Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	command_v	law_n	moral_a	2,108	5	9.1759	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47295	The duty of allegiance settled upon its true grounds, according to Scripture, reason, and the opinion of the Church in answer to a late book of Dr. William Sherlock, master of the Temple, entituled, The case of the allegiance due to sovereign powers, stated, and resolved, according to Scripture, &c. : with a more particular respect to the oath lately injoyn'd.	Kettlewell, John, 1653-1695.	1691 (1691)	Wing K366; ESTC R13840	111,563	86

point of Properties and the other forementioned Things Now the way of Mens setting up these is by human Ways and Rights The vesting either of Power or Property for instance must be in some Persons that is some particular Persons must have the Power and the Property And this way of vesting the Power or Property in those Persons can only be by giving them a Right to them for it is their Right to them that must make them to become theirs So that human Acts and Rights must give every Man the State and Power of a Prince or of an Husband and the Property of an Owner and that must give Words their settled Meanings whereby any one that hears them may know what another means And as human Ways and Rights are to set up these States or Things so since human kind has every where the like necessity and the like ability therein these human Rights and Ways will set them up in all places And when these human Rights are in every place passed about them then comes the Law of God and Nature which are to be Laws for every place to empower or guard what such presupposed human Right has given The Fifth Commandment makes no particular Man a Prince nor the Seventh an Husband nor the Eighth and Tenth a Proprietor of what he holds among Men nor doth the Ninth determine any Speech's signification but all suppose them And if God has not done it by immediate Interposition since it must be done either by God or Men they suppose that human Rights have made these already And supposing all these things of Society in this State by human Right these Commandments come to secure their several and respective Duties towards them So that in absence of particular Revelation which alone can make not only a better but ●ndeed any other Right it is an Humanly Rightful and Legal Power which the Fifth Commandment and all other Laws of Obedience to Superiours require us to be subject to and to support and Rightful and Legal Property which the Eighth and Tenth Commandments forbid us either to seize or covet and Rightful Matrimony which the Seventh Command will not have violated by Adultery and Words of human Settlement and Institution wherein the Ninth Commandment forbids all Falsification So that what human Law fixes God's Law secures and to him that holds any of these things by human Rights the Commands of God call for this Obedience and other Duties And therefore he that has the legal Right has the Commandment on his side and must have all the Duty and Obedience which it requires And this I think may show That in the Question about transferring Allegiance the Case of Conscience is not a mere Point of Law as the Author p. 53. seems to intimate or such as doth not involve Moral and Natural Duties wherein he allows every Man may and must examine and understand for himself For tho' the Law must make any Man a Prince to have the Right to the Allegiance yet where the Law has given the Right these Moral and Natural Duties carry all their Obedience to it The Commandments take him that has the legal Right and require all the Duty and Allegiance they enjoyn to be paid to him and require none of it to any other Person So that in going against the Human Right we go against the Moral and Divine Precept which requiring all to him that has the human Right is either broken or kept according as we observe or reject the human Right Indeed if the Point of human Right should happen at any time to be more doubtful and really disputable it would be a less Offence to mistake it But so far as we pay our Duties and Obedience against the human Law and legal Right we pay them also against the Divine Law and Moral Duties But this Disobedience and Breach both of Divine and Human Laws in such Case would be the more pardonable as having the Plea of pityable Ignorance and the Mitigation of being in a dark and doubtful Case wherein Mistakes are less dangerous to honestly disposed Minds I observe still further from this That the Commandment is equally broke in being undutiful to him that has an Human Right as it would be by Undutifulness to one that had a Divine Right For the Commandment is equally for securing Obedience to those in Authority by any sort of good Right Therefore its words or expression of the Person is general to the Father the Higher Power the Magistrate all which must come to be so by some kind of Right and it matters not what whether Human or Divine so long as it is a good Right It is a Natural Precept which is equally for Jews and Gentiles and doth not alter the Style but is the very same and calls for one and the same Obedience to a King of Divine Right by a Divine Intail or Nomination as it doth to another of mere Human Right Which I note because in case of Ioash the Author thinks p. 35. there was a stricter and more unalienable Allegiance due to him on account he came to the Crown as he says by an Intail from God But admit his was a Divine Right the Commandments for Obedience to rightful Powers cary no more nor more unalienable Allegiance to it than they would to an human Right It calls for it only in the same Words and lyes equally open to both and makes no Distinction of either All it requires for Obedience is That they have Right They must be obeyed whilst they have it and no longer than they have it So that be the Right Ioash's or a King 's of any other Nation it will equally stand till a better Right has set it aside The Seditious Jews I think were for making a great difference in point of Obedience between Governments and Kings set up by Revelation and others by Human Right and so esteemed the Heathen Powers who had no Word or Revelation of God for their Government or Governors but only human Ways and Titles as no Powers to whom the Command required Subjection and Obedience This Was one great cause of their restless Endeavours to cast off those Powers One Pretence was recovering their own Liberty which St. Peter notes the Iudaizers used for a Cloak of Maliciousness or Cover of Rebellion the Insufficiency and Iniquity whereof is attempted to be proved and made plain to them in the Speeches of K. Agrippa and Iosephus But onother was Want of God's Authority in these Powers Much troubled they were with this in our Saviour's time and brought it as a Question of Conscience to him Whether it was lawful to own them They were more possessed with this when St. Paul writ to those at Rome and higher still when St. Peter writ being so generally filled therewith as made them ready to burst out into those Commotions in all places which brought their Excision and the final Overthrow of their City and Nation But in

him in the interim of his Dispossession to need an Act of Oblivion Not to mention moreover how Richard the Second was not judged in Law to have lost his Authority whilst Henry the Fourth was possess'd of his Crown Whereof I think this is a very good Proof because the Statute of 1 Ed. 4. as it is in the Rolls says That Henry himself who was unjustly Possessed thereof ought Allegiance to him all that time As his most Sovereign Lord in Earth and acted against God's Law Man's Ligiance and Oath of Fidelity when at last he Murdered him Nor the several Attaindors that might be produced for acting against the Right Heirs seeking to get Possession These Attaindors suppose Authority for an Attaindor cannot ly against any but for acting against the Royal Authority And this Authority was whilst they had no Possession yea for acting for the unjust Possessor himself against them This I think may be sufficient to shew that the Authority of a King doth not lye in possession of External Strength but in such a Right of Ordering as lays an Internal Obligation which may stay by him when all his External Strength is gone and which they may want who have got all his External Strength from him And therefore this Reverend Person should not think it enough to prove one Prince out of Authority because he is out of Possession or another to be in his Authority because he has got into Possession To know who has and who wants the Authority we must look who has or who wants that which carries and and conveys Authority which is not having of External Strength but having Right thereto as I shall endeavour to shew by and by II. Secondly It may be fit to inquire Whence have they this Authority Now that is from God as he observes Who is the Supream Lord of the World and the Fountain of all Authority he is Lord of our Spirits as well as of our Bodies and his Authority can bind us in Conscience as well as in External Interests and this Authority in them coming from him can do so too and therefore St. Paul speaking of the Obligation laid upon us by Civil Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Higher Powers says It calls for our being subject thereunto not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Rom. 13. 1 5. To force the Body may be in the Power of Men but to reach the Conscience is not to be done but by the Authority of God But if this be God's Authority it is next to be inquired III. Thirdly How come they by it or where has he conferred on them this Authority This I think is in the Commandment The Fifth Commandment empowers all Authority and so do those other Precepts that require us to be subject to the Higher Powers to Honour the King to Obey Magistrates and the like That I think empowers him to Command which requires us to Obey and is a Charter both of his Authority and of our Duty since this Duty is only due to Authority I know no other way whereby God speaks either to Governours or Subjects but by the Commandment which empowers one and obliges the other and on this Foot St. Paul seems to put the Guilt of all that is done against Authority He that resisteth the Power or Authority resisteth the Ordinance of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. says the Aethop and Syr. The Divine Mandate or the Constitution and Law of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the Names as Grotius notes which the Emperors were wont to give to their Imperial Constitution so implying them to be Empower'd or Authoriz'd by the Commandment and making resistance of Authority to be a resistance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Commandment which carries and conveys the Authority Rom. 13. 2. This annexing of Authority by the Commandment is immediately to the State or Dignity and only by means of that to the Person The Authority the Commandment places in the Father and the Subjection it requires to the Higher Power the Obedience to the Magistrate and the like in all other Authorities and this is all that Laws can do for Laws are general Sayings and general Sayings can only authorize States in general but must leave it to Men to make the particular Applications The State and Relation then of a Prince or Parent c. is what God and the Command immediately authorizes But this State authorized by a general Commandment is a general Thing And it will be asked further How comes this to be such a Man's Authority or to be fixed in such a Person Now that is by the same way that he comes into the State or Relation and that is not by any immediate Act of God but by an Act of Men. 'T is the Law of the Land for instance that makes any particular Man a King and that Law is not the Act of God but the Act of Men and so in every other State and Relation The comming into these States God and his Laws have left to human Ways and these Ways are very well known none need be Ignorant of the way of coming in to be a Father a Magistrate a Master an Husband c. Which State when once by such Ways they see any Person in the Command of God takes Place giving him Authority and calling for Duty from the Subjects towards him This the Learned Authour seems to think is not enough But as the Power or Authority is annexed to the State so must the Person be called to that State and Power by God himself And therefore he says this empowering or authorizing of the parcular Person is by Providence which is God's doing and which he thinks a good Grant of God to an Usurping Possessor who according to him is a good providential King 1. But First As for such Grant of God to a Person if he means as I suppose he doth a more immediate way of Granting than that by human Rights I know no way of doing that but by particular Revelation or God's immediate Nomination If God please to name the Person he gives the Authority particularly to that Person and not only by the general Grant of giving it to him whosoever should come into such Relation or State of a Parent suppose or King And thus in the First Marriage God fixed the Person viz. Eve who should be Wife to Adam And sometimes among the Jews named the Man as Saul and David who should have the Royal Authority and be their King But these are Rarities and out of the ordinary and constant Course of God's empowering either Kings or Husbands and yet all that come into these States otherwise are as much empowered by God as these so his way of empowering the Person must not be tyed to Revelation and particular Nomination And how God can immediately fix the Person otherwise than by himself immediately naming him which is