Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	child_n	father_n	1,068	5	5.3750	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50351	Sacro-sancta regum majestas, or, The sacred and royal prerogative of Christian kings. Wherein sovereignty is by Holy Scriptures, reverend antiquity, and sound reason asserted, by discussing of five questions. And the Puritanical, Jesuitical, antimonarchical grounds are disproved, and the untruth and weakness of their new-devised-state-principles are discovered. Dei gratia mea lux.	Maxwell, John, 1590?-1647.	1689 (1689)	Wing M1385; ESTC R217399	195,288	341

Constitutions 1. The one is when Constitutio ab initio est voluntatis ejus effectus perpetuo pendet à voluntate constituentis when the Constitution is voluntary at first flowing from the free elicite act of the Will and whose Effect and Force dependeth ever from the Liberty and free Will of the Constituent as when a King maketh a Viceroy or Judge durante beneplacito enduring Pleasure or when a man maketh a Legacy and leaveth so much to such a one after his death he may make it void to morrow if Death prevent him not except he hath appended the last Codicil as Lawyers speak in such like things Voluntas hominis est ambulatoria a man's Will is not denuded of it's Liberty to re●ile or change the Will of man being as Philosophers speak Domina sui actûs Mistress and Queen of all her elicite and commanded Acts. It is a ruled Case in Law Nulla obligatio consistere potest quae à voluntate promittentis statum accipit No Obligation can absolutely tye where all its Strength dependeth merely upon the free Will of him that promiseth 2. The other Constitution is Quae ab initio est voluntatis posteà verò effectum habet necessitatis which at the first is by the free Elect and commanded Act of the Will but afterward is attended with an Effect of Necessity that maketh it irrepealable irrevocable as when a man maketh over the Right of his proper Goods to another this is at first a voluntary Action but the Donor having denuded himself of jus proprietatis of his entire Right and the Donee hath jus possessionis hath apprehended Possession this act is firm and stable whether the way of making over be titulo lucrativo or titulo onerosa freely done by gift or for money and as good in Exchange or any other way lawful this act is no ways revocable although it be made to the Disadvantage of the Donor If any should attempt to resume this again it were an Act against common Equity Scripture pleadeth for this Truth Psal. 15. 4. He shall dwell in the Mountain of the Lord who● sweareth to his hurt and changeth not Ananias and Sapphira might without Sin have kept their Goods which they consecrated to God and his Church if they had not interposed the act of devoting or consecrating them but this done to detain but a part of it and it may be for some exigent case of Necessity they preconceived it was high Sacriledge and they payed dear for it Acts. 5. There can be no civil Commerce no Truth or Faith in dealing in bargaining if you open this back door than when a man hath contracted covenanted to his Disadvantage he may resume it and put himself in statu quo If it were granted that Royalty in a King were by Contract betwixt him and his People and resumable by the People upon the Appearance of Disadvantage it cannot stand but in all inferiour Contracts of less Concernment the like should hold Is there any act more freely done than when a woman not subject to paternal Authority of perfect Age under no Guardian maketh Choice of an Husband and as she fancyeth And I pray you may she afterward shake him off at Pleasure God forbid By Moses Law we know the Husband for Jealousie or Discontent might have given to his Wife a Bill of Divorcement that the Woman had the like Power we read it not In Gods case which most nearly concerneth himself in the case of Idolatry the Husband was bound to dilate accuse and witness against his Wife the Father against the Children but there is no Charge to the Wife to accuse or witness against the Husband or the Children against the Father a clear Evidence how God Almighty would have the Inferiour in Reverence Duty and Obedience to carry towards the Superiour that if Idolatry against God otherwise could not be made appear God would have no Remonstrance this way God chused rather to suffer in his own Cause than that lawful Authority should be wronged Deut. 13. The tye betwixt King and People Prince and Subject is greater is stricter than any betwixt man and Wife Father and Son If our Adversaries will believe Iurists they were of a contrary Opinion and did not imagine that the People transferring all their Right upon the Prince did habitually or in any case retain it or any part of it that in case of male-administration they might supply it and in any Exigent resume it or make over the Right to whom they would over-lording their Prince but that they were totally and irrevocably invested with all power conceivable to be in the People Although this Opinion hath not the Truth of all the Kings Right in it divinely enough yet is it a safer Opinion than that of late days hath been taken up and maintained Vlpian a renowned Jurist L. 1. ad Sc. Tupil saith Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem utpote cum lege Regia quae de ejus imperio lata est populus ei in eum omne suum imperium potestatem conferat Vlpian knew no better but that The legislative Power was in the Prince and that because the King is entirely invested with all the Power and Empire was in the People It is probable he reflecteth upon the Democratical Government which was before the Empire and so determineth that what Sovereignty was in the Democracy was with its full Extent as entirely and properly in the Prince Vlpian reserveth no Power to the People for the saith expresly Populus ei in eum omne suum Imperium potestatem confert which ground laid it is absurd to say that in any case or upon any Exigent the people or Communinity diffusive collective or representative can re-estate themselves into that Sovereignty so entirely irreversibly made over Ex ore duum trium Take another witness for in Law Singularis testis nullus and a great one too Bartolus ad L. Hostes. 24. F. de eapt post saith Tertio modo indicitur bellum publicum quando indicitur à populo Ramano vel ab Imperatore in quem translata est omnis jurisdictio populi Romani Bartolus knew not any Power was reserved in any Case or Exigent to the People and if you consider him well upon the place cited the Militia and Iura belli belong to the Prince To these two add Seneca who knew no mixed government but only three Speces Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy Epist. 4. he writeth thus Interdum populus est quem timere 〈◊〉 interdum si ea civitatis disciplina est ut plurima per Senatum transigantur gratiosi in ea timentur viri interdu● singuli quibus potestas populi in populum data est Seneca who knew not Monarchy to be from God imm●diately knew so much that coming from the People the King was so invested with the Power of the People and Power over the People that the People were totally divested of

Observator and others gives unto this Maxim which how they cohere with what we have brought from Scripture and said by its warrant I humbly submit to the intelligent to the impartial Reader and come to consider the no less lame than extravagant consequences the Observator deduceth from this mis-understood and abused Maxim They be four which when we look upon them inwardly are such as never Saint of God nor sound Politician thought of before we shall follow him in his order The first Consequence that he knits with this Antecedent The Safety of the People is the Supreme Law is an Ergo The King is bound in duty to promote all and every one of his Subjects to all happiness Certainly there is more in the Conclusion than is vertually included in the Premisses for when Salus Populi the Safety of the People to which the King is tied to conclude omnis foelicitas populi all happiness of the People and with that large extent to all and every one may well be answered with a non sequitur that the Consequence is lame the reason is clear Salus populi may subsist without Foelicitas Populi Foelicitas dicit quid majus the Safety of the People may subsist without the Felicity of the People for Felicity of the People is the Safety of the People and somewhat more I demand of the Observator and his Complices who ever heard that either by the Law of God Nature or common Equity the King is bound to promote all and every of his Subjects to all Happiness God is not so rigorous a Task-master nor is the notion of the word protect either in it's native or used Sense to which the King is bound so large as to tye him to promote all and every Subject to all happiness It is not imaginable the tenderest-hearted Father or Mother can do this to their best beloved Child nor doth God or Nature require it Doth the Observator by such Consequences intend to make a Kings charge intolerable God injust to impose it a King unable to do it and resolves to condemn all Kings who do not so provide for the Happiness of all and every one of his Subjects in the highest measure Who will deny but every King is bound to level all his Actions Intentions and Endeavours for the Peace Plenty and Safety of his Subjects in common But to put this Burthen on the King which neither he nor his Fathers were able to bear is too hard a measure We may expect this from his Goodness and Bounty we cannot charge it upon him as necessary and incumbent to him of Duty Are not all and every one of Subjects by Duty and Oath tyed to Salus Regis to provide for his Safety Honour Wealth and Power Are not we sworn to it in the Oath of Allegiance to assist and defend all Priviledges Preeminences and Rights belonging to His Highness his Heirs and Successors or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm If all have not taken this Oath all born in his Majesties Dominions are bound to it of all it may be actually exacted and the Statute 5. Eliz. cap. 1. ordains that all Barons Knights Citizens Burgesses elected for the Parliament who shall not take the Oath of Allegiance made 1. Eliz. at their Entry in the Parliament House shall have no Voice in Parliament but be construed as if they had never been elected and suffer such Pains and Penalties as if they had presumed to sit in Parliament without Election Return or Authority By this Oath mentioned in the Statute they are bound to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Queens Highness her Heirs and lawful Successors and to their Power assist and defend all Iurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities belongging to the Queens Highness her Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this Realm or likewise by their Oath 3. Iac. being bound to defend him and his lawful Successors to the uttermost of their Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his Person Crown and Dignity by reason of any Sentence or Declaration flowing from the Pope or otherwise and to their best Endeavour to discover and make known to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and trayterous Conspiracies which they shall know or hear to be against him or any of them Here you see all Subjects and every one to the uttermost of their Power are bound to assist and defend the Kings Right and Prerogative and that none can enter the Houses of Parliament till actually they swear it will it therefore from hence follow that all and every one of his Majesties Subjects at least such as have entered the Houses of Parliament all and every one of them are for-sworn who have intended or attempted any thing besides or who intending or doing it hath not raised him to the highest degree and pitch of Honour Glory and Power In this case I am hopeful the Observator like Iudah will be more favourable to himself and his Patrons than he is in the other to his Sovereign Who before these new Statists that ever wrote the Charge of a King bound him to promote all and every one of his Subjects to all kind and highest Degree of political and temporal Happiness Is it in the Power of the most puissant Monarch upon Earth to advance all his Subjects capable and deserving men to the highest pitch of Happiness and Honour Parcius ista viris c. To shut up all that concerneth this first absurd Consequence drawn from this abused Maxim I intreat the Observator to remember that Almighty God did never judge it fit to entrust the People with their own Safety but in a subordinate way hath committed this Trust to his Anointed his Vicegerent upon Earth from whence issueth this Consequence that Salus Regis est salus populi The Safety of the King is the Safety of the People as Salus Animae is salus Corporis the Safety of the Soul is the Safety of the Body The Fathers judged it so see Iustin Martyr quaest resp ad Orthod q. 138. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy Father knew no other case of a Kingdom than that the King is the Soul and the Subjects the Body Let the Observator judge then where the Safety is most considerable and learn from Salust Animi imperio corporis servitio utimur or from Tacitus Nempe iis that is Imperatoribus dii Imperium dedere nobis obsequii gloria relicta est And the Heathen will learn him to acknowledge that the Honour and Safety of the King his Glory and entire Prerogative is the Transcendent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Politicks the paramont Law that giveth Law to all Laws concerning private men their Lives Estate and Honour and that all Subjects are to promote the Sovereign Right and Prerogative to the utmost of their Power as the publick Soul of the Kingdom and the Breath of their

Nostrils The second Corollary which the Observator deduceth out of this Principle Salus populi suprema lex esto is that it were strange if the people subjecting themselves to command should aim at any thing but their own Good in the first and last place This Consequence presupposeth two Errors the one is that the people are the immediate Authors and Donors of Sovereignty which we have already refuted the other is that the Conveyance of Sovereignty is by Trust and that in that Portion and proportion the people please the error of which we will by God's grace discover in our third Question To take this off briefly I ask of the Observator that seeing God hath ordained Rule and Subjection and directeth mankind to their greatest Convenience by Government and seeing God and Nature teach and all do acknowledge that the Good Plenty Peace and Safety of the people cannot be effected or attained to except the King be proportioned to so high a degree of Honour Wealth and Power that as Father he may protect all administrate Iustice secure from Oppression and Sedition at home and from Invasion abroad and have Main tenance proportionable to these ends whether or not in Order of Nature in the first place it is necessary that this Power Honour and Maintenance be secured to the King without which we cannot expect Safety Peace or Good to the Subject Except we have made a Divorce betwixt our selves and Reason we must grant this Truth If you will trust Saint Chrysostom hear him speak it upon Rom. 13. upon these words He is the Minister of God for good unto thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which words two things are expressed first that the King is immediately sent from God the other is that he is sent for our Good no Safety then for us without him and for both Respects we are to honour him for all Good which we have by our Industry is by Influence from his Government and he is a co-worker with us and auxiliary in it If this be not enough turn to him upon the words Not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake where he saith that the King is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is the procurer of Peace and Base and bottom of all politick economy Innumerable good things come by Princes Government to the Society of men which if you take away there can be no Cities no Right to Lands or Revenues no House and Family can subsist no Commerce and Trade can be had all shall be overturned the stronger devouring the weaker To St. Chrysostom's Suffrage joyn St. Augustine tom 9. tract 6. in Ioh. Tolle jura Imperatorum quis audet dicere mea est illa villa aut meus est ille servus aut domus baec mea est and a little after Per jura Regum possidentur possessiones the result is this if you take away the Right of Kings none dare say the Lands are mine this Servant is mine or I have Right to this House It is by the right of Kings that all our Rights and Possessions are secured It is more than manifest then that the Right of King and Subject the Safety of King and Subject are naturally conjoyned and so intimately involved the one in the other that in the moral Notion they may be esteemed identically the same no less than Soul and Body make up one identical personal Subsistence or at least se mutuò ponunt tollunt destroy the Kings Right and Good and with the same Act the same blow you destroy the Subjects too If you provide not for the Safety of the King you cannot possibly secure the Safety of the People What God hath conjoyned let none put asunder Let it never then again be spoken or heard by Christians that the good of the Subject is the Alpha and Omega in Government and demandeth by right the first and last place The third Consequence is this That the King looking upon the whole State reflecting upon what Graces he hath granted or may grant to his People he cannot merit of it and what he hath granted if it be for the good of his People it hath proceeded but from his meer Duty Well by the Observator we see the King is placed in no better condition than a Servant nay an unprofitable Servant for when he has done all he can do he was onely done his Duty By these means Grace is not a fit compellation for Kings Acts of Iustice he may do but no Acts of Grace O misera Regum sors On the other part the People are stated in that sublime condition that they may supererogate with their Prince by doing many Acts of Bounty Favour and Grace By this Assertion a Prince is disabled from doing any courtesie to his Subjects Before this miserable distempered Age was it ever heard but that it was the greatest happiness of a King that he was able and his greatest glory to oblige his People by Acts of Grace Bounty and Courtesie But now the World is so turn'd topsie turvy that when he has done all he is able he hath onely discharged the duty of a faithful and trusty Servant Turn the Tables and then see what you will judge of the throw Do not all we Subjects owe Duty to the King Are we not tied to advance his Honour Yet upon extraordinary Services we believe we can deserve well both of King and Countrey Will you not Observator allow the King the like measure This Conceit is a popular Deceit and not virtually onely but also really destroys the ground of Beneficence in a King and the duty of Gratitude in a Subject By this it appeareth that it is a naked nay an hypocritical Complement when both Houses in Parliament after Graces granted present their humble thanks and heartily acknowledge His Majesties gracious Favours Must not the like hold betwixt a Father and his Family And shall we by these grounds be constrained to acknowledge all the Acts of a Father to his Family to be no better than Acts of meer Justice and Duty In the Dialect of Scripture and Heathen Writers Homer Odyss 9. Kings are Fathers And yet the Observator standeth not to say That the Father is more worthy than the Son in Nature and the Son is wholly a Debtor to the Father and can by no merit transcend his Duty nor challenge any thing as due from his Father for the Father doth all his Offices meritoriously freely and unexpectedly We will not be at pains now to examine this onely I demand if this hold according to his Judgment in a Father of a Family how comes it to pass that it holds not in Patre Patriae in the Father of the Kingdom The obligation to Pater Patriae to the Father of the Kingdom is stronger is straighter than to Pater Familiae to our natural Father And the School doth teach us and all Divines besides for ought I know that we are bound to love the King appreciativè by