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	owe_v	parent_n	5,339	5	9.4563	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61830	Eight cases of conscience occasionally determined by the late Reverend Father in God, Robert Sanderson, Lord Bishop of Lincoln.	Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663.	1674 (1674)	Wing S598; ESTC R37202	62,486	160

himself a new Obligation contrary thereunto Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori As in the case of Marriage a precontract with one party avoideth all after-contracts with any other And if a man convey Lands to several persons by deeds of several date the first conv●yance 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 Iustice Charity 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 befound hard I believe to free this Vow from being repugnant to the rules of Iustice but impossible I am sure to reconcile it with the perfect Evangelical Law of Charity and Mercy First Civil and Political Iustice 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 case 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 Iustice 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 ●hat 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 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 f●om the offended Father yet how can it be just that for the Mothers fault the pour in●ocent perhaps yet unborn Children should be utterly and irrecoverably excluded from all possibility of relief from their Grandfather 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