Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	due_a	fear_n	tribute_n	2,900	5	10.7895	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64083	Bibliotheca politica: or An enquiry into the ancient constitution of the English government both in respect to the just extent of regal power, and the rights and liberties of the subject. Wherein all the chief arguments, as well against, as for the late revolution, are impartially represented, and considered, in thirteen dialogues. Collected out of the best authors, as well antient as modern. To which is added an alphabetical index to the whole work.; Bibliotheca politica.	Tyrrell, James, 1642-1718.	1694 (1694)	Wing T3582; ESTC P6200	1,210,521	1,073

of Extremity I have already put than to let those who have got the Power over us in their Hands do whatsoever they please with it to our ruine without any controul And also I desire you to consider whether the Fear of such resistance from Subjects when thus outraged and oppress 't may not often be a more Powerful State 's Spell or Charm as you call it to keep the Supream Powers in their Duty than those many Sermons and other Discourses that have been lately preached and publish't that their Power is irresistible and that therefore all their Subjects are bound to endure whatsoever Tyranny they have a mind to exercise upon them In short I absolutely agree with you that as our Saviour never usurpt any Civil Power or Authority and therefore did not new model the Governments of the World so hath he also given Subjects a Right to maintain whatsoever Models or Forms of Government God hath been pleased to establish among them when they are in danger to be altered or invaded either by a Domestick Tyranny or Forreign Force And without this Right of Resistance for you to tell us That Iesus Christ hath given very good Laws and threatned those that break them with Eternal Punishments and that as the Laws and Religion of our Saviour prevail that so the Government of the World will mend without any more ado is altogether as reasonable as to preach that because Christ hath given us good Laws and threatens Everlasting Punishments to those that break them therefore they are sufficient to keep Men from Robbing and Murdering their Neighbours and that all men giving up their Natural Rights of resisting such Robbers and defending themselves against them should wholy relie upon the Effi●acy of the Commandment against Stealing or else on the more Powerful Motive with such People of a Judge and a Gallows should let them do with us what they please whenever we fall under their Power And therefore I desire you would give me some better proofs that our Saviour hath enjoyned all Mankind an absolute Subjection to the Supream Powers under pain of Damnation without any Resistance in any Case whatsoever but I pray pardon this Digression which your own long Preface extorted from me M. I shall not now dispute this matter with you and therefore to observe your Commands I shall begin with that Divine Answer of our Saviour to the Pharisees and Herodians when they consulted together to entangle him in his Talk They came to him with great Ceremony and Address saying Master we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in Truth neither carest thou for any Man for thou regardest not the Person of Man Tell us therefore what thinkest thou Is it lawful to give Tribute to Caesar or not They thought it impossible that he should give any Answer to this which would not make him obnoxious either to the Roman Emperours if he denied that the Iews might Lawfully pay Tribute to Caesar or to the Pharisees and People if he affirmed that they might for there was a very potent Faction among them who thought it unlawful for the Iews to own the Authority or Usurpations of any Foreign Prince or to pay Tribute to him as to their King They being expresly forbidden by the Law To set a Stranger over them for their King who was not their Brother that is who was not a Natural Iew. And it seems they could not distinguish between their own Voluntary Act in chusing a Stranger for their King which was indeed forbid by their Law and their submitting to a Foreign Prince when they were conquered by him Our Saviour who knew their Wicked Intention in all this that they did not come with an honest Design to be instructed in their Duty but to seek an Advantage against him expresses some Indignation at it Why tempt ye me ye Hypocrites but yet to return them an Answer to their Question he bids them shew him the Tribute Money that is the Money in which they us'd to pay Tribute and enquired whose Image and Superscription it had For Coining of Money was then as certain a mark of Soveraignty as making Laws or the Power of the Sword Well they acknowledge that the Image and Superscription on the Tribute-Money was Caesars upon which he replies Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar 's and unto God the things that are Gods The plain meaning of which Answer is this that since by the very Impression on their Money it is evident that Caesar is the Soveraign Lord they must render unto him all the Rights of Soveraignty among which Tribute is one as St. Paul tells us Render therefore unto all their Dues Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom Fear to whom Fear Honour to whom Honour Whatever then is due to Soveraign Princes and doth not interfere with their Duty to God that they must give to Caesar who at this time was their Soveraign And tho' our Saviour commands us only in general to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars without telling us what Caesar's things are this is so far from making his Answer Ambiguous and of no use in this present Controversie that it suggests to us three plain and natural Consequences which are sufficient to end this whole dispute First That our Saviour did not intend to make any Alteration in the Rights of Soveraignty but what Rights he found Soveraign Princes possest of he leaves them in the quiet Possession of for had he intended to make any change in this matter he would not have given such a general Rule to render to Caesar the things that are Caesars without specifying what these things are Secondly And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Caesars Right What ever is essential to the Notion of Soveraign Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Caesar's Right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this matter So that Subjection to Princes and Non Resistance is as plainly determined by our Saviour in this Law of paying Tribute for Subjection and Non-Resistance is as essential a Right of Soveraign Power and as inseparable from the Notion of it as any thing can be and so it is acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations and is so determin'd by the Apostle St. Paul as I shall shew hereafter Thirdly I observe farther that when our Saviour joyns our Duty to our Prince with our Duty to our God Render to Cae●ar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods he excepts nothing from Caesars Right which by the Laws of Nations is due to Soveraign Princes but what is a Violation of and an encroachment on God's Right and Soveraignty that is we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our Duty to God This is the only

usurped by any other so that any other man can become my Father or I owe him that Filial Duty and Respect as to him that begot me and brought me up And tho' I grant that God may confer a Regal Power on whom he pleases either by his express Will or the ordinary course of his Providence yet when such a person who was not a King before doth become so I utterly deny that the Power he hath then conferred upon him is a Paternal Power in relation to his Subjects which is evident from your own Instance of Saul's becoming a King over his Father Kish For tho' you say that God then conferred a Fatherly Power on Saul over his own Father this is a great mistake For then Saul would have been immediately discharged from all the Duties of Piety and Gratitude which he owed his Father and they were all transferred from Kish to Saul so that after he became King he might have treated his Father with no more Respect or Deference than any other Subject which is contrary to God's Commandment that bids all Men Honour their Father and Mother And I know not how Kings can be excepted out of this Precept So that your mistake arises from this preposterous confounding of Paternal Authority with Regal Power And because Adam Noah or any other Father of a separate Family may be a Prince over it in the State of Nature that therefore every Monarch in the World is also endued with this Paternal Power Which that they are distinct may farther appear from your own supposed Monarchical Power of Adam who tho' granting him to have been a Prince over his Posterity yet did not this discharge any of his Descendants from their Duty and Obedience to their own Father And tho' I confess you talked at our last meeting of a Fatherly Power to be exercised in subordination to the Supreme Fatherly Power of Adam yet this is a meer Chimera for Filial Honour and Obedience being due by the Commandment only to a Man 's own Natural Father can never be due to two different persons at once since they may command contradictory things and then the Commandment of Honour that is obey thy Father cannot be observed in respect of both of them and therefore granting Adam or Noah to have exercised a Monarchical Power over their Children and Descendants it could not be as they were Fathers or Grand-fathers when their Sons or Grand-children were separated from them and were Heads of Families of their own for the reasons already given so that if they were Princes in their own Families whilst their Sons or Grand-children continued part of them it was only as Heads or Masters of their own Families but not by any such Patriarchal or Paternal Authority as you suppose But as for the Conclusion of your Discourse it being all built upon this false Foundation that all Power on Earth is derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power I need say no more to it For if that be false all that you argue from thence concerning the subordination of all other Powers to this will signifie nothing M. I think I can yet make out my Hypothesis notwithstanding all you have said against it For tho' I grant the Paternal Relation it self can never be usurped or transferred yet you may remember I at first affirmed that Adam was not only a Father but a King and Lord over his Family and a Son a Subject a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first and the Father had power to dispose of sell or Alien his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in use in the beginning of the World when Men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating or making Eunuchs much in use in old times And as the Power of the Father may be lawfully transferred or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped And tho' I confess no Father or Master of a Family ought to use his Children thus Cruelly and Severely and that he sins mortally if he doth so yet neither they nor any Power under Heaven can call such an Independant Father or Monarch to an account or punish him for so doing F. I am glad at last we are come to an Issue of this doughty controversie and tho I forced you at our last meeting to confess that Fatherly Power was not despotical nor that Fathers upon any account Whatsoever were absolute Lords over their Children and all their Descendants in the State of Nature Yet now I see to preserve your Hypothesis You are fain to recur to this Despotical Power of Fathers in the State of Nature Because without supposing it and that it may be transferred or usurped Princes at this day whom without any cause you suppose to be endued with this Paternal Despotick Power could never claim any Title to their Subjects Allegiance And then much good may do you with your and Sr. R F's excellent discovery For if as you your self acknowledge Princes are no longer related in Blood to their Subjects any nearer than as we all proceed from Adam our Common Ancestor that relation being now so remote signifies little or nothing so that the true Paternal Authority being lost as you confess the Despotick Power of a Lord over his Servants or his Slaves only remains since therefore you make no difference in Nature between Subjects and Slaves then all Subjects Lye at the mercy of their Kings to be treated in all things like Slaves when ever they please And they may exercise an absolute Despotick Power over their Lives and Estates as they think fit So that I can see nothing that can hinder them from selling their Subjects or castrating them as the King of Mingr●lia doth his Subjects at this day and as the Great Turk and Persian Monarchs do use those Christian Children whom they take away from their Parents to make Eunuchs for their S●raglio's and then I think you have brought Mankind to a very fine pass to be all created for the Will and Lust of so many single Men which if it ever could be the Ordinance of God I leave it to your self to judge M. I was prepared for this objection before and therefore I think it will make nothing against this Absolute Power with which I suppose God to have endued Adam and all other Monarchs at the first So that I am so far from thinking that this Doctrine will teach Princes Cruelty towards their Subjects that on the contrary nothing can better inculcate their Duty towards them For as God is the Author of a Paternal Monarchy so he is the Author of no other He introduced all but the first Man into the World under the Subjection of a Supream Father and by so doing hath shewn that he never intended there should be any other Power in the World and whatever Authority shall be

Foundation of all other and I have ever thought God's Love and Kindness to Mankind did never appear in any thing more except in Man's Redemption than in Creating only one Man and out of him only one Woman So that Adam was a kind of a Father to his Wife That Marital as well as all other Power might be founded in Paternal Iurisdiction That all Princes might look upon the meanest of their Subjects as their Children And all Subjects upon their Prince as their Common Father And upon each other as the Children of one Man that Mankind might not only be United in one common Nature but also be of one Blood of one Family and be habituated to the best of Governments from the very Infancy of the World Were this well considered as there could be no Tyrants so neither would there be any Traitors and Rebels But both Prince and People would strive to outdo each other in the offices of Love and Duty And now do you or any Man living read Sir R. F's Patriarcha or other works and see if either he or I have ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which will not Naturally Spring from this Supream-Paternal Power So that upon the whole I think reason it self would conclude that this way of Solving the first Rise of Government is true and that it is the Duty of all who by the Blessing of God are under Paternal Monarchies to be very thankful for the favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit that best form of Government to their Children after them And surely there is no Nation under Heaven hath more reason for this than the English who are under a Paternal Monarchy which has taken the best care that can be to secure them not only from oppression and wrong but from the very fear of it F. Since you lay the chief stress of your assertion upon the Original of most of the Kingdoms and Monarchies now in the World and of our own in particular I think I may safely joyn issue with you on both points and in the first place affirm that an unjust Conquest gives the Conquerour no right to the Subjects Obedience much less over their Lives or Estates and if our Norman William and his Successours had no more right to the Crown of England than meer conquest I doubt whether they might have been driven out after the same manner they came in But I believe you will find upon second thoughts that Unjust Conquests and Usurpations of Crowns be no firm Titles for Princes to relye on lest the Old English Proverb be turned upon you viz. That which is Sauce for a Goose is Sauce for a Gander but I Shall defer this discourse concerning Titles by Conquest and in particular that of our Kings to this Kingdom to some other time when I doubt not but to shew that it is not only false in matter of fact but also that it will not prove that for which it is brought And therefore what you say in your conclusion in exaltation of God's Love and Kindness to Mankind in Creating one Man and out of him only one Woman that Adam might be a kind of Father to his Wife is a very pretty and indeed singular Notion and you would do very well to move the Convocation next time it sits that this explanation may be added to the fifth Commandment that Women may be taught in the Catechism that Obedience to Husbands is due by the Precept of Honour thy Father and thy Mother And therefore I need give no other Answer to all the rest you have said however Specious the Hypothesis may seem as you have drest it up for Princes and People yet till you have proved that all Paternal Power is Monarchical and that all Monarchical Power is derived from Fatherhood it signifies nothing Nor can these Piae Fraudes do any more good in Politicks than Religion For as Superstition can never serve to advance the True Worship of God but by creating false Notions of the Divine Nature in Me●s Minds which doth not render it as it ought to be the Object of their Love and Reverence but Servile Fear So I suppose this asserting of such an unlimited Despotical Power in all Monarchs and such an entire Subjection as Sir R. F. and you your self exact from Subjects can produce nothing but a flavish Dread without that esteem and affection for their Prince's Person and Government which is so necessary for the quiet of Princes and which they may always have whilst they think themselves obliged in Conscience and Honour to protect their Lives and Fortunes from Slavery and Oppression according to the just and known Laws of the Kingdom and not to dispense with them in great and Essential Points without the Consent of those who have a hand in the making of them And all false Notions of this Supreme Power as derived from I know not what Fatherly but indeed Despotick Power are so far from settling in Peoples Minds a sober and rational Obedience to Government that they rather make them desperate and careless who is their Master since let what Change will come they can expect no better than to be Slaves Nor are Subjects put in a better condition by this Doctrine of Absolute Non Resistance since all Princes are not of so generous a Nature as not to Tyrannize and Insult the more over those whom they suppose will not or else dare not resist them and therefore I cannot see how such a submission can soften the hearts of the most Cruel Princes in the World as you suppose much less how Resistance in some cases can inrage the mildest Princes to their Peoples Ruine since all Resistance of such mild and merciful Princes I grant to be utterly unlawful nor do I hold Resistance ever to be practised but where the People are already ruined in their Liberties and Fortunes or are just at the brink of it and have no other means left but that to avoid it To conclude I so far agree with you that I think it is the Duty of all that are born under a Kingly Government Limited by Laws to be very thankful to God for the Favour and to do the utmost that in them lies to preserve and transmit this best Form of Government to their Children after them without maintaining such unintelligible Fictions as a Paternal Monarchy derived from Adam or Noah And tho' I own that some of our former Kings have taken the best care they could to secure this Nation from Popery and Arbitrary Power yet whether the Method of our three last Kings have been the readiest way to secure us from the fears of it I leave it to your own Conscience if you are a Protestant to judge But since you defie me to shew you out of Sir R. F's Patriarcha that he hath ascribed one Dram of Power to Princes which doth not naturally arise from a Supreme Paternal Power and that this is

mistaken in this Great Point and may have also given occasion to divers others of his profession to fall into the same Errour F. I doubt not but my Lord Coke and others of his profession who maintain the same Opinion may very well be defended as well from that Statute as other Authorities but to pass by that at present I shall first discourse with you upon this point of the lawfulness of taking this Oath to their present Majesties King William and Queen Mary and therefore you misunderstand me if you believe that I think this Oath doth require from you the performance of all those duties of Allegiance and Subjection which I my self am oblig'd to who am fully satisfied of their Title and therefore must venture my Life and Fortune in their quarrel to the utmost of my power against all Persons whatsoever but all that I think can be required of you is that whereas King William and Queen Mary are actually in possession of the Regal Power so long as they continue thus possessed of it you may I think Swear that you will be so far true and faithful to them as not to enterprize any thing against them but that you will pay them that obedience and submission which may be lawfully paid to an actual Sovereign not engaging hereby to uphold them in the possession of the Throne against King Iames and without debarring your self from exerting that Allegiance you have sworn to him upon any emergent safe opportunity for the recovery of his Right M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot assent to take this Oath in this low and qualified sence that you would now put upon it since besides the signification of the words themselves I am very well satisfied that the imposers of this Oath do intend something more than a bare negative obedience to the present Power since it is the only Oath which is required from those who take Imployments either Civil or Military and from whom certainly not only a passive Obedience or Submission but also an active obedience and assistance is required in defending the Crown and Dignity of the present King and Queen de facto with their Lives and Fortunes against all Persons whatsoever or else how could the present Government ever trust them and all this cannot be sworn to without a breach of that Oath they had formerly taken to King Iames and therefore if I should take it in this sense as the Oath itself seems to imploy I should be perjur'd besides by these words of being true and faithfull I should look upon my self as oblig'd to reveal all Plots and Conspiracies which I may any ways happen to know of against King William and Queen Mary which I think would be derogatory to my Allegiance to his Majesty since I should thereby discover and accuse such of his good Subjects as endeavour'd to restore him and should thereby hinder him as much as in me lay from being restor'd again to the Throne But if we consider the word Allegiance it is yet more strict and if I should Perform it to King William and Queen Mary according to the true intent and legal sence of that word I think it could no ways consist with that Oath of Allegiance I have already taken since Allegiance is thus explained in the next following words of the Oath I have already taken and him and them viz. the King and his Heirs I will defend to the utmost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his or their Persons Crown and Dignities Now what kind of assistance is here meant by the word defend may be understood from all the Writers of our feudal Laws who expound the jus defensorium by telling us that the word protegere implies a necessity of defending by Arms as due from the Supream Lord or Sovereign and further that Subjects are in the same sence reciprocally bound to defend the Honour and Dignity of their Sovereign and these words Allegiance and the defence that follows it may be likewise understood from our feudal Laws whereby the Vassals were bound by their Oath of Allegiance as also by vertue of the tenure of their Lands to a military defence of their Supream Lord the King from whom all the Lands in England are held and this is according to Glanvil and all our old Lawyers and though I grant that military tenures are all now taken away by a late Statute yet am I still obliged to the like defence of the King and his heirs not only from the words of this Oath but from the municipal Laws of this Kingdom also which oblige all the Subjects that are capable to take up Arms for the King when need shall require Which my be thus further proved first from the Antient Laws of Edward the Confessor and William the Conquerour by both which all the People or Freemen of the Kingdom were to affirm upon their Faith and Oath within the whole Kingdom and without that they will be faithful to to their Sovereign Lord King William and every where preserve his Lands and Honours with all fidelity and with him will defend them against all his Enemies To this succeeded that which the Lord Coke calls legal Ligeance or the Common-Law-Oath of Allegiance which he cites out of Britton who wrote under Edward I. which all the Subjects were oblig'd to take at twelve years of age at the Sheriffs-Court and at the Leete and without the taking of which they had no warrant to abide in the Kingdom and the form of it was this effect You shall Swear that from this day forward you shall be true and faithful to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs and truth and faith shall bear of life and member and terrene honour and you shall neither know nor hear of any ill or dammage which you shall not defend that is oppose to the utmost of your power And my Lord Coke also here informs us that five things were observed by all the Judges from this Oath in the debate of Calvin's Case First that for the time of its obligation it is indefinite and without limit Secondly two excellent qualities were required that is to be true and faithful Thirdly to whom to our Sovereign Lord the King and his Heirs Fourthly in what manner and saith and troth shall bear of life and member that is untill the letting out the last drop of our dearest heart blood Fifthly where and in what place in all places whatsoever for you shall neither know nor hear of any ill which you shall not defend such is the Ligeance which the Law has prescribed in that antient Oath which is still in force it is neither circumscribed by time nor place it is unconditionate and unreserved it is not a lazy passive Allegiance requiring nothing but pure submission but an active and vigorous Loyalty exacting all that is in the sphere of moral possibility and engaging us to