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 parent_n reverence_n 2,346 5 9.8318 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A44305 A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people. Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676. 1668 (1668) Wing H2604; ESTC R7940 125,044 140

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

submission Pi●u● or out of any Principle of Conscience but prudential and politick because they are not in probable capacity to give him Battel if they had the tempting opportunity and capacity the case would be altered Then not only violent resistance should come to be duty but pulling of the Magistrate out of his chair of Government as we will hear punishing him and placing themselves though but private Men in his room How contrary such principles and practices of private Mens non-submission to and counter-acting of Church-judicatories supposed to do wrong are unto the Word of God how subversive of Church-government how introductory of Schisme Heresies and all Mischiefs into the Church is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the Pamphlet intituled Presbytery no Papacy Protesters no Subverters And with equal reason may the same grounds be made use of against this Mans inciting all private persons to counter-act the Magistrate violently when they think he doth them wrong or when they account their Sentences unjust As certain confusion comes on the Church if the Principles of that Party be entertained so let People once drink in this Mans Doctrine in reference to the State there shall be no end of sedition no security for the powers ordained by God for any private persons are made judges of the justice of the Magistrates Sentences and Punishments and what Man will readily condemn himself if he may be admitted to be judge in his own cause And upon their own private judgement of the injustice of the Magistrates dealing with them are allowed without any further prerequisite to use violence against him pull the sword out of his hand and pull himself out of his seat onely there must be probable capacity for this and nothing excuses from not doing so but want of that capacity If that be wanting there must be submission to unjust Sentences not out of any consciencious respect to the Power but ad redimendam majorem vexationem This is the Libellers mind Such Doctrine surely is neither consonant to Gods Word to the practices of his dear and approven People to the mind of his soundest Servants nor to sound Reason Who ever will consult the holy Oracles of God will find that not only is obedience commanded to be given to Magistrates in their lawful injunctions and submission not only for wraths-sake but also for conscience-sake to their just punishments of sin and wickedness who ever re-offends or violently resists the Magistrate in either of these no doubt resists the Ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.2 but also that there is a submission required to be yielded them even when they put us to suffer wrongfully and unjustly may be evidently gathered from Scripture grounds in the case of unjust suffering God hath not left his people without direction what to do in reference to Magistrates abusing their power It is true as hath been said the Lord hath not given a moral power or warrand to any invested with Authority to do evil or unjustly concerning that the question is not But the question is what duty is owed by the Subject unto the Magistrate especially the Supreme for there may be remedies had against the injuries of the inferior by appellation in case of his male-administration and unjust Laws or Sentences according to these Laws or Executions according to Sentence whether they may violate or violent the person invested with Authority and not submit to him but counter-act him by force in self-defence against his violence or if they be bound in conscience or by any Law of God to submit humbly to what he inflicts although unjustly if they can neither move him by their humble petitions to forbear them nor can flee from his wrath or go out of his Dominions This man and his Complices maintain that if the Magistrate abuse his power in making unjust Laws or punishing according to these any private man or company of men that think themselves strong enough for the Magistrate ought never to suffer but use forcible resistance against the Magistrate abusing his power and that all the patience that is required of Christians toward oppressing Magistrates is only to bear suffering patiently when they are out of capacity of acting and may not better do and to suffer patiently when they see they cannot repress the violence of the unjustly-dealing Magistrate with a sufficient contrary violence This Doctrine favouring so strongly of carnal selfie-nature and being too suitable to the way of beasts who know no other thing but to be carried with a natural impetus to repay violence with violence till they be over-powered we utterly dislike and do assert according to the Holy Scriptures That even when Magistrates deal unjustly or put any to suffering wrongfully albeit they are for this to give a dreadful account and albeit Subjects are to judge of their actions as they deserve and not approve their malversation but modestly witness against it as there is opportunity yet suffering persons are bound to a passive submission or obedience enduring wrongs done to them not only with respect to Gods providential Ordinance by which their suffering comes to pass but with respect to his institutive Ordinance of Magistracy wherewith the persons afflicting them are invested albeit in the particular acts concerning them abusing their power For albeit the abuse of the power be not of God yet the abused power is of God and the person invested therewith must have respect from the sufferer other respect then is to be given to a private invader intuitu officii not intuitu abusus officii and this respect is patient submission under the affliction though unjustly inflicted and not daring to re-violent the person invested with Magistratical power although in a particular toward us he abuse his power to commit our persons and our cause to him that judgeth righteously not offering to move sedition albeit we were able for it If we shall only look to these three things in the Scripture we shall see ground for what is said 1. Consider what is required of Children toward their Parents unjustly afflicting them and likewise from Servants toward their Masters and by analogy we may learn somewhat of the mind of God of the duty of Subjects to their Princes who are their political Fathers and have a despotical and lordly power over them For Children Heb. 12.9 10. We had Fathers of our flesh who corrected and chastned us after their own pleasure and we gave them reverence which in the apodosis of the similitude is expon'd subjection v. 9. This is not only spoken of narrativè but approbativè if it were not so the argument taken from our carriage to Parents to enforce reverent subjection to God were not good The Apostle approves the reverend subjection of Children to their Parents though unreasonably and with mixtures of unjust passion correcting them he allows not the deed of the Parent for his own pleasure afflicting the Child but
by themselves And may as they see fit resume what power he hath for he is but their Servant and Vassal as he saith What can Protestant Princes expect but destructive doctrine from this hand and pen that hath written up Page 178. John Marian the Jesuite lib. 1. de Rege for one of his approved Authors as he calls them a reprobate Author amongst all good men is the man and his book commending regicide by any means is infamous in all Christendom however this man count of him as an approved Author and his spirit may be no lesse seen in that while he approves this man he hath set this mark on famous Bishop Andrews known in his time to be most adverse to Papists P. 423. Bishop Andrews saith he his name is a curse on the earth his writings prove him to be a popish Apostate What of his writings this man hath seen who can tell but all that the world hath seen of his writings prove him a great Antipopist and sound Protestant But to our purpose This civil Covenant 'twixt King and People is pleaded as that which is essential and fundamental to the constitution of all politick Societies and whereupon peoples both resisting the Prince and revenging themselves upon him is mainly grounded Yea Naph will have it to be a sufficient ground not only for the Proceres or Body of the people to proceed vindicatively against the King but in application to the Rebellion he intends to justifie for any private persons whatsoever if they be in probable capacity to do mischief without drawing mischief upon themselves and so out-stripes his master who gives not much to any private persons upon this account but to the States of the Land and inferior Magistrates with the Body of the people But as to the Covenant betwixt King and People both L. R. and Naph urge it as the ground for not only resisting but punishing Kings and all Magistrates when they account them Tyrants and will have a tacite virtual Covenant as valid for their ends as where it is express avowing it to be essentially fundamental in the constitution of all political Societies This brings to mind the folly of the man that would have all to be tyed in a Band that he had made aswell these who subscribed not as these who subscribed it But to be serious as to this matter we say 1. it is easily conceded that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects to mutual duties which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politick Body but this obligation arises not from any tacite or express Covenant betwixt them but from the Ordinance and Will of God enjoining them these duties in such relations in that Society wherein they are combined 2. That obligation though it be mutual in the relations they are in yet it is not conditional there is a mutual obligation to mutual duties betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional nor is there such a Contract or Covenant that if Parents be undutiful Children should be loosed from their duty or upon the contrary but Children are bound to be subject to their Parents without any condition or p●ction on their part only in point of obedience active Gods will is to be preferred to theirs and nothing is to be done contrary to Gods Will for their pleasure otherwise the subjection is not conditional but absolute So also peoples obedience to Kings properly and truly so called is not conditional si meruerint nor is the duty of the King to them conditional si meruerint but each of them is absolutely bound to do duty in their own relations wherein they are one to another the obligation is absolute salva Deo obedientia Reverend Mr. Calvin speaks home to this purpose lib. 4. inst cap. 20. S. 29. preventing an objection against obeying wicked and tyrrannous Magistrates At mutuas inquies subditis suis vices debent praefecti Id jam confessus sum verum si ex eo statuis non nisi justis imperiis rependenda esse obsequia insulsus es rationator nam Viri Vxoribus Liberi Parentibus mutuis officiis astringuntur c. He sayes that albeit Parents discedant ab officio c. depart from their duty and exceedingly provoke their Children to wrath and Husbands use their Wives reproachfully whom they ought to entertain kindly yet improbis inofficiosis subjiciuntur Vxores Liberi And he adds there gravely that inferiors should not so much inquire into the duties of their superiors as every one should search what is their own duty and no think themselves disoblieged from their duty because the other bound to do duty to them is therein deficient this is Christian divinity indeed As the Magistrate is not to think the performance of his duty is dependent upon the condition of the Subjects doing their duty So neither are the Subjects of a lawful King to account themselves bound only conditionally to him if he do his duty 3. The fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People as they use to call it equivalent to all ends that an explicite and express Covenant can have overthrows the distinction that all sound Protestant Divines and Polititians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis who takes not his Kingdom upon conditions prescribed to him so as in case of failing he be subject to their censure or punishment Est alius principatus absolutus saith Rivet Ps 68. p. 420. Est etiam alius sub conditione pacti conventi temperatus to that same purpose Gerhard de Magistrat p. 935. wherein they agree with Calvin lib. 4 inst cap. 20. art 31. But now this man is bold to say There is no absolute King that such a King is contrary to the Word of God L. R. p. 107. and herein he deserting our Protestant Divines sides with Bellarm. recognit lib. de laicis where he saith Inter principem subditos est reciproca obligatio si non expressa tamen tacita ut Magistratus potest subditos ad obedientiam vi illius obligationis cogere ita subditi possunt à Magistratu deficere si capita illius foederis transgrediatur Whereupon and the like speeches Gerhard in the foresaid place speaking asserts Totam horum similium argumentorum structuram uno impetu dejicit Apostolus Omnis anima Rom. 13. c. and sayes that Barclay Cunerus Albericus Gentilis Arnisaeus solide refutarunt have refuted solidly the arguments of the Antimonarchists as they have done indeed But as to an absolute Prince albeit this Statist sayes he is contrary to the word of God it is most untrue For as our Laws which this man cares not to contradict allows our Kings to be absolute in express termes Jam. 1. Par. 18. an 1606. Act. 2. So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Laws and we understand him qui non sumit aut