Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A49129
|
A resolution of certain queries concerning submission to the present government ... by a divine of the Church of England, as by law establisht.
|
Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing L2980; ESTC R21420
|
45,635
|
72
|
Reports one Shirly a French-man and some Subjects of the King of Portugal having conspired with Lopez for the death of the Queen were Indicted for acting contra Legiantiae suae debitum against their due Allegiance and were found Guilty and Executed And this the Law calls a local Allegiance When Cities and Souldiers are taken in War they may to preserve their Lives swear to the Conqueror never to bear Arms against him by which Oath the condition of their former Prince is no way made worse for had they refused such an Oath they should have lost their Lives which by this means being preserved they may be in a condition to serve their Prince in any thing else but in fighting against him who spared his Lise Besides it is well known that many good and wholesome Laws were made by such as were Kings only de facto not de jure which are still in force with us as they were with the Subjects that lived in their several Reigns whence it follows that we owe and ought to yield Allegiance to the King de facto and observe his Laws and to Pray for him as King. On the Deposing of Richard the Second in a Provincial Synod in Canterbury under Henry the Fourth whose Title was only de facto it was decreed that Prayers should be made pro ipsius Regni salute as he had desired And Arundel then Arch-Bishop of Canterbury tells the King that the Clergy did pugnare precibus sacrificiis apud deum pro victoriis ei obtinendis Aethelwolfe Anno 854. was made King while his Elder Brother was living yet Elston and Swithon Bishops prayed solemnly for him So the Bishops prayed for Will. Rufus his elder Brother living St. Anselme also though banished by Henry the First did him Homage and prayed for him And although our five first Kings beginning at William the Conqueror came irregularly to the Crown The first by Conquest the second and third while their elder Brother lived the fourth reigned when his Predecessor had a Daughter living which was Maude the Empress the fifth while his Mother the right Heir was living yet were the stated Forms of Prayers still continued in the Ancient Missals respectively Nor can we well be excessive in our deference to those who under God have been the chief Instruments of the Common Safety for if the Law of Nature which obligeth every particular person to self-preservation and much more to the preservation of the Publick Welfare in which case we may vim in repellere be prior and paramont to any subsequent Law of a more private concern we of this Nation which were so near to destruction had all reason imaginable to secure our selves against such violent and illegal attempts as were made not only against our selves but against the whole Protestant interest throughout all Europe having such dreadful instances of Persecution in the neighbouring Nations of France and Piedmont for the Question is not whether we should chuse Sin rather than Affliction in which case the Apostle hath determined that we may not do evil that good may come of it but whether of two temporal evils the least is to be chosen or whether when we are left without a Governor we should set a Bramble over us to rent and tare our flesh or the healing Olive under whose branches we might set down in peace and security It is very observable what God says concerning Jehoiakim the wicked Son of a good Father Josiah Jer. 22.15 Shalt thou reign because thou closest thy self in Cedar did not thy Father eat and drink and do justice and judgment and then it was well with him But thine eyes and thy heart are not but for thy covetousness to shed innocent blood and for oppression and violence to do it therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah King of Judah they shall not lament for him saying Ah Lord or Ah his Glory I shall therefore leave it to the serious consideration of my Brethren whether it be more eligible to pray for them in our Liturgy who have preserved us in the free use of it or for such as would have taken it from us and imposed the Mass book and Legends instead of that and the Scriptures by which we should have been reduced to this dilemma either we must obey to the violation of our Conscience or for our disobedience we and our Families must be utterly destroyed If yet upon consideration of what hath been here said and what our own judgments may add we are still in aequilibrio and do doubt to whom the Title of the Crown doth of right belong I doubt not but the Law of Charity to our selves our Families and love to the Protestant Religion may be of great weight to turn the Scales and warrant our resolution in a case so doubtful Bishop Sanderson Praelect 5. p. 176. puts this Question When any one takes the Government on him having by force driven out the lawful Prince or so streightned him that he cannot pursue his right which is invaded not on a doubtful right but by manifest wrong what shall a good Subject that hath sworn Allegiance to the oppressed Prince do in this Case His Answer is It seems to me that it is not only lawful for a good Subject to obey the Laws of the Prince in being and to do what he is commanded modo non sit factu turpe aut injustum if the thing be not in it self evil or unjust But also that if the condition of humane affairs require it there may be a necessity of obeying or he may be judged to fail of his duty and whereas he had said that Laws made by him that wanted lawful power did not bind in Conscience he answers that these things are not repugnant because though the Subject be bound to do what the Law requires yet he is not bound to that Law but to himself and his Country The Obligation is annexed to the Law that concerns himself and is truly a Law which he thus explains Seeing it is the duty of a pious and prudent man to consider not only what is lawful but what becomes him and may be expedient to others a good Subject may be bound to do that for the welfare of himself and fellow subjects to which by Law he is not bound which obligation ariseth from the duty he oweth to himself and to his Country that Wars and Rapines may be prevented and we may live peaceable under them without violating the Faith we owe to the rightful Heir But then he raiseth the Question Seeing no man can serve two Masters especially of contrary interest how can we please the one without displeasing the other His Answer is It may be presumed that the rightful Prince will consent because the Subject herein doth not so much serve the Possessor as the Common-wealth the safety whereof no less concerns the injured Prince than the present Possessor and probably more for as the
preserve them to the King and to his Heirs and Successors and him and them to defend to the utmost of our power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown or Dignity Supposing then there be an Attempt made to deprive the Heir Apparent of the Right of Succession there is an Obligation on the Subjects not only to disclose and make it known to such Heir and Successor but him and them to defend to the utmost of our power To this purpose Bishop Taylor says second Vol. p. 137. Where the right of Succession is in a Family by Law or Time immemorial no Prince can prejudice his Heir or the People committed to him for it cannot without consent be alienated because Persons cannot be disposed of as Slaves or Beasts so that in this and some other cases the King loseth his Authority and then the force of the Obligation ceaseth also And how good an Opinion the Ancient Clergy and others had of the Peers and People that fought in defence of the Magna Charta and against the Usurpations of the Popes may appear by the Writers of that and the succeeding Ages concerning Simon Montfort The Chronicle of Meilrois lately Printed by the Bishop of Oxford p. 231. says Occubuit cum multis ex magnatibus Anglicis qui venerant ad bellum ut certarent pro justitiâ Angliae cujus post modum Justitiae infallibile signum fuit crebra miraculorum exhibiti diminutus exhibita circa Hugonem summum Angliae dispensatorem Simonem de Montfort qui occubuerunt pro justitia decertentes idio nonnulli eorum meruerunt à deo miraculorum exhibitionem of which Miracles they give divers instances And long after these Writers which lived in the time of the Barons Wars Polidore Virgil who lived in the days of Henry VIII gives this Testimony to Simon de Montfort p. 317. of the Basil Edition Inhaesit hominum mentibus constans opinio hunc Simonem de Montfort qui ob patriam jus jurandum for it seems they were under the like Oaths vitam amisissent interiisse Martyrem id quod vita sanctitas non patitur negandum jam tum fueri qui ejus memoriam ut dici cujuspiam colere ceperunt compluresque id fecissent cui Regis iram non perti muissent For if the Prince do evidently violate not only the Coronation-Oath but act contrary to the tenor of the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance and actually subject the People to that Jurisdiction and Usurpation against which they are sworn what is the extent of that Clause in the Oath of Supremacy viz. To our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges and Authorities granted or beloning to the King's Highness c Doubtless they that granted them and by Oath are bound to assist and defend them being granted may oppose such as attempt the destruction of them when not only the King's Prerogative but the Peoples Religion their Laws and Liberties are assaulted and in a way to be utterly ruined And Treason may be committed against the Government as well as against the King and also the King 's Eldest Son. It is well known how resolutely our Ancestors in the darkest times of Popery being themselves Papists did defend the Nation against the Incroachments of the Church of Rome when their Kings would have parted with this Right which they affirmed he neither could nor should do and in defence of them they were prodigal of their Lives Query Whether these Premises being undeniable the Subjects that according to their Oaths did timely endeavour the case being otherwise desperate to vindicate as well the Right of the Crown to the King his Heirs and Successors as their own Religion and Liberties did not act according to their Oaths and Duties not by resisting their Prince but by defending the Succession and themselves against such Instruments as acted contrary to the tenor of those Oaths If Judges Juries c. had performed in their several places as the Law and their Oaths obliged them the King might have kept his Throne We have a Maxim in Law That the King can do no wrong because he is supposed to do all things by his Ministers and they to act all according to the Law But when a King shall choose such Ministers as will act against the Laws and defend them therein there cannot be a greater wrong done to the Subject 5. In Answer to your Fifth Query which concerns the mutual Obligations between the Prince and the People by vertue of these Oaths and the Declaration hereafter mentioned It is to be considered as Bishop Sanderson says in the Case of the Engagement p. 90. That Allegiance is such a Duty as every Subject under what form of Government soever by the Law of Nature oweth to his Country primarily and consequently to the Soveraign Power by which that Common-wealth is governed who is Caput Communitatis as is necessary for the preservation of the whole Body And speaking of the Obligation of Laws which will hold also in the case of Oaths That if the intention of the Law-giver should be understood precisely of that particular actual and immediate intention of the Law-giver in making a particular Law it will not hold true in all cases but there is to be supposed in the Law-giver a more general habituate and ultimate intention of a more excellent and transcendent Nature than the former which is to have an influence into and an over-ruling Power over all Laws viz. an intention by the Laws to procure and promote the Publick Good. The former intention bindeth where it is subservient to the latter or consistent with it and consequently bindeth in ordinary Cases and in orderly Times But where the Observation of the Law by reason of the conjuncture of Circumstances or the iniquity of Times Contingencies which no Law-giver could either certainly fore-see or if fore-seen could not sufficiently provide against would rather be prejudicial than advantagious to the Publick or is manifestly attended with more inconveniencies and sad consequents to the Observers than all the imaginable good that can redound to the Publick thereby can in any reasonable measure countervail in such case the Law obligeth not but according to the later and more general intention only Even as in the Operations of Nature particular Agents do move ordinarily according to the proper and particular inclinations yet upon some occasions and to serve the ends and intentions of Universal Nature for the avoiding of something which Nature abhorreth they are sometimes carried with motions quite contrary to their particular Natures as the Air to descend and the Water to ascend for the avoiding of vacuity Concerning the Coronation-Oath I shall add here what Bishop Taylor l. 3. p. 144. says That a Prince's swearing to govern by Laws is very ancient of which he gives divers instances and says Kings are bound by natural Justice and Equity without