Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	child_n	covenant_n	parent_n	1,796	5	9.1412	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46764	The title of an usurper after a thorough settlement examined in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, &c.	Jenkin, Robert, 1656-1727.	1690 (1690)	Wing J573; ESTC R4043	113,718	92

to themselves a Liberty of Resistance in certain Cases by express Agreement which has been the Custom in Kingdoms where Resistance is allowed Or however let us suppose That the People declare their King irresistible upon their Choice of him and establish that as the Fundamental Law of their Government suppose they oblige all in any Office Military or Civil to swear That it is unlawful upon any Pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against him and oblige all the Clergy solemnly and frequently to declare it would it be lawful for the People to recal this Power because they gave it Or is it not rather of the very Essence of this Power that it can never be recalled because never resisted Are other Contracts revocable by either of the Parties at pleasure because they are entred into by Consent Might Marriage be dissolved when either Party pleased if no more were required to it than the Consent of both Parties Or is there any greater Reason why he that has consented to be governed by an irresistible power may recal his own Act and resist when he thinks fit I do not dispute whether it be possible for the People to convey a Power of Life and Death and to establish a Sovereign Power among them nay I grant it is impossible for any Rightful Government to be erected by mere Consent and Compact without God's Establishment and Confirmation of it I only shew That though this were true yet the Conclusion would be false and though the People might make Kings by mutual Agreement and Contract yet they could not unmake them But tho' the same Persons might not play fast and loose as they please yet what obligation could their Childrenly under to obey that Race of Kings which they had set up For what Rights says the Dr. had my Ancestors three or four hundred years ago to choose a King for me I answer they had a Paternal Right in vertue of which Children are obliged by all the lawful Acts of their Fathers in their behalf or by the Acts of others which are for their advantage when they act as Parents for them Thus Children promise by their Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism and when they come to Age would be guilty of Apostacy and of the breach of the most solemn Vow and Promise made in their name if they should renounce their Baptism In the Covenants which God has made with mankind the Children were always obliged by their Fathers Act thus it was in his Covenant with Adam with Noah with Abraham and with Moses and the Children of Israel There is nothing more plain in Scripture than that the Children had an Interest in the Covenant made with their Fathers and were obliged to perform the Conditions of it And there is no difference between a Covenant made with God and one made with Man in this respect for it is essential to a Covenant that there should be the Consent of the Parties that enter into it and tho' God has a Right over his Creatures to require what Acts of Duty and Obedience he pleases from them yet when he is pleased to deal with them by way of Covenant it is necessary they should consent to the Terms of it either by themselves or by others that represent them and have Power to act for them otherwise what were breach of a voluntary Covenant as well as of natural Duty in the Parents would be only breach of Duty in the Children And no distance of time can make any alteration in this obligation which Parents lay upon their Children as it appears by those Covenants which God has entred into with Mankind But if this could make any difference every Father renews his obligation to the Government for himself and his Children For if the Person immediately consenting to the setting up a King oblige his Sons to pay Allegiance to him then for the same reason they by their Consent and Submission in living under his Government oblige their Children and so on for four hundred Years or as long as the Government continues There is no need further to mention the Obligation all men are under to their Country for their Protection and Education from their Infancy and for the many Benefits they receive from the Government it is manifest that the Act of their Parents is obligation enough if there were no other and they must be obliged by their Parents Choice as well as by their own and are not left at liberty to deny their own Consent if they think their Ancestors have made an ill Bargain But when we add to this God's Authority which is conferred upon all that are duly advanced to Sovereignty we have the surest grounds for the Doctrin of Passive Obedience tho' God do not give his Authority in such a manner as to null or frustrate Legal Rights and Claims He next proceeds to consider the Objections that may be made against his Assertion The first is that the dispossessed Prince ought not to attempt the Recovery of his Throne nor any other Prince to assist him in it which is to oppose God and to challenge that p. 25. which he has no longer any Right to He answers By no means The Providence of God removes Kings and sets up Kings but alters no Legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed of them to recover their Rights when they can While such a Prince is in the Throne it is a Declaration of God's Will that he shall reign for some time longer or shorter as God pleases and that is an obligation to Subjects to submit and obey for Submission is owing only to God's Authority But that one Prince is at present placed in the Throne and the other removed out of it does not prove that it is God's Will it should always be so and therefore does not devest the dispossest Prince of his Legal Right and Claim nor forbid him to endeavour to reeover his Throne nor forbid those who are under no obligation to the Prince in Possession to assist the dispossest Prince to recover his Legal Right This Answer seems to suppose that tho' the Prince in Possession have the Exercise of the Supreme Power and do administer God's Authority for a time or rather tho' God governs by him as his Instrument while he is in Possession yet he has no Authority inherent in himself but acts as wickedly all along in withholding from the Rightful Prince his due as he did at first in depriving him of it and therefore may be thrust out by the Legal Prince himself or by any others who have made no Submission to him But this is so directly contrary to all the rest of his Discourse that it cannot be the Dr's meaning in this place For he that is set up by God P. 13. that is made King by him that is invested with his Authority and receives his Authority from him he to whom God gives the Throne and does not only permit him to take

therefore Jehoiada said to the Congregation Behold the King's Son shall Reign as the Lord hath said of the Sons of David 2. Chr. 23 2. and the Convocation observes that he acquainted them that it was the Lord's will that he should reign over them and that God himself had required all that they did at their Hands For when God has given his Promise we must interpret no occurrences of Providence in contradiction to in and therefore we see that when the Kingdom was taken from David's Posterity it was not done without an express Revelation But where God has made no Promise to a King and his Successors that they shall enjoy the Kingdom he may by his Providence take it away from them To this I answer That the whole design of the Convocation is as I have shewn to explain the Duty of Subjects by the example of God's own People and therefore if in this place they suppose something so peculiar in the Constitution of their Government that it could be no precedent to other Kingdoms this must be a manifest contradiction to their whole design They tell us that Government in its Original and by its first Institution was immediately from God and was the same throughout the World and tho it were corrupted in other Nations God preserved it amongst his own People and yet still the same Obedience was due under those alterations from the said mild and temperate Government at first instituted that was to be paid under this itself and by consequence there must be the same obligation to the Right Heir in all other Hereditary Monarchies and therefore they call Joash here the true and natural apparent Heir to the Crown and their only natural Lord and Sovereign which would be very unfit expressions if they did not think that he had an unalterable Right by the Law of Nature as well as by God's Promise In was enough indeed that Jehoiada should remind the People of God's own choice of Davids Posterity to rule over them and nothing more needed to be said by him and it was very fit that this should not be omitted by the Convocation But if this were the only Title which Joash had it would have been improper to call him a Natural Heir a Natural Lord and Sovereign and it would have overthrown all their Arguments from the P●…ce of the Jews if they had said th●… Joash ought to be plac'd upon the Throne of his Ancestors after that six years interval only by vertue of a Divine Promise For a Divine command concerning any of their Kings or Judges for the time of their Lives is equivalent to a Divine Promise concerning David and his Posterity and so it might be said by parity of Reason that the Duty which they owed their Kings was due by vertue of a revealed command from God and could not be the same in other Nations where there is no such revealed Command Thus David would not stretch forth his Hand against Saul for this Reason because he was the Lords anointed that is he was so chosen and appointed by God himself as no King now can pretend to be And so in all other instances if we must argue from no example where Gods command or promise intervenes in vain does the Convocation explain the Duty of Subjects from the sacred History and yet we must argue from no such examples if Gods revealed will alters the case and makes it different from Cases of the same Nature which fall out in other Governments concerning which God has not revealed any thing It is true indeed when God so interposes as to invert the ordinary course of Government as in the case of Ahud and Jehu this can be no Precedent for any to imitate without the same command to authorise them that they had but then it was no more a Precedent to the Jews themselves than to any other Nation But when God only regulates the Jewish Government according to the first institution at the Creation and settles it upon the Right of Succession which is common to that with all other Hereditary Monarchies and makes choice of the Person to whom and to his Posterity he grants a Donation of the Kingdom or when he reforms abuses and puts things into their due course and order again and enjoyns nothing but what without a Divine warrant is of itself lawful to be done we may conclude that all these things are written for our instruction and must be a Rule to all other Nations in the like Cases The Convocation therefore proceeds all along upon this Principle Ch. 2.6 Can. 2.6 that from the first institution of Government there is both a Natural and a Divine Right in all Sovereigns which is Natural as it is founded on the Laws of Nature and Divine because Government is Gods Ordinance and owes its Original Form and Constitution to Gods own immediate appointment and therefore that when God by his express direction and command afterwards settled that sort of Government which he at first instituted to all the World among his own People he did not thereby make any alteration in the Duty of Subjects or Rights of Kings but did only oblige both to perform their several Duties in that way and manner which he had enjoyn'd them The Children of Israel asked a King to judg them like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.5.20 And God chose Saul to be their King but what ever variations there might be in some circumstantials of Government they owed just the same Duty and Subjection to him which was due to Adam and Noah c. And according to the Convocation every other Sovereign Prince has the very same Right that he had neither they in asking nor God in giving them a King made any distinction between the Authority of their King and the Kings of other Nations but the manner or Royal Power of their King is described to be just the same with that of the Kings round about them God entailed the Kingdom of Judah upon David and his Seed but the Right of Succession was still the same in that which it is in all other Hereditary Kingdoms only they had a Secondary Obligation to the performance of their Duty from an immediate and positive Command whereas others are oblig'd to the same Duties but by Virtue only of the Law of Nature and of the first Institution of Government The Jews then were bound to set up Joash in that Kingdom upon two accounts that is both as he was their Natural Sovereign and as he descended from David to whom God had made a peculiar Promise and had given the Kingdom to him and to his Posterity but the first obligation had been of itself sufficient and those Kings who hold by no Divine Promise but only by Right of Inheritance have the same Right which he had who held by a Twofold Title because either of them had been alone sufficient For a single Title is enough to convey a Right and an Additional