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 |
|
A61980
|
Nine cases of conscience occasionally determined by Robert Sanderson.
|
Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663.
|
1678
(1678)
|
Wing S618; ESTC R25114
|
76,581
|
200
|
a stronger obligation to the contrary And it is agreeable to all the reason in the World that he who either by his own voluntary act hath bound himself where lawfully he might so do or by the command of his lawful Superior that hath a right to his service and may exact obedience from him is already bound to do or not to do this or that should not have power to disoblige himself therefrom at his own pleasure or to superinduce upon himself a new Obligation contrary thereunto Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori As in the case of Marriage a precontract with one party voideth all after-contracts with any other And if a man convey Lands to several persons by Deeds of several date the first conveyance standeth good and all the rest are void and so in all cases of like nature The obligatory power thereof that is in Vows Oaths Promises c. is rightly said by some to be a constructive not a destructive power The meaning is that such acts may create a new Obligation where was none before or confirm an old one but it cannot destroy an old one or substitute another contrary thereunto in the place thereof 7. And the reason of this reason also is yet farther evident for that Quisquis obligatur alteri obligatur When a man is obliged by any act it is also supposed that the obligation is made to some other party to whom also it is supposed some right to accrue by vertue of the said act obligatory and that that other party is by the said act sufficiently vested in that said right of which right he cannot be again devested and deprived by the meer act of him who instated him therein and is obliged to perform it to him unless himself give consent thereunto without the greatest injustice in the World Now God having a perfect right to our obedience by his own obliging Precept both for the not doing hurt to any man and for the doing good to every man upon all fit opportunities and this right also confirmed and ratified by our own obligatory act in a solemn manner before many witnesses at our Baptism when we vowed to keep all God's Commandments it were unreasonable to think that it should be in our power by any after-act of ours to disoblige our selves from both or either of those obligations For then we might by the same reason free our selves from the obligation of that latter Act also suppose an Oath or Vow by another subsequent Oath or Vow and from that again by another and so play fast and loose make Vows and break them in infinitum Evident it is therefore that every vow requiring any thing to be done which is repugnant to any office of Piety Justice Charty or Mercy which we owe either to God or man is void and bindeth not because it findeth us under the power of a former contrary obligation and hath not it self power sufficient to free or discharge us from the same 8. The general Rule thus cleared it remaineth to examine concerning the particular Vow now in question whether it be void upon this account or no It will be found hard I believe to free this Vow from being repugnant to the rules of Justice but impossible I am sure to reconcile it with the perfect Evangelical Law of Charity and Mercy First Civil and Political Justice requireth that every man should obey the wholsome Laws of his Countrey and submit himself to be ordered thereby Now put the case which is possible enough that the Daughters Husband should for lack of support from his Father-in-law or otherwise live and die in great want leaving his Wife and many small Children behind him destitute of all means for their necessary sustenance The Law would as I suppose in that case upon complaint of the Parish and for their ease send the Daughter and her Children to the Father and compel him to maintain them out of his Estate Which order he ought to obey nor can refuse so to do without the high contempt of publick Authority and manifest violation of the Civil Justice notwithstanding his Vow to the contrary The Law must be obeyed whatsoever becometh of the Vow in that case therefore it is evident the Vow bindeth not 9. But say that should not happen to be the case which yet is more than any man can positively say before-hand the Parent is nevertheless in Moral Justice bound to provide due maintenance for his Children and Grand-Children if he be able Saint Paul saith that Fathers ought to lay up for the Children True it is he speaketh it but upon the by and by way of Illustration in the handling of another argument very distant from this business but that doth not at all lessen the importance of it such illustrations being ever taken à notiori and from such common notions as are granted and consented unto by all reasonable men The same Apostle having amongst other sins of the Gentiles mentioned disobedience to Parents in one verse in the very next verse mentioneth also want of natural affection in Parents And the disobedience in the Child can no more discharge the Parent from the obligation of that duty he oweth to the Child and of affection and maintenance then the unnaturalness of the Parent can the Child from the duty he oweth to the Parent of Honour and Obedience For the several duties that by Gods ordinance are to be performed by persons that stand in mutual relation either to other are not pactional and conditional as are the Leagues and Agreements made between Princes where the breach in one part dissolveth the obligation on the other but are absolute and independent wherein each person is to look to himself and the performance of the duty that lyeth upon him though the other party should fail in the performance of his 10. Something I foresee may be objected in this point concerning the lawfulness of the Parents withdrawing maintenance from the Child either in whole or at least in part in the case of disobedience Which how far forth it may or may not be done as it would be too long to examine so it would be of little avail to the present business For it is one thing to with hold maintenance from a disobedient Child for the present and to resolve so to continue till he shall see cause to the contrary And another thing to bind himself by Vow or Oath never to allow him any for the future whatsoever should happen Let be granted whatsoever can be supposed pleadable on the Fathers behalf in the present case yet there will still remain two particulars in this Vow not easily to be cleared from being unjust First let the Daughters disobedience deserve all this uttermost of punishment from the offended Fathers yet how can it be just that for the Mothers fault the poor innocent perhaps yet unborn Children should be utterly and irrecoverably excluded from all possibility of relief from their Grand-father Secondly It
is if not unjust yet what differeth very little there-from the extremity of rigid Justice that any offender much less a Son or Daughter should for any offence not deserving Death be by a kind of fatal peremptory decree put into an incapacity of receiving relief from such persons as otherwise ought to have relieved the said offender without any reservation either of the case of extreme necessity or of the case of serious repentance 11. However it be for the point of Justice yet so apparent is the repugnancy of the matter of this Vow with the Precepts of Christian Charity and Mercy that if all I have hitherto said were of no force this repugnancy alone were enough without other evidence to prove the unlawfulness and consequently the invalidity or inobligality thereof It is not an Evangelical Counsel but the express peremptory precept of Christ that we should be merciful even as our heavenly Father is merciful And inasmuch as not in that passage only but for the most part wheresoever else the duty of mercy is pressed upon us in the Gospel from the example of God God is represented to us by the Name and under the notion of a Father although I may not lay much weight upon it as a demonstrative proof yet I conceive I may commend it as a rational Topick for all that are Fathers to consider of whether it do not import that mercy is to be expected from a father as much as if not rather much more than from any other man and that the want of mercy in a Father is more unkindly more unseemly more unnatural than in another man But this by the way from the Precept of Christ we learn that as there is in God a two-fold mercy a giving mercy in doing us good though we deserve it not and a forgiving mercy in pardoning us when we have done amiss so there ought to be in every good Christian man a readiness after the example of God to shew forth the fruits of mercy to others in both kinds upon all proper and meet occasions So that if any person of what quality or condition soever shall upon any provocation whatsoever Vow that he will never do any thing for such or such a man or that he will never forgive such or such a man every such Vow being contra bonos more 's and contra officium hominis Christiani is unlawful and bindeth not 12. The offices of mercy in the former of those two branches viz. of doing good and affording relief to those that are in necessity are themselves of so great necessity as the case may be that common humanity would exact the performance of them from the hand not of a strangeronly but even of an enemy If a stranger or an enemies Beast lie weltring in a Ditch a helping hand must be lent to draw it out The Samaritans compassion to the wounded Traveller in the Parable Luke 10. There being a feud and that grounded upon Religion which commonly of all others is the most deadly feud between the two Nations is commended to our example to the great reproach of the Priest and Levite for their want of Bowels to their poor Brother of the same Nation and Religion with themselves For the nearer the Relation is between the Parties the stronger is the obligation of shewing mercy either to other And there is scarce any relation nearer and more obliging than that of Parents and Children Our Saviour who in Matth. 15. sharply reproved such Vows though made with an intention to advance the Service of God by inriching his Treasury as hindred Children from relieving their Parents will not certainly approve of such vows made without any other intenion then to gratifie rage and impatience as hinder Parents from relieving their Children 13. If to avoid the force of this argument it shall be alledged that the Daughters disobedience in a business of so high concernment might justly deserve to be thus severely punished and that it were but equal that she who had so little regard to her Father when the time was should be as little regarded by him afterwards All this granted cometh not yet up to the point of shewing Mercy according to the example of God No Childs disobedience can be so great to an earthly Parent as ours is to our heavenly Father Yet doth he notwithstanding all our ill deservings continually do us good communicating to our necessities and causing his Sun to shine and his Rain to fall and infinite benefits in all kinds to descend upon mankind not excluding the most thankless and disobedient and rebellious from having a share therein 14. And as for that other branch of mercy in pardoning Offences God giveth a rich example to all men of their duty in that kind and to Fathers particularly by his great readiness to pardon the greatest offenders if they sincerely seek to him for it If the Father in the Parable Luke 15. had proceeded with such severity against his riotousSon as to have vowed never to have received him again he had been a very improper exemplar whereby to shadow out the mercy of God to repentant sinners Concerning the grreat importance of this duty which is so frequently inculcated by Christ and his Apostles and so peremptorily enjoyned as not any other duty more See Matt. 6. 4 15. Matt. 18. 21. 35. Eph. 4. 32. Col. 3. 13. James 2. 13. See also Sirac 28 1 c. I shall not need to say much only as to the present Case it would be considered how perverse a course it is and contradictory to it self for a man to think himself obliged by one inconsiderate act never to forgive his Daughter when as yet he cannot beg pardon of his own sins at the hands of God as he ought in his daily Prayer to do without an express condition of forgiving every body and an implicit imprecation upon himself if he do not 15. But shall the Daughter that hath thus grieved the spirit of her Father thus escape unpunished and be in as good a condition as if she had never offended And will not others be incouraged by her impunity to despise their Parents after her example There is much reason in this objection and therefore what I have hitherto written ought not to be understood as if thereby were intended such a plenary indulgence for the daughter as should restore her in integrum but only that she should be made capable of receiving such relief from her Father from time to time as in relation to her necessities and after-carriage from time to time should seem reasonable and that his Vow ought not to hinder him from affording her such relief But by what degrees and in what proportion the Father should thus receive his daughter into his fatherly affection and relieve her must be left to discretion and the exigence of circumstances Only I should advise in order to the objection viz. for examples sake and that the Daughter might be made even