Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	family_n	husband_n	wife_n	3,861	5	7.2804	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78461	Certain considerable and most materiall cases of conscience, wherewith divers wel-affected in this kingdom are much perplexed, the cleering wherof would worthily deserve the paines of the Assembly at London.		1645 (1645)	Wing C1688; Thomason E270_7; ESTC R212357	14,633	26

Certain considerable and most materiall Cases of CONSCIENCE wherewith divers wel-affected in this Kingdom are much perplexed the cleering whereof would worthily deserve the paines of the Assembly at London I. WHether there be any clear evidence of Scripture wherein the conscience of a Christian may safely rest for taking up of Armes against his Prince If it had not been forbidden there had been the lesse doubt but there being so many places of Scripture so evidently and so directly against it how shall ordinary capacities that are but ordinarily enlightned be sure that in joyning with the two Houses now at Westminster he doth not transgresse Gods Commandement and draw upon himselfe damnation There are three things pretended but they do not satisfie tender consciences First it is said This was is not against the King What it is in Gods fight God knowes but to any humane understanding it seemes to be against the King It was first undertaken to fetch the King to Parliament it is prosecuted still that we may obtain our desires of the King and when we send to Treat about Peace we send to Treat with the King and if the King should chance to miscarry by a Bullet in these Wars which God forbid who then that hath contributed any assistance to the Parliament could have any comfort in his soul that he were free from the guilt of killing the King A second pretence is That this is a defensive war Indeed if our Armies did alwayes retreat and go back from the King we should think so too but now when we see our Armies still pursue him as at first time also when we sent to fetch him to the Parliament it seemes to be against all sence and reason to count this War a defensive War Thirdly it is pretended A Parliament may do that which private men cannot do And that is certainly true without all doubt but yet the question doth still remain whether the two Houses which make not a full Parliament can lawfully take up Arms against their King It hath been alwayes observed in this kingdom That a Parliament cannot be till the King call it and if it cannot lawfully be without him it is not easie to be beleeved that it may lawfully Act without him much lesse against him and it seemes something strange that the King of his goodnesse having continued this Parliament should now be distressed by that unto which he himself hath given life And here it is to be considered from whence the Parliament hath that power which they have if it be said From the King without question he gave them not power to take up Armes against himself if it be said From the People which is in deed our Pachamentary doctrine our own doings do convince us for our hearts tell us That the people for the major part are Enemies to our proceedings else why have we sent for the Scots There is another thing pretended also at least amongst the vulgar whereby we would many of us quiet and still our consciences and yet it will not do It is said That the King and Parliament are one others expresse it thus to give it the better colour That the Parliament is a part of the King And that which is inferred thereupon is this That the Parliament can do nothing against the King and that whatsoever any man doth for the Parliament he doth for the King because the King and Parliament are one Now it is true indeed the King and Parliament are one one body politique whereof the King is head and so it is true too that the husband and the wife are one body whereof the husband is the head and the union between them is so neer that a neerer cannot be imagined between the King and Parliament and yet it follows not because the husband and the wife are one that it is impossible for the wife to miscarry her selfe towards her husband who knows not that there are some untractable women in the world that carry themselves most unchristianly towards their husbands both with froward words and crosse actions and if any man shall take the wifes part in such away it cannot be said of him he is for the husband and the wife for while he is for the wife in such a way surely he is against the husband So for the difference in hand though the King and Parliament be one it follows not that it is impossible for the Parliament to be disloyall and they carrying themselves in such a way whosoever shall be for them it cannot be said of him he is for the King and Parliament for while he is for them in such a way he must needs be against the King This inference therefore follows not Indeed thus we may rightly argue The husband and the wife are one therefore the wife ought not to be injurious and disloyall to her husband and so the King and Parliament are one therefore the Parliament ought not to be disloyall to the King this Argument will hold but we see the other holds not And as the only way for a man to shew himself a friend both to the husband and the wife in such a case as is mentioned and to make peace in the familie is to let the wife know her duty so the onely way for a man now to shew himselfe a friend both to King and Parliament is to let the Parliament know their duty and to endeavour to reduce them thereunto This comparison doth make the businesse plain onely in one thing the comparison holds not If the wife at any time pretends her husband doth her wrong there is a Judge on earth above them to end the strife namely the King or his Deputy But if at any time the Parliament conceives the King doth them wrong there is no higher Judge on earth to flie unto they must seek unto heaven by their Prayers and wait on the Lord for a redresse of their injuries II Whether he that offers violence to the Kings Person can be free from the sinne of Rebellion because he pretends to defend the Kings Power What violence hath been offered to his person is too evident The unworthy and dishonourable words that have been uttered of the King in Pamphlets in Declarations yea and in Pulpits also to humane reason seeme no small indignities but much more to be excluded from his Houses to have his Revenues with-held to be pursued with Armies and shot at with Bullets c. III Whether we do not oppose the Kings Power when we got about by force to diminish his Power As in Election of his Counsellors his negative voice c. IIII Whether the practice of any former Parliaments held in time of thick and dark Popery may be a sufficient warrant for Parliaments now to walk by Some former Parliaments have been too bold with Kings as our Chronicles shew neither may we think all that out Parliaments have done in that behalf to be lawfull because it is recorded in our