Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	authority_n	king_n	subject_n	1,333	5	6.6132	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26069	The royal apology, or, An answer to the rebels plea wherein the most noted anti-monarchial tenents, first, published by Doleman the Jesuite, to promote a bill of exclusion against King James, secondly, practised by Bradshaw and the regicides in the actual murder of King Charles the 1st, thirdly, republished by Sidney and the associators to depose and murder His present Majesty, are distinctly consider'd : with a parallel between Doleman, Bradshaw, Sidney and other of the true-Protestant party.	Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1684 (1684)	Wing A4038; ESTC R648	26,293	69

with outward Pomp doth naturally make Impressions of awe and reverence towards his Person Secondly The Oath which he then takes may expel all jealous Fears disposing his Subjects chearfully to submit to his future Government For when the King who is not responsible to them for any of his Actions shall condescend thus publickly to promise his People in the Presence of that God who gave him his Trust and to whom alone he must render an Account for the management of it That he will govern his Subjects according to Law That he will preserve Religion from Heresy and Schism defend their Persons from wrong and violence secure their Estates from Fraud and Rapine Such assurance as this must needs enlarge their Affections to their Prince make their submission more hearty their Obedience more chearful since under his Government if it is not their own Fault they may rationally expect to live a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty It appears I hope from these Premises notwithstanding this or any other Objection to the contrary That the Kings Power in respect of it's Original is Absolute i. e. He received it from none but God Neither from the Pope nor any other Forraign Prince much less from his own People But now when we speak of the Kings Authority with respect to the Execution and Administration of it the Case is very different For the Kings of England out of their abundant Grace and Favour and to make their Government more easie and acceptable to their Subjects have suffer'd themselves to be so limited in the Exercise of their Power That they can neither make Laws nor raise Taxes but in Parliament much less can they pretend to take away the Life or dispose of the Estate of the meanest of their Subjects but by due course of Law And therefore in this second Consideration of his Authority viz. the Execution and Administration of it The King of England is not an Absolute but a limited Monarch And indeed if these Republicans were not much more forward to remind the King of his Duty than to discharge their own these things did not need to be repeated For the King hath very often most gratiously promised That he will govern by and according to the Laws of the Land and not otherwise And that he will use the Power Trust and Office committed to him for the good and benefit of the People and for the preservation of their Rights and Liberties All this is readily granted in the very words of the Objectors Only this Phrase That he will govern according to the Laws and not otherwise for the avoiding of mistakes must be a little explained There are some Men either through Ignorance or Malice who have fancied because the King is obliged to govern by Law that therefore he must always act according to the Letter of it So as that it shall not be in his Power for instance especially when it is their Interest to restrain him either to Pardon Capital Offenders to Change the manner of their Death or to mitigate the rigour of the Law on any other occasion And in fine these confident Reformers who trade in Post-scripts more than Bracton do talk of the Kings Prerogative at such a rate as if it were an Arbitrary Illegal Encroachment and are so extravagant as to fancy That by diminishing the Kings Prerogative they advance the Laws and that to oppose the King is to defend the Kingdom In charity therefore to these men and to rectify their mistakes I shall briefly lay down the nature of the Kings Prerogative What it is how it comes to be Establish'd And whether as is pretended it be destructive to the Liberty of the Subject The Word (a) Jurecons hac voce varie utuntur modo pro authoritate eminentia quadam modo pro jure quodam praecipuo speciali seu privilegio Gal. Lex Jurid verb Praerogat Prerogative to omit other Significations Foreign to our purpose doth properly denote some special peculiar Priviledg or Preheminence granted by Law Hence the Kings Prerogative is very fitly styled by Sir H. (b) Spelm. Gloss Praerog verb. SPELMAN Lex Regiae Dignitatis which in (c) 1 Instit cap. 5. sect 125. p. 90. Sir Edw. Cooks words may be thus Translated The Royal Prerogative legally extends to all Powers Preheminences and Priviledges which the Law giveth to the Crown And Littleton saith our Author speaketh of the Kings Prerogative but twice in all his Books viz. § 125 128. and in both places as part of the Laws of England From whence our new Politicians may please to observe That the Kings Prerogative is established by Law and his Majesty hath as good Law for his Royal Prerogatives viz. The descent of the Crown to the next in Blood The Power of Calling and Dissolving Parliaments The Negative Voice The Power of the Militia Pardoning Offenders c. I say His Majesty hath as good Law for these and all other his Prerogatives as any Subject hath for his Paternal Estate Whoever therefore shall presume to dispute these Priviledges of the Crown he must not think me uncharitable whilst I tell him He is an Enemy to the fundamental Laws of England and a Betrayer of the Rights of the Kingdom If the Case be thus may some say If these Royal Prerogatives are so sacred as not to be touch'd it would then be a very suitable undertaking to enlarge your c. and to acquaint us more distinctly what they are and where we may find them In answer to which Demand we are thus instructed by that Loyal Judge JENKINS (a) Jenk Rediv. p. 136. The Kings Prerogative and the Subjects Liberty are determined and bounded and admeasured by the written Law what they are We do not hold the King to have any more Power neither doth his Majesty claim any other but what the Law gives him The right method therefore to be inform'd in this matter is to search the written Laws with the learned Interpretations upon them For though these Statutes are not Constitutive of the Royal Prerogatives All (b) Jenk Rediv. p. 4. Kings had them the said Powers have no beginning i. e. They are so antient we cannot trace their Original yet they are Declaratory of them I say though these Priviledges of the Crown are most of them antecedent to our Acts of Parliament and the written determined Cases of our Laws and consequently are not primarily established by them yet they are so often either explained confirm'd or otherwise there mention'd that he who is conversant in those publick Writings must needs know what they are But since every one hath not the Leisure or the Ability for so laborious a Task those therefore who shall desire Compendio sapere they may please to peruse a little Treatise called Jura Coronae or His Majesties Royal Rights and Prerogatives Asserted And amongst several others there mentioned and explained they will find this Prerogative That the

World These are my present Thoughts of this difficult Passage And whether I have yet given it's proper Sence is humbly submitted to the Impartial Reader But whether I have or have not the Republican Objector is again desired to take notice That whatever else can be the meaning of these Words yet our Bracton doth not affirm this Curia to be superior to the King Such an Interpretation being inconsistent with Grammar as well as Loyalty We have this Rule in our Syntaxis that If the Relative be referr'd to two Clauses or more then the Relative shall be put in the Plural Number If therefore this Relative word Superior do refer not only to Deum but also to Legem and Curiam it should not be Superiorem in the Singular but Superiores in the Plural Bracton was not only very learned and judicious as to his Sence but also considering the Age he lived in and the Subject he discours'd on very polite and elegant as to his Style and consequently we must not suppose him guilty of so gross a Solaecism which the meanest School-Boy is able to correct If the Patrons of the Faction who are very hard to please shall think fit to Reply That it is a most unusual and Pedantick Method to interpret a Law-Maxim by a Rule in Grammar and thence are unalterably resolv'd to insist upon it That unless we can explain in what Sence this Curia is Superior to the King all that hitherto hath been said on this occasion is trifling and explosive If I say these Republicans will not otherwise be contented let them then take it thus Rex habet superiorem Curiam i. e. The King can do more with the Advice and Assistance of his Curia then without it Or more plainly thus The Kings of England have more Power and Capacity in Parliament then out of Parliament If this will not satisfie Cras respondebo For at present I think fit to add no more in this matter This passage of BRACTON which hath given us so large a Digression being thus dispatch'd we shall now return to our former Discourse 'T is undeniably evident from the Authentick Records of the Kingdom not to mention private Authorities That the King of England hath no Superior but God That His Majesty did not receive his Authority from any Earthly Power That he is not Foeudatory either to the Pope or any other Foreign Prince much less to his own People That he was not admitted to his Kingdoms with any Limitations or Conditions As the Kings of Poland and some others are And consequently since the Terms Absolute and Conditional are opposite and contradistinct If the Kings Power and Authority with respect to its Original Efficient Cause be neither Conditional nor Dependent it is then Absolute as well as Independent And therefore we may safely conclude in this sence as now explained The King of England is an absolute Monarch But here I expect it will be reply'd and 't is a very Popular Objection That the Coronation Oath in which there is a plain Contract and Bargain between the King and his People doth sufficiently intimate That the Crown is Conditional i. e. was conferr'd upon his Majesty with certain Limitations and Conditions For the King having promised to keep and defend the Laws and rightful Customs of the Kingdom c. He is then publickly shew'd to the People and their consent to his Coronation being first demanded he is by that solemn Action accepted as their King Plainly insinuating that without such a Promise on his part he would not have been accepted on theirs And from hence Mr. SIDNEY a very Authentick Author with some men doth infer That there is a mutual Compact between the King and his Subjects and if the King doth not perform his Duty the Subjects are discharg'd from theirs His words are these That those Laws were to be observ'd and the Oaths taken by them having the Force of a Contract between Magistrate and People could not be violated without danger of dissolving the whole Fabrick Which in plain English is this If the King breaks his Oath and doth not govern according to Law he then forfeits his Crown and the People are absolved from their Obedience In Answer to which we are to take notice that this plausible Objection is raised upon a false Foundation viz. That the Coronation Oath makes the King which is a most gross as well as dangerous Mistake the King being as perfect and compleatly King before his Coronation as after 'T is a Maxim in our Law The King never dyes There being no such thing here in England as an Interregnum For the very same moment that the Predecessor deceaseth the Rights of Majesty descend and fall upon the Successor And herein I am instructed by those eminent Lawyers the Lord Chancellor Egerton and Sir Edw. Coke By the former thus The Soveraignty is in the Person of the King L. Chanc. Egerton Postnat p 73. the Crown is but an Ensign of Soveraignty The Investure and Coronation are but Ceremonies of Honour and Majesty The King is an absolute and perfect King before he be Crowned and without those Ceremonies By the latter in these Words If the Crown descend to the rightful Heir he is Rex Cooks Inst part 3. p. 7. before Coronation For by the Law of England there is no interregnum and Coronation is but an Ornament or Solemnity of Honour And so it was resolv'd by all the Judges Hil. 1. Jac. in the Case of Watson and Clark Seminary Priests For by the Law there is always a King in whose name the Laws are to he maintain'd and executed otherwise Justice should fail Thus he But that I may effectually convince our Associators of their mistake in this matter I thus argue ad hominem Was his present Majesty actually King i. e. King de facto as well as de jure before his Coronation or was he not If they acknowledg that he was the Cause is then decided But if they say he was not I must then remind them of another point of Law laid down by that Oracle of the Law in the preceding words a Pardon granted by a King de jure that is not also de facto is void Now when they have first consider'd That the Act of Oblivion was made before the King was Crown'd I shall then leave it to themselves to determine the Case Doubtless upon second Thoughts which are usually the best they will readily confess That his present Majesty was actually King before his Coronation and consequently That the Oath which he then took was not any Condition preparatory to his admittance to the Kingly Power Coronation then is but a Ceremony and no part of his Title I say it is but a Ceremony and yet that I may remove some impertinent Scruples against it it is no trifling insignificant Ceremony For First The solemn Splendor in which the King appears in that Action the generality of People being much affected