Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	affection_n	love_n	love_v	1,882	5	6.6827	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17505	A replie vnto a certaine libell, latelie set foorth by Fa: Parsons, in the name of vnited priests, intituled, A manifestation of the great folly and bad spirit, of certaine in England, calling themselues seculer priestes VVith an addition of a table of such vncharitable words and phrases, as by him are vttered in the said treatise, aswell against our parsons, as our bookes, actions, and proceedings.	Clark, William, d. 1603.; Barneby, Francis. aut; Clarionet, William, attributed name.	1603 (1603)	STC 4321; ESTC S107159	173,407	232

or the right of the States it as little importeth considering that he was put in trust with it by her Maiestie and vpon his alleageance to her should haue discharged the trust and fidelity reposed in him in that charge To dispute the case whether hee might in conscience or ought in danger of mortall sinne deliuer vp the Towne to the King of Spaine is not necessary to our purpose yet this I will say that all which Fa Parsons hath said in proofe thereof is not worth a rush vnlesse hee proue two points first that her Maiestie is the person that hath giuen the first cause of breach of the league with the Spaniards which I think if matters be well examined will proue contrary as you may see by the attempts made by the Spaniard both secretly and publiquely against her Highnesse and state before aleadged nothing being attempted by her against his Maiestie of Spaine or any his Countryes Which being true then might she iustly and in conscience iure gentium make warre against him win his Townes and Countries from him and in right and iustice detaine them Secondly he must proue that Sir William Stanley knowing in his conscience that she had no iust cause of warre against the Spaniard which I think he could not know might deliuer vp the said Towne without a greater mischiefe to follow vpon such restitution for a man is not bound to make restitution of goods euill gotten or possessed mala fide when without imminent danger of his owne or other mens liues he cannot doe as all Canonists will confesse because the life of a man is dearer then goods and the lesse euill must be preferred before the greater As for example if I should haue vniustly taken away the weapons of another man and had beene malae fidei possessor yet if I should perceaue that the true owner were paratus ad homicidium and thereby eyther my owne life or others might be endangered if I should restore his weapons vnto him which erst I had taken vniustly from him in this case it is euident that I were not bound to make restitution although I were as I haue said malae fidei possessor So in this case of Sir William Stanleyes if greater mischiefe might probably ensue thereof then the deteyning of the Towne could be he was not bound thereto Which case Fa Parsons hath not handled Now will I referre the censure to other men whether greater euill did not grow vnto our common cause in England by this particuler fact of Sir William Stanlies in that the state was thereby exasperated against all cath for his fact which great damage and common hurt of his Country-men and Cath he was in charity bound more to regard then the restitution of one Towne to the Spaniard And therefore waying and considering the auersion and alienation of our state from Cath for such facts as these of Sir William and the like wee haue often wished that if his conscience had felt any touch or scruple concerning those warres he had otherwise quietly left them off or with-drawne himselfe without giuing any such open occasion of complaint vnto the state But his not onely deliuering vp of that Towne but also ioyning himselfe with the Spaniard in field against his Soueraigne and Country may not be approued by any good subiect And therfore I wish that so worthy a martiall man had conuerted his sword against the Turke or other common enemies and not against his owne Soueraigne and Country that by his actions our Prince might haue had no iust cause to haue beene offended with vs at home Aliens and strangers may doe what they will and wee yet remaine blamelesse if wee haue no part with them because they are strangers but when naturall subiects of our owne Country and Cath shal in these iealous and suspicious times practise or conuert their weapons against their Prince and Country it cannot but incense their wrath and indignation against all Cath at home as by experience we haue felt Touching Fa Parsons vrging of an Epistle writ by Card Allen in defence hereof what might be his reason or whether he did it of himselfe or vrged there-vnto by reason of the great expectance of the Spanish intention anno 1588. immediatly following which we suspect I cannot tell but I wish with all my hart it had beene vnwritten considering the little good hath come thereby Neither is this to dishonour the worthy Card as Fa Parsons would make it but contrariwise to shew our loue and honour we beare towards him in that we hartily wish such ouer-sights or inconuenient actions as the best man in this life is not without imperfections nor the wisest in his iudgement without errors had neuer proceeded from him And whereas such things as the book written in the yeere 1588. this Epistle are too too euident and publiquely knowne to our state and all men else we seeke to excuse the same as much as in vs lyeth that the fault or rather the errour may by circumstances seeme more tolerable which no man of wit or discretion can deny to be an euident demonstration of our loue and affections towards him as our dearest and worthiest Father Which cannot be odious and offensiue in vs to our Prince state as we trust in that duty and nature bindeth euery man extraordinarily to loue their parents and founders eyther naturall or spirituall And therefore to excuse them is but a shew of filiall loue and affection but obstinatly to defend and maintaine that in a parent which is no way approueable were meere sycophancie not loue meere peeuishnes not any tolerable affection Now come we to the great attempt made by the Spaniards in the yeere 1588. out of which action Fa Parsons exempteth all English Iesuits because he saith himselfe fa Holt and fa Creswell were then in Rome with Cardinall Allen and that no English Iesuit at all was residing at that time eyther in Spaine or in the Low-countries But all this proueth not that therefore the Iesuits had no part in this action Neither can it be probable to any man of iudgement or vnderstanding that the Iesuits beeing so great with the King and so forward in attempts against our Country hauing had their fingers in matters precedent as you haue seene would now sit still hauing so faire an offer made and so good opportunity to be dooing I confesse that there was no great respect made to the English beyond the Seas in that action nor in any other of the Spaniards will be if euer matters come to issue nor perhaps were the English Iesuits called to be counsellers therein as since they haue beene because indeede the Spaniard intended a most bloody conquest and translation of our state and people But to thinke that the Iesuits were not vrgers thereto and setters forwards to theyr power of that attempt were to contradict all reason and probabilities For first it is most certaine that all the vvorld had very