Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	obligation_n	1,168	5	9.4651	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61516	A discourse of the nature and obligation of oaths wherein, satisfaction is tendered touching the non-obligation and unlawfulness of the oath called, the Solemn League and Covenant : the acknowledgement whereof, is required of us by a late act of Parliament, intituled, An act for uniformity : published as an appendix to the Peace-offering / by the same author.	Stileman, John, d. 1685.; Stileman, John, d. 1685. Peace offering.	1662 (1662)	Wing S5552; ESTC R16314	24,193	32

choose to die than sin We must beg pardon for our base fears but at no hand adde another sin in performance and the same must we conclude of Surprise or Passion when the matter is unjust or sinful Memorable is the Story which Munster (t) Munst de Germ. l. 3. c. 499. records of Jutha the Daughter of the Emperour Otho 2. She was by the Emperour her Father put into a Nunnery but by force taken thence by Vdalric or Ulderick the Son of the King or Duke of Bohemia and married to him The Emperour urged by the indignity of the fact swears to revenge himself upon Vlderick and to lead an Army into Bohemia He doth so His and Uldericks Armies meet Jutha the Daughter of the one and Wife of the other astonished and affrighted hastily runs to her Father begs to speak with him before the Armies joyn or he lets his fury rage in blood She obtains this liberty and sues for Peace and Reconcilement The Emperour urgeth his oath whereby he had bound himself She answers (v) Vana est religio quae sceleri locum facit vim criminibus Sacramenta non addunt Munst ibid. That Religion is vain which makes way to wickedness nor can any oath give force power or licence to a crime or sin Thus she satisfies her fathers scruple and obtains her suit So that No Oath can oblige us either 1. Against Piety Sect. 36. the duties of the first Table Or 2. Against Justice and Charity the duties of the second For these are the matters of the (u) Jam. 2.8 Royal Law of God and indispensible duties upon man And in vain should the Lord of heaven give us such a Law if we might at pleasure swear and then upon pretence of such an Oath be at liberty to break such a Law the least Commandments (x) Mat. 5.17 18 19. whereof God at no hand will have to be broken But particularly so far as refers to our present purpose 1. No Oath can oblige us against equity Sect. 37. against the right of a third person or to the direct injury of our Neighbour For though having sworne to our own inconvenience we must not change because we are Masters of our own rights and may if we please give them away yet of anothers rights we are not God hath bound us by his Law to preserve them and we may not swear to destroy them nor may we destroy them though we have sworne so 2. No Oath can oblige us against the Duty Sect. 38. that we owe to our Govèrnours or Superiours or the Laws that we do and must live under God hath bound us to Obedience and no oath can oblige to Rebellion Sedition Schism or Disobedience no more than the (y) Mat. 15.5 Mark 7.11 12. Corban or pretence of a vow and a dedication of all to God could free the Jews from yielding that honour obedience and maintenance which God had obliged them to yield to their Parents He that well understands the Fifth Commandment Honour thy Father and Mother knows that no Oath can oblige a man to rise up against them and turn his Father out of doors yea or deny the duty which he owes to them and as little can it oblige us to endeavour to Subvert the Government or overthrow those Governours in Church or State to whom by vertue of the same Precept we are obliged to be (z) Rom. 13 1-5 1 Pet 2.13 14. Sect. 39. subject not only for wrath but for conscience-sake 3. Nor can any oath oblige us against the former just obligations upon us nor against those lawful Oaths which we had formerly taken and are not yet free from Prior obligatio postoriori praejudicat A former obligation doth prejudge and prevent the latter For every lawful Oath having an unquestionable tie upon the conscience it must be both unlawful to swear any thing contrary to it and though we swear we cannot be obliged For we cannot be bound to forswear yea we are infallibly bound (a) Exod. 20.7 Mat. 5.33 not to forswear our selves A latter Oath cannot oblige when the very taking of it is an act of perjury and the keeping of it would be a persisting in the perjury in the breach of our former Oaths This had the (b) Vid. Sims Chron. Cath. Part. 1. am 3480. Phaenician Navi learned who in the service of Cambyses were commanded by him to sail against Carthage though they were under his pay and probably bound by the Souldiers Oath the Sacramentum Militia and the Souldier is bound to obey not dispute his Generals commands yet they thought themselves not obliged in this but denied obedience because they were by a former Oath obliged to the Carthaginians and they therefore thought that their latter Obligation to Cambyies could not oblige them to destroy those whom by a former Oath they were bound to protect and assist An Oath that is unlawfully entred into because Rashly may yet bind when the matter is honest and in our power but No Oath unlawful in the matter of it can either be lawfully taken or when taken can lay any obligation for No Oath can oblig● us to sin We have now seen the general cases concerning the Nature Sect. 40. Qualities Obligation and Non-obligation of an Oath It will not now be difficult to shew by applying these general things to the particular case of the Covenant the Non-obligation and Unlawfulness of that Oath I have been very serious in examining and considering this case not Whether the Penalty in this Act of Parliament be too severe for into that we have no call to inquire but whether We may lawfully do as that Act requires and make that Acknowledgement which this Law enjoyns us Viz. Whether this Covenant were lawfully taken or may lawfully be kept and whether yet it so obligeth that we may not renounce it and declare as much And upon these premised principles I judge we may be fully convinced of its Illegality and Non-obligation and consequently may lawfully acknowledge and subscribe so 1. It will not be denied for it is unquestionable Sect. 41. that This Covenant was a Publick Oath and then according to the former rule it may also be annulled revoked and abrogated by a Publick Authority Suppose the Authority were Supreme that required it suppose that we in obedience to that Authority did lawfully swear it yet without dispute the Authority that is infallibly Supreme with us doth now Revoke and hath disannulled it And here is evidently then Cessatio materiae and such a Notable Alteration of the state of things referring to the Principal matter which had it then been this Oath would neither have been imposed nor sworne and we may justly conclude that if it ever did oblige yet now it doth not unless we can be obliged to maintain a Law which an Act of Parliament hath repealed But this is not all for this supposeth it established by a Law But 2.

It was an Oath Imposed by those Sect. 42. who had no authority to impose an Oaeth It was a Covenant entred into by Subjects and disallowed by the King who then ruled over us and now again by His present Majesty with the full consent of all the estates of the Kingdom in Parliament abrogated and therefore cannot have an obligation in analogy to and by vertue of that Law of God before mentioned Numb 30. for in this case there is the same reason of Subjects under Government as of Children under tuition or a Wife under Covertbond We had no power to enter into such an Oath or Combination nor it being denied and disallowed by our Soveraign can we be obliged by it for this must be still supposed a tacite condition That our Governours and the Laws that we are under will allow and permit it But more 3. Sect. 43. It was an Oath Unlawfully sworne and cannot but be unlawfully kept And the unlawfulness will appear in these particulars 1. It was Unlawful in the Imposition as being imposed by no lawful Authority The Laws of this Kingdom acknowledge nothing to have the force and power of a Law but from the stamp of the Royal Authority the Kings Fiat which that Ordinance which imposed this Covenant never had It must therefore be concluded to be imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm contrary to the Known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom a thing even the same which those two Houses of P. which imposed this Oath declared when they took away and annulled the late Canons and that Oath which was so Decried for the c. viz. * Exact Coll. p. 859 860. That A New Oath cannot be imposed without an Act of Parliament which this was never established by 2. Sect. 44. Vnlawful in the Ends of it Which whatsoever and how specious soever the Pretences were have appeared sufficiently to the world to have been indeed Seditious and Rebellious The charge may seem high and too uncharitable but let it be remembred and it is too evident then to be denied This very Covenant was made the main Engine of a design the saddest the bitterest that England ever saw before to engage a people against the Church and State and to Bring in the Scots to assist them in a dismal War against the King which they would not be brought to do till this Kingdom did Covenant to throw out her Bishops and extirpate the established Episcopacy Root and Branch So that the great ends aimed at in the contriving and exacting this Covenant to be sworne was 1. Not to Reform some abuses or to take away some needless Officers or prevent some irregular proceedings in the Courts but utterly to abolish the established Government in the Church And then 2. By the Assistance of the Scots to maintain a War against the King and to reduce Him to such Terms as the Two Houses should think fit to put upon Him That they might be able to Give Laws to the King from whom they were bound to Receive them 3. Unlawful also it was in the Matter of it Sect. 45. as binding men 1. To Impossibilities if not in nature yet certainly in equit Viz. binding men to do that which they had no power no authority to do What Power or authority had Subjects to enter into such an Oath not only without but contrary to the mind consent and express Command and Will of their Soverargn What Authority P. e or Call had they to endeavour the Overthrowing of that Government as Antichristian under which the Christian Church had been happy and flourished so many hundred years and which they were by the positive Laws of our Land bound not to oppose but to obey and submit unto Id solum possumus quod jure possumus Properly we only can do that which we lawfully may do In this sense then the Covenant should bind to impossibilities which argues a Nullity unless Subjects can pretend to a power to overthrow any thing which the Law establisheth whensoever they like it not Farther 2. Unlawful it was as binding to Unjust Sect. 46. and Dishonest things also 1. Infallibly No Oath can bind to Sedition or the overthrow of those Laws that we are bound to obey and that Oath obligeth to injustice and impiety which obligeth to Perjury and the breach of former not yet cancelled obligations Now the Laws had established Episcopacy Ministers had Sworne Obedience to the Bishop There can therefore be no obligation because so much Impiety in that Oath which if it should oblige would oblige to Perjury Object I know what hath been said to this Viz. That those who have Sworne obedience to the Laws of the Land are not thereby prohibited to endeavour by all lawful means the abolition of those Laws when they prove inconvenient or mischievous But 1. Solut. 1. The Utmost of that Obedience which was sworn to the Bishops was but in Licitis Honestis in lawful and honest things And how a lawful and honest obedience should be culpable or the Laws that required it should be mischievous or inconvenient I confess I yet never could have eyes to see nor I think any man else 2. Sol. 2. Had the Laws which established Episcopacy been such yet it will seem very strange to a considering and intelligent man that presently to enter into such a Covenant and Combination and by force and power to break through those Laws and overthrow the established Government whether the King will or no should ever be accounted a lawful means Again 3. Sol. 3. Suppose it inconvenient yet Subjects have no power to Make a Law or Alter a Law for themselves If any mischief or inconvenience had been in that Law or the Government established we might lawfully have shewed the Grievances and Petitioned for a redress to those to whom only it belonged to reform them but to Swear to extirpate a Government to overthrow a Law against the Law-givers consent this is somewhat else than a peaceable petition or an honest endeavour Though we might by humble petition in such a case beg a Reformation yet without all controversie we were bound by our Allegiance Duty and former oaths to obey that which was established until the Supreme power should see it just or fit to alter it 2. Sect. 47. That Oath which bindeth men to the injury of another whom we are bound to love as we love our selves and to do to them as we would have others do to us is unjust in the matter of it and consequently unlawful and bindeth not But this Covenant bindeth to such an injury an injury not of one or two but an whole Order of Bishops who were once a Third Estate and by the good Providence of God are so now again to the depriving of them both of their Places and Power in the Church and of their Lands Estates and Livelihoods that if they lived they must live upon Alms as many

obligation for the future For by these we engage our selves to do something hereafter Such was that (v) 1 Kings 1.17 Oath of David that Solomon should reign after him This when made to God is called a Vow when to man an Oath The Obligation in both is the same because made in the name of God (x) Psal 76 11 Vow and pay to the Lord saith one text and (y) Mat. 5.23 Thou shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths saith another This also must have the same conditions of 1. Truth Sect. 21. that we promise only what we sincerely mean to perform and that we do really perform or at least endeavor our best and utmost to perform what we have so promised So that the Truth which in the Assertory Oath is onely single relating to the present and Act of swearing is in this promissory Oath double 1. In regard of the present that our mind and words go congruously together that as we promise so there be a real sincere intention to perform and here lies on the soul an immediate obligation that in the very act of swearing our words be according to our intentions 2. In reference to the effect and time to come that we will have our Actions go along with our words and that by our utmost endeavors in all honest wayes we will labour to make our words good 2. Judgment Sect. 22. That as in the former so in this we 1. With reverence remember by whom we swear the name of the great God so as we enter not this Oath upon light and trivial causes or not lawfully called to it 2. That upon mature deliberation we so promise what we promise by oath considering well the matter and circumstances to which we are engaged lest by our inconsideratenesse we should oblige our selves to a mischief or inconvenience 3. That what we promise be possible and in our power lest otherwise by our rashnesse we become engaged where by reason of the impossibility of performance we cannot but break our Oaths That we be not drawn either by affection passion fear or terror to promise that which in out unbiassed thoughts we would not or might nor do 3. Justice and Righteousnesse that what we promise be just Sect. 23. honest lawful and agreeable to the Word of God not contrary to any moral precept nor our former lawful Oaths and not yet rescinded obligations So that as 1. They sin against this who having sworn and being obliged to the duty of any moral precept yet for gain interest vain reputation c. absolve themselves at pleasure and perform not their Oaths So 2. Do they sin also who enter into Oaths and Obligations to do what they are obliged not to do as to lye kill steal c. Such was the Oath of the (z) Acts 23.12 Jews to kill Paul of (a) Mat. 14 8. 12. Herod to He●odias both rash and against judgment in the Act swearing to give her any request not considering how unjust or unequal a thing she might ask and unjust and wicked in the execution the Murder of an innocent Man and an holy Prophet of God These Promissory Oaths only are the matter of our present consideration Sect. 24. as those only which have an obligation upon us for the future And because the Matter of this Oath which is in the future to be fulfilled is naturally subject to change whether we will or no the Obligation therefore must needs be mutable and separable from the Oath It is in our power to make the first truth good viz. That our minds and intentions shall go along with our words but the second is not alwayes in our power viz. That our Deeds and Actions shall exactly answer either our words or intentions He is forsworn who intends not what by Oath he promiseth but he is not alwayes forsworn who effects not what he hath so sworn Let us therefore consider the Cases Sect. 25. how far these Oaths oblige and when or where the Obligation ceaseth for I doubt not but there is an unquestionable Truth in both these Propositions 1. That though a lawful Oath generally obligeth yet there are some Cases and Times where it obligeth not And 2. That there is some kind of unlawful Oath that still obligeth so that on the one side Sometimes an Oath may be lawfully sworn yet afterwards unlawfully kept on the other side it may be unlawfully sworn yet may be lawfully kept and would be unlawfully broken Therefore as to the lawfulness Sect. 26. or unlawfulness of Oaths I must premise this distinction which is but necessary for the better understanding wherein they are lawful or unlawful and we may be able to give a clearer judgment of the Obligation Oaths may be said lawful or unlawful 1. In regard of the Imposers or Exacters of them They are lawful when we are called to swear by a just and lawful Authority unlawfully imposed when by an usurping and unlawful Authority 2. In regard of the Act Manner and Motive of swearing It is lawful when upon a lawful cell from an honest heart upon mature judgment But not so when rash or inconsiderate drawn by Affection hurried by Possion driven by Fear or extorted by Force 3. In regard of the Matter sworn to whether just and honest or evil and unlawful to be done In the first Notion an unlawful Oath may oblige sometimes in the second but never in the last These things will help us to judge what Oath is lawfully or unlawfully taken and when the Obligation of a lawful Oath ceaseth and where it continues And where an unlawful Oath obligeth or obligeth not I shall give you my thoughts in these Conclusions 1. It is beyond all question that all Oaths Sect. 27. lawfully required to which we are called by a just Authority the matter whereof is just honest and in our power to perform do indispensibly oblige the conscience so long and so far as those who required the Oath will that they should This I take as so clear and unquestionable that it needs no proof nor explication 2. All Oaths Sect. 28. where the matter is just or they oblige not to any dishonest thing though they are rashly sworn or upon surprise though imposed by unjust Powers extorted by force and cannot be kept but to our own inconvenience and so consequently unlawful Oaths perhaps snfully sworn as being contrary to that condition of swearing in judgment yet may lawfully be kept yea sometimes and in some cases do oblige and may not be broken Such was the case of Pomponius the Raman Tribun (b) Cic. de Offic l. 3. ad fin cap. de Fortitud He had summoned L. Manlius to appear in court to an accusation against him concerning his too severe usage of his son The son T. Manlius hearing of it went into the Chamber of the Tribune and with his drawn sword threatned his life if he presently swore not to him

Freedom from the bond or obligation Sect. 32. when the same Authority that required the Oath gives a Relaxation or cancels and annuls that Oath Thus he that fulfils not his promise to him that will not have it fulfilled breaks not his word The reason is because no man is Master of anothers right neither have we a right of making others keep what is their own property longer than they will themselves To Pay a debt is alwayes the duty of the Debtour so long as the Creditour will have it so but it is not alwayes a duty in the Creditour to receive it from the Debtour Acceptation here is equivalent to Payment If I promise another and swear to pay him 100 l. I am bound if he will accept it but if he will refuse the Debt I am free from the Obligation So in this case if a Servant swear to a Master to serve him such a Term of years He is obliged if the Master still require it but if the Master will discharge him sooner he is free notwithstanding his former Oath The like reason there is I conceive in Pablick Oaths suppose them enacted by a lawful Authority we swear lawfully and are bound so long as that Authority will have that in force to which we swore But if the same Authority annul the Law and revoke the matter we are also free As suppose I were called to swear that I would constantly use the Liturgy now established and no other I were bound by my Oath as well as by the Act that enjoynes it but should this be taken away hereafter by a Law and the same Authority i.e. an Act of Parliament take away this and require another Form I should be free of that Obligation for the Oath supposeth the Authority still requiring it In such a notable alteration we lawfully may not do yea must not do unless our Oath can oblige us to resist a Law which God hath bound us to obey what we lawfully did by Oath promise to do 2. Those Oaths whereby we bound our selves to Impossibilities Sect. 33. were Rashly and inconsiderately taken and may not only lawfully be broken but indeed cannot be kept and the very Impossibility of Performance makes a nullity in the Obligation Whether the things sworne to are 1. Impossible in Nature As if I by Oath should engage my self to number the Stats or the sands on the Sea shore or hold the Ocean in the hollow of my hand I should be sinfully involved in the guilt of a rash Oath yet could not be obliged to that which God and Nature have made impossible Or. 2. Whether they be Morally and in equity Impossible What we swear must be in our Power for this also is supposed a tacite condition that we have power to do that which we swear to do This I conceive was that which by the Law of the most Righteous God (m) Num. 30.8 12 14. freed a Wife or a Child from the obligation of their Oath or Vow when the Husband or Father denied and disallowed it because neither a Wife being under Covert bond nor a Child being under tuition are sui juris They have not power over their own selves The Wife hath not power over her self but the Husband so nor hath the Child but the Father and consequently neither have they power over their own Actions and engagements but he under whose power themselves are We know a Bond of a wife or child under age signifies nothing nor can they be sued they have no obligation in the Courts of men There is proportionably the same reason of Publick Oaths which are the Bonds of People who are under Government or Tuition of their Prince If People enter into an Oath and bind themselves to an Action and the King under whose charge they are who is Pater Patriae and whom they are bound to obey shall disallow those Oaths and forbid those Actions they may have reason to ask God forgiveness for their Rash engagements but are not obliged to do that which they have sworne the things being not legally in their power because of a Superior Authority that disallows them to which they (n) Rom. 13.5 must be subject 3. Those oaths Sect. 34. which in the matter of them are against that most necessary condition of all oaths Justice and Righteousness never did nor can oblige i.e. if the thing sworne to or Promised by Oath be dishonest unjust impious against the Law of God Moral equity the right of a third Person c. it may at no hand be done There can be no justice and consequently no obligation to worship an Idol to Kill Steale Ribell c. justice requires that all lawful and possible engagements be performed but sinful and unjust obligations retracted That Advice is certainly sound which a Reverend Author gives (o) In malis promissis rescinde fidem in turpi voto muta decretum quod incautè vovisti n● f●cias impia enim promissio quae scelere ad impl tur Glouc. on Catech out of Isidor In wicked Promises rescind thy faith in a dishonest Vow change the aecree do not that which thou hast vowed unwarily it is an impi●●… oath which cannot be made good but by wickedness It is a most sure rule Juramentum pietatis non debet esse vinculum ixiquitatis for otherwise Scolus esset sides Such was the oath of (p) Matth. 14 7-12 Herod to Herodias an oath sinfully taken and wickedly kept Such was that oath of David He swore (q) 1 Sam. 25.21 22 34. with an imprecation of a Curse upon himself to Destroy Nabal and all his house which yet upon the petition of Abigail he piously broke but should sinfully have performed Such was the Rash Oath of Saul (r) 1 Sam. 14.24 44 45. which would have engaged him to murther Jonathan but the People prevented what he should sinfully have done Such was the (s) Act. 23.12 21. Oath of those forty Jews to kill Paul which they wickedly swore and should more wickedly have committed In this case it matters not how when or by what means we were brought to swear so much as what we have sworne Oaths engaging to unlawful and unjust Actions though through ignorance error weakness misprision surreption fear or malice entred into are not to be kept nor have any obligation upon the Conscience They engage the Swearer to repent of and retract his Oaths but not at all to performe them The truth is Sect. 35. to keep such an Oath is a double sin A sin it was to swear and another sin to perform the oath Quod malè juratur pejus servatur For what God hath forbidden he will nor have done at any hand He hath forbidden us to swear or promise them but much more to do them and to keep such Oaths is but to adde sin to sin Were the Oath extorted by fear it is our sin to he affrighted into sin who should rather