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	oath_n	subject_n	1,037	5	6.8350	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41219	The resolving of conscience upon this question whether upon such a supposition or case as is now usually made (the King will not discharge his trust, but is bent or seduced to subvert religion, laws, and liberties) subjects may take arms and resist, and whether that case be now ... / by H. Fern.	Ferne, H. (Henry), 1602-1662.	1642 (1642)	Wing F802; ESTC R25400	33,929	69

and Parliament fill all with rapine and confusion draw all to a Folkmoot and make every Shire a severall Government These are Dangers and Evils not conceived in the phansie but such as reason tells us may follow and experience hath often and this day doth shew us do arise upon this Power of resistence and for the preventing of which the Apostle gave his reasons against resisting even of abused powers as we heard above Lastly therefore Seeing some must be trusted in every State 't is reason the highest and finall trust should be in the higher or supreme Power with whom next to himself God hath intrusted the whole Kingdom all other that have power and trust having it under him as sent by him Good reason I say that the supreme Power which is worth 10000 of the Subjects should have the best security on its side for as much as Order the life of a Commonwealth is so best preserved and not so endangered by Tyranny as by factions division tumults power of resistence on the Subjects part and this is according to the drift of the Apostles reasons against resistence as before they were laid down Well now unto all that hath hitherto been said from Scripture and Reason let Conscience adde the oath of Supremacy and Allegiance also the late Protestation and consider what duty lyes upon every subject by the former to defend the Kings person and Right against what Power soever and how by the latter he hath protested and undertaken before Almighty God in the first place to defend the same and then what can Conscience conclude from the Premises that the Prince hath his Power for the good of his people true but that Power cannot be prevalent for the good and protection of his people unlesse it be preferved to him intire unlesse he hath the Power of Deniall and the chief command of Arms or that the Prince hath a limited Power according to the Laws established true but if Conscience be perswaded he does not hold himselfe within those bounds so fixed can it be perswaded also that the people may reassume that Power they never had or take that sword out of his hand that God hath put into it No Conscience will look at that Power as the Ordinance of God and the abuse of that Power as a judgement and scourge of God upon the people and will use not Arms to resist the Ordinance under pretence of resisting the abuse but cryes and prayers to God petitions to the Prince denialls of obedience to his unjust commands denialls of subsides aids and all faire means that are fit for Subjects to use and when done all if not succeed will rather suffer then resist so would a truly informed Conscience resolve were the Prince indeed what he is supposed to be and did he do indeed as the people are made to fear and believe he will do Hitherto we have been in the examination of the Principle upon which they go that plead for resistence and we have found both Scripture and Reason speak plainly against the resisting even of abused Powers professed enemies to Religion actuall subverters of the Peoples Liberties how much more against the resisting of a Prince that professeth the same Religion which we freely enjoy promiseth the maintaining of that and our Liberties onely upon a supposall He will not stand to His word will overthrow all This however it may seem lesse reasonable to the Statist in the way of Policie permitting as little as he can to the goodnesse of the Prince or the providence of God for the safety of the State yet ought it to satisfie a Christian in the way of Conscience which when it comes to a desire of being safe will not rest till it have a sure ground which here it hath against resistence laid downe by Scripture and Reasons even the Apostles reasons so powerfull against resistence The summe of all is this Conscience hears the Apostle expressely forbid all under the higher Power to resist finds no other clear Scripture to limit it finds that the limitations given will not consist with it for the reasons of them that are drawn from the election of the People and the Covenant supposed therein from the necessity of means of safety in every State to provide for it self were as strong in the Romane State as any nay are supposed by those that urge them to be the fundamentals of every State and so resistence is forbidden as well here as there in the Romane State which is also cleared by the Apostles reasons shewing the Power of resistence cannot be the meane of safety but strikes at Order and Power it self though made against tyrannicall and abused Powers as before often insinuated Therefore Conscience will not dare to go against the Apostles expresse prohibition lest it fall into the judgement denounced by him But if there shall be any Conscience as strongly carried away with the name of a Parliament as the Papists are with the name of the Church and thinking Religion may be defended any way that upon supposall that their Prince is minded to change it which is another humour of Popery will not be perswaded that the resistence made upon the present supposall is unlawfull against Gods Word and reason I am sure such a Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it is lawfull but must want that clear ground it ought to have especially in a matter so expresly against the Apostle and of such high concernment as damnation must needs runne blindly and headlong by a strange implicit Faith upon so great a hazard SECT. VI NOw we come to the Application of their principle to the present where we must enquire according to the second and third Generalls whether the resistence now made be such as is pretended to by them in such a case as they supposed and then whether Conscience can be truely perswaded the King is such and so minded as in the case He is supposed to be The chief considerations of these two Generalls are matters of fact The principle was examined by Scripture and Reason these admit the Judgement of sense and are cleared by what we heare and see which Judgement of sense is not so easily captivated by an implicit Faith as that of Reason is insomuch as Conscience here cannot be so blinded but it may see that were the principall good on which they rest yet this resistence which they make is not such as they pretend to and that this King whom they resist is not such as in the case they supposed him to be not such as ought to be resisted according to their own grants The second generall was That the Resistence now made is not such as is pretended to by them that plead for it and therefore Conscience cannot be truly perswaded it may lawfully bear part in it or assist them that in the pursuit of it pretend one thing and do another It was premised at the beginning that such a resistence should be