Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	king_n	law_n	people_n	3,485	5	5.2685	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47854	The free-born subject, or, The Englishmans birthright asserted against all tyrannical vsurpations either in church or state	L'Estrange, Roger, Sir, 1616-1704.	1679 (1679)	Wing L1248; ESTC R16045	23,037	38

THE Free-born Subject OR THE Englishmans Birthright Asserted against all TYRANNICAL VSVRPATIONS EITHER IN CHURCH OR STATE LONDON Printed for Henry Brome at the Gun in St. Pauls Church-yard at the West-end 1679. THE FREE-BORN SUBJECT OR The Englishmans Birthright Asserted against all Tyrannical Usurpations either in RELIGION or STATE NOw to take my Text to pieces By a Free-born Subject is meant a person that is born under the Protection of the Law and thereby entitled to certain known Immunities and Privileges as his Birthright But then he is likewise tied up by the same Law to certain Rules and Measures of Obedience to Government So that he seems to be Free in one respect and Subject in another Now how far he is Enfranchised by this Liberty and how far Limited by that Subjection will be the Question You shall seldom or never find this expression used but as a kind of Popular Challenge and still in favour of the Free-born without any regard at all to the Subject Whereas we should as well consider the Authority of an Imperial Prince on the one hand as the Privileges of a Free-born People on the other And not so far mistake either the Force or the Intent of Magna Charta and the Petition of Right by which we claim to these Liberties as if by being discharged of our Vassalage we were also discharged of our Allegiance The Englishmans Birthright sounds much to the same purpose too with the Free-born Subject Only there lies a stronger Emphasis in Common Speech upon the word Englishman As when we speak of a Brave Man that stands up for the Honour and Defence of his Country such a one we cry is a Right Englishman a True Englishman Now to the end that we may not be misled by the Sound and Jingle of Words into a false and dangerous Notion of Things let us repair to the Law which is the Known and Common Standard of our Civil Actions that we may not either give up our Own just Rights on the One hand or Encroach upon his Majesties on the Other For it is the Law that marques out the Metes and Bounds both of King and People that shews how far we are to Go and where to Stop and teaches us to distinguish betwixt Liberty and Sedition betwixt a True Right Old Englishman and a shuffling double-hearted Moderm Impostor As we have our Legal Rights so we lie under Legal Restrictions too And the King likewise hath his Legal Prerogatives which are also accompanied with certain Legal Limitations From whence it appears that the Law serves as a Common-Rule and lies as a Common Obligation both upon Prince and Subject And yet though there be a Duty Incumbent on both sides there is a great difference even in point of Law it selfe betwixt the Kings Violation of the Law and the Peoples The King breaks his Word the People forfeit their Bond. They are Both of them Bound alike in Conscience but the People are over and above engaged upon a Penalty It makes a huge noise in the World that Kings are bound by the Laws as well as the People And so they are in Honour and Conscience but no further And this arises from the very Nature of Government it self For wheresoever the Last Appeal lies there rests the Government And there can be no Government at all without the Establishment of a Final Result for otherwise the King shall Iudge the People and the People Rejudge the King and so the Controversie shall run round World without end Take notice now that all Appeals move from a Lower Court or Sentence to a Superiour and consider then how ridiculous it were to Appeal Downward or from Sovereign Princes to any other Power than to the King of Kings who alone is above them But let us put the Case now that a Prince mis-governs How shall he be tried It must be either By the Law or Without it If the Former where is the Law that says The People may call their Soveraign to accompt in case he does not Govern according to Law Or if they cannot produce such a Law the Assertion is Treasonous If the Latter we are at our Old Salus Populi again Which in one word is no other then a direct Dissolution of the Law and a Prostitution of Authority to the Will of the Multitude Having already stated the Conditions and Advantages of a Free-born Subject and of our English Birthrights we shall now proceed to the asserting of these our Privileges against all Tyrannical Usurpations either in matter of Religion or State And first a word of Tyrannical Usurpations Under this Head may be comprised all sorts of Violence and Oppression by what means or Instruments soever exercised contrary to Law and Iustice. By Tyranny we do understand An Vnjust Domination or an Abuse of a Lawful Power to the injury of the People as if a Prince should turn a Legal Government into and Arbitrary Now we commonly reckon That for an Vsurpation when One man takes upon him the Right of another without any Title to it at all As our late Oliver was called Vsurper And there are also Mixt Cases as was That before mentioned where Tyranny and Vsurpation meet Both in One. According to This Division we may be oppressed three several ways either Immediately by the Prince himself or Mediately by his Ministers as by special Direction and Command Or otherwise we may be simply oppressed one Subject by another But still these Oppressions are Illegal every way and the Question is Now what Legal Relief in the Case For as the Law entitles us to the Privileges we claim and to the enjoyment of them so does the Law likewise appoint and chalk us out the Methods of Asserting and Maintaining our Rights in case they be invaded So that we must onely Oppose Legal Remedies to Illegal Wrongs and not think to deliver our selves from one Violence by another For Popular Commotions are the most Criminal and Dangerous of all sorts of Oppressions Other Oppressions may lie Heavy upon particular Persons but This is an Oppression of Law and Government it self And it is as Foolish as it is Impious For while we Phansie all things to be Lawful for us because we suffer many things against Law we incur a Legal Forfeiture of all our Privileges by the unlawful manner of endeavouring to preserve them It is a Maxim in Law but not in Morals that the King can do no wrong for he may shed Innocent Bloud with his own hand which is the Greatest of Wrongs but it is not looked upon however as a Wrong in Law because there is no Law to question him for it The Ordinary shift upon this Point is That the King may be sued and that consequently he stands answerable to the Law To which I say with a Distinction that the King hath a Twofold Right a Right of Dominion and a Right of Propriety In the Former which is the point in Question there lies no