J. 2. is derelict And he cites three Cases wherein even Barelay the most zealous Asserter of Kingly Power allows Reservations to the People 1. If the King treats his People with outragious Cruelty 2. If with an hostile Mind he seek the Destruction of his People 3. If he alien his Kingdom This Grotius denies to have any effect and therefore will not admit among the reserved Cases But if no Act which is ineffectual in Law will justifie the withdrawing Allegiance then none of the other Instances will hold for to that purpose they are equally ineffectual Yet who doubts but the King doing what in him lies to alien his Kingdom gives Pretence for Foreign Usurpations as King John did to the Pope's And whoever goes to restore the Authority of the See of Rome here be it only in Spirituals endeavors to put the Kingdom under another Head than what our Laws establish and to that purpose aliens the Dominion Nor can it be any great Question but the aliening any Kingdom or Country part of the Dominion of England will fall under the same Consideration which will bring the Case of Ireland up to this where the Protestants are disarm'd and the Power which was arm'd for the Protection of the English there is put into the Hands of the Native Papists so that it is not likely to be restor'd to its Settlement at home or dependence upon England without great Expence of Blood and Treasure Even the Author of Jovian owns that the King's Law is his most authoritative Command and he denies that the Roman Emperour had any Right to enslave the whole People by altering the Constitution of the Roman Government from a Civil into a Tyrannical Dominion or from a Government wherein the People had Liberty and Property into such a Government as the Persian was and the Turkish now is c. Tho' by the Roman Lex Regia which himself takes notice of the People had transferred all their Power to the Emperor yet we see the highest Asserter of Imperial Power allows of Reservations If says Bishop Bilson a Prince should go about to subject his Kingdom to a Foreign Realm or change the Form of the Common-wealth from Imperie to Tyranny or neglect the Laws establish'd by Common Consent of Prince and People to execute his own Pleasure in these and other Cases which might be named if the Nobles and Commons join together to defend their ancient and accustomed Liberty Regiment and Laws they may not well be accounted Rebels And soon after he speaks of a Power for preserving the Foundation Freedom and Form of their Commonwealths which they forepriz'd when they first consented to have a King. Where his meaning cannot be restrain'd to express Provisions excluding such as may be equitably intended And not to heap Authorities with this agrees the Divine Plato who after he has affirm'd that the highest Degrees of Punishment belong to those who will misguide a Ship or prescribe a dangerous new way of Physick having brought in Socrates asking whether Magistrates ought not to be subject to the like Laws himself asks What shall be determined if we require all things to be done according to a certain Form and set over the Laws themselves one either chose by the Suffrages of the People or by Lot who slighting the Laws shall for the sake of Lucre or to gratifie his Lust not knowing what is fit attempt to do things contrary to the Institution This Man both he and Socrates condemn as a greater Criminal than those which he had mention'd whose Crime he aggravates as 't is an acting against those Laws which thro' a long Experience had been ordain'd by their Counsel and Industry who had opportunely and duly weighed every thing and had prevail'd upon the People to submit to them 2d To proceed to Positive Law I shall shew how the Contract between Prince and People stood and hath been taken both before the reputed Conquest and since Where 't will appear 1. That Allegiance might and may in some Cases be withdrawn in the Life-time of one who continued King until the occasion of such withdrawing or Judgment upon it 2. That there was and is an establish'd Judicature for this without need of recurring to that Equity which the People are suppos'd to have reserv'd 3. That there has been no absolute Hereditary Right to the Crown of England from the beginning of the Monarchy but that the People have had a Latitude for setting up whom of the Blood they pleas'd upon the determination of the Interest of any particular Person except where there has been a Settlement of the Crown in force 4. That they were lately restored to such Latitude 1. If the King not observing his coronation-Coronation-Oath