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	law_n	nature_n	1,568	5	5.4669	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A73418	Roger Widdringtons last reioynder to Mr. Thomas Fitz-Herberts Reply concerning the oath of allegiance, and the Popes power to depose princes wherein all his arguments, taken from the lawes of God, in the Old and New Testament, of nature, of nations, from the canon and ciuill law, and from the Popes breues, condemning the oath, and the cardinalls decree, forbidding two of Widdringtons bookes are answered : also many replies and instances of Cardinall Bellarmine in his Schulckenius, and of Leonard Lessius in his Singleton are confuted, and diuers cunning shifts of Cardinall Peron are discouered.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1619 (1619)	STC 25599; ESTC S5197	680,529	682

derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince As for example if a head of a family should bind his wife and children to defend him from the correction of his lawfull Prince when occasion should require I thinke no man will be so absurd to say that it is a lawfull Oath and correspondent to nature though the same should be coloured and shadowed neuer so much with pretence of Oeconomicall and filiall discipline and dutie And no more can the other Oath be lawfull and agreeable to Nature though it be neuer so much coloured with respect of temporall allegiance 17 But first obserue I pray you the egregious shufling of this man For he pretended to prooue in this Chapter by the law of Nature that the Pope hath power to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and that therefore the new Oath which denieth this power to be in the Pope is repugnant to the law of nature And therefore I expected that he would haue brought some effectual argument taken from the law of nature abstracting frō the positiue law of God to confirme this power of the Pope to inflict temporall punishments and to punish temporall Princes temporally and consequently that this Oath is by the law of Nature preiudiciall to the coerciue authoritie of spirituall Pastours But now he flyeth from the law of Nature to the law of God to prooue that the Oath is preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church and supposing that he hath proued this by the law of GOD then it followeth saith he that the said Oath is no lesse vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature then if a husband should exact of his wife a maiester of his seruant a father of his children an Oath which should derogate from the power and authoritie of their temporall Prince So that Mr. Fitzherbert doth only conclude heere that the Oath is vnlawfull vniust and repugnant to Nature supposing that it is by the law of God preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church 18 Secondly therefore although we should suppose heere with Mr. Fitzherbert that this new Oath is repugnant to the law of God as in very deede it is not yet he cannot therefore rightly conclude that it is also repugnant to the law of Nature which he in this Chapter pretendeth to proue for that euery transgression of the positiue law or institution of almighty God is vnlawfull and yet not repugnant to the law of Nature whereupon the Diuines doe deuide the law of God into the diuine naturall and the diuine positiue law and he that should deny that the spirituall Pastours of the Church of Christ haue authoritie to remit sinnes should contradict the law of God in the new Testament and so this deniall of Priestly authoritie to forgiue sinnes is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of spirituall Pastours and yet it doth not from thence follow that it is repugnant to the law of Nature which is naturally grafted in the hearts of euery man whether hee be Iew or Gentile infidell or Christian as the law of Nature is by my Aduersaries taken heere Wherefore Mr. Fitzherbert concluding heere that the Oath is repugnant to the law of Nature for that it is preiudiciall to the power and iuridiction giuen by the law of Christ to the head of the Church seemeth not to vnderstand himselfe what is the law of Nature and how the law of Nature is distinguished from the positiue law of God But of this law of Nature more beneath e Num. 90. ● seq and in the next chap. where also you shall see the reason wherefore the obedience in generall which a wife oweth to her husband a seruant to his Maister and children to their parents is not properly naturall but ciuill and yet the obedience in generall which subiects owe to their temporall Prince is not only called ciuill but also naturall allegiance 19 But thirdly it is not true that this Oath now in question is repugnant to the law of God and preiudiciall to the power and iurisdiction of the head of the Church for that it denyeth the Popes power to depose Soueraine Princes and to inflict temporall punishments neither hath Mr. Fitzherbert prooued by the law of God that the Pope hath any such power as you haue seene at large in the former Chapter and to say that this Oath is repugnant to the law of nature taking the law of nature as it is distinguished from the positiue law of God or man and is nothing else then the dictamen or prescript of true reason concerning things to be done which either supposeth diuine reuelation and the supernaturall light of faith and is proper onely to true beleeuers and it is called by the Diuines the supernaturall law of nature supernaturall I say to man but connaturall to grace and faith which it supposeth or else supposeth onely naturall knowledge and is common to all men indued with naturall reason and is called properly and absolutely the naturall law for that it is connaturall to euery reasonable man is very vntrue as partly I haue shewed in the former Chapter where I haue answered all my Aduersaries arguments grounded vpon diuine reuelation and partly in this and the two next ensuing Chapters I will more cleerely conuince Now let vs goe on with the rest of his Discourse 20 For as no reason sayth he f Pag. 97. nu 7. 8. of Oeconomie or filiall or coniugall duetie holdeth when it is encountred with the respect of the weale publike or of due obedience to a lawfull Soueraigne So neither can any reason of common-wealth or allegiance to temporall Princes ouerweigh when the same is ballanced with the publike good of the Church of Christ whereto all temporall Princes doe owe more respect duety and subiection euen by the law of Nature then their Vassals and subiects owe to them because the Religion or Ecclesiasticall Societie which is the Church is as I haue said the supreme and most worthie Societie of all other on earth In which respect also all Societies inferiour to the Common-wealth yea euery member thereof haue more obligation owe more dutie to the Church which is the highest Societie then to the Common-wealth or any other whereto they are immediately subordinate as it may also be obserued in humane actions which tend finally to Religion as to their last ende for euery humane action ought to be more specially directed to Religion that is to say to the worship and seruice of God then to any other inferiour action whereto it may haue a more immediate relation 21 In which respect the Philosophers themselues being guided by the law of Nature and light of reason placed the end not onely of mens actions but also of euery man and of the Common-wealth it selfe in Religion because as Plato Plato in Timaeo in Epinomide and all the

certaine and infallible The third is that the people or Common-wealth haue authority in some cases are bound to depose their Prince and consequently that the Pope may by Ecclesiastical censures compell them thereunto And with this question concerning the power of the Common-wealth as I haue often said I will not intermeddle before it be agreed vpon betwixt my Aduersaries and mee concerning the maine and principall controuersie whether the Pope hath authority to depriue by way of sentence an hereticall King of his right to raigne or which is all one to make by his iuridicall sentence a King to be a priuate man for this is that at which our King and Parliament in making the new oath of allegiance did onely aime 13 And by this it is apparant how fraudulently and perniciously Mr. Fitzherbert following therein D. Schulckenius seeketh to abuse and delude his Reader in labouring to perswade him that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me whether the Pope may depose a Prince by a iudiricall sentence of deposition and depriue him of all his Regall authority and right which before that sentence he had to raigne or whether the Common-wealth hath authority and also is bound in some cases to depose their King and consequently whether the Pope hauing authority to declare the law of God and the dutie which all Christians owe to God may by Ecclesiasticall censures compell them thereunto and absolue them from their oath of allegiance by declaring that their oath in that case doth not binde which absoluing as Parisiensis said aboue is rather a declaring of the law then an absoluing from the oath of allegiance And neuerthelesse there is nothing more cleere then that the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and mee is not what authoritie the common-wealth hath ouer their Prince which is rather a philosophicall question and grounded vpon the principles of state and policy then vpon the positiue law of God but what authority the Pope hath to depriue by way of sentence hereticall Princes of their Princely right and authority or which is all one in substance whether the coerciue or punishing power of the Pope for about his derectiue declaratiue and commanding power to which his authority to declare the law of God and what we are bound by the law of God to doe is reduced I doe not contend doth by the institution of Christ extend to the inflicting of temporall punishments as all my Aduersaries most vehemently contend or onely of Ecclesiasticall Censures as Ioannes Parisiensis doth most expresly affirme Whereby the Reader may see to what narrow shifts these men are brought when they seeke to flye from the true state and substance of the maine question and controuersie to by-questions and difficulties altogether impertinent 14 Wherefore to retort backe my Aduersaries words albeit Ioannes Parisiensis giueth more power to subiects then perchance hee ought yet concerning the Popes power hee denieth him as much as sufficeth mee seeing that it little importeth to the substance of the maine question betwixt my Aduersaries and me which is whether the Pope may inflict temporall punishments and depose temporall Princes by way of iuridiall sentence that is by depriuing them of their right to reigne which Ioannes Parisiensis expresly denyeth I say it little importeth whether the Common-wealth hath authority and sometimes is bound to depose their Prince and consequently the Pope may indirectly l Ioan Pari● taketh indirectly in an other sense th●● the Diuines doe take it when they say that the Pope may depose Princes not directly but indirectly or per accidens to wit by declaring the law of God and compelling faithfull subiects by Ecclesiasticall Censures to doe their dutie may concurre to the same which indeed Parisiensis expresly affirmeth Neither doth this manner of deposing Princes indirectly and disposing of temporall things indirectly ouerthrow the foundations of my doctrine touching the maine question of the Popes power to depose and dispose by a iuridicall sentence And all this I answered before against D. Schulckenius neither could I in that briefe Admonition take particular notice of all that which my Aduersary wrote in his Supplement or D. Schulckenius in his Apologie but seeing that I haue now taken particular notice of both their answeres and arguments we will now expect what a learned Reply Mr. Fitzherbert will make against the same And this may suffice for Ioannes Parisiensis 15 But before I goe any further I thinke it not amisse vpon this occasion to admonish the Reader by the way of a briefe digression in what a cunning manner the most Illustrious Cardinall of Peron in his oration to the third estates confoundeth these two questions and consequently saith little or nothing against my doctrine touching the Popes power to depose Princes and the new Oath of Allegiance established heere in England Thus therefore hee propoundeth the state of the question betwixt him and the lower house of Parliament m Pag. 13. according to the English edition There remaines the third point which is this whether if Princes hauing made an Oath to GOD and their people either themselues o● their Predecessours to liue and die in the Christian and Catholike Religion and doe afterwards violate their Oath rebell against Christ bidding him open warre that is to say fall not onely to open profession of heresie or Apostacie from Christian Religion but with all passe to force their subiects consciences and goe about to plant Arrianisme or Mahometisme or any such like infidelitie within their states and thereby to destroy and roote out Christianitie whether I say in this case their subiects on the other side may not bee declared absolued from their Oath of Loyaltie and Fidelitie And this comming to passe to whom it appertaineth to pronounce this absolution 16 This then is the point in controuersie betweene vs For your article containeth the negatiue that is to say that in no case whatsoeuer the subiects may bee absolued from the Oath of Allegiance made to their Princes As on the contrarie side all other parts of the Catholike Church together with this of France since the institution of Schooles of Diuinitie vntill the comming of Caluin held the affirmatiue proposition which is that when the Prince breakes the Oath he hath made to GOD and his subiects to liue and dye in Catholike Religion and doeth not onely become an Arrian or a Mahometan but manifestly warres against Iesus Christ in compelling his subiects in matters of conscience and constraining them to embrace Arianisme or Mahometisme or any other detestable infidelitie That then this Prince may bee declared falne from his right as culpable of felonie towards him to whom hee hath made the Oath of his Realme that is to Christ and his subiects may bee absolued in conscience both at the spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Tribunall from the Oath of Allegiance they haue made vnto him And that in this case it belongs to

remembrance that this Oath before it was by your Holinesse declared to be manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation might with a probable and consequently with a safe conscience bee taken by any Catholike by reason of the authoritie of so many learned and vertuous Priests and withall they doe now not only consider that your Holinesse prohibition being a meere declaratiue precept can haue no greater force to binde then the reason whereon it is grounded and wholy dependeth as beneath h C. 10. sec 41. seq out of the doctrine of Fr. Suarez shal be made manifest but also they are probably perswaded that your Holinesse was by Cardinall Bellarmine and Fa. Parsons wrongfully informed of the reason for which you forbade Catholikes to take the Oath to wit for that it containeth many things which are plainly repugnant to faith and saluation seeing that neither your authoritie to chastice Princes to excommunicate them to inflict Censures or any spirituall authoritie which is certainly knowne to bee graunted by Christ to Saint Peter and his Successours is in this Oath denyed as Cardinall Bellarmine whom Fa. Parsons and diuers other Diuines of his Societie doe follow by fallacious inferences laboureth to deduce they cannot as yet sufficiently perceiue by what forcible argument they are bound with the perpetuall temporal ouerthrow of themselues and their whole posteritie to obey your Holinesse declaratiue commaundement which at the most is grounded vpon a probable reason Neither doe they conceiue that they ought therefore to bee accounted rebellious to the Sea Apostolike for that they reseruing otherwise all dutifull reuerence to your Holinesse doe not in a matter which is so preiudiciall vnto them obey your Holinesse Apostolicall letters which either are written vpon false information or grounded onely vpon a probable opinion 14 And in the tenth Chapter of my Theologicall Disputation h Sec. 2. nu 50. 51. I brought to the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues two answeres which are grounded vpon these two reasons To make therefore said I now at the last a compendious answere to all the three Breues and so also to the whole obiection To the first Breue whereon the other two doe depend it is answered first that although his Holinesse thinking and in his opinion supposing the Oath to bee of it selfe vnlawfull and to containe many things which are contrarie to faith and saluation doeth therefore by his letters or Breues forbid English Catholikes to take it yet seeing that this his prohibition is onely a declaratiue precept and founded in the priuate iudgement and opinion of his Holinesse as before i Num. 44. sequen we haue shewed as we are not bound to follow the Popes opinion against the probable opinion of other Catholike Diuines then especially when by following it very great preiudice is like to come to our selues and many others and when the reasons and grounds for his opinion are for the most part by all men accounted to bee very vnsound as are almost all those arguments which our learned Aduersaries haue obiected against the oath so also we are not bound to obey the Popes declaratiue precept which is founded in his opinion and in the reason which hee alledgeth which precept according to the aforesaid doctrine of Franciscus Suarez hath no greater force to binde then hath his reason and opinion whereon his declaratiue precept doth wholly depend 15 Secondly it is answered that there is no English Catholike who if he be well instructed will take the Oath or approue it to be lawfull in that sense wherein his Holinesse by all probable coniectures hath condemned it For it is probable and in my iudgement morally certaine that his Holinesse did vnderstand the words of the Oath in that sense wherein the Diuines of Rome did conceiue them and especially Cardinall Bellarmine whose aduise and opinion in this so weighty a Theologicall controuersie which must needes bring great good or harme to this kingdome his Holinesse as it is very probable both demanded and followed who therefore according to his Holinesse minde and by his permission wrote in defence of his Breues against his Maiesties Apologie for the oath But Cardinall Bellarmine vnderstood the Oath in this sense as though it denied the Popes Primacie in spirituals his power to excommunicate to binde and loose and also to dispence in Oathes in which sense doubtlesse it cannot be denied but that it containes many things which are flat contrary to faith and saluation but no Catholike doth in this sense either take the Oath or defend it to bee lawfull Neither are the arguments which Cardinall Bellarmine hath brought to prooue the same any way sound and sufficient but very fallacious as I haue shewed at large in the said Disputation 16 All this which is onely a part of the answere I brought from the obiection taken from his Holinesse Breues I thought fit to repeate here againe onely for satisfaction of some scrupulous Catholikes who perchance fearing now to reade my Disputation it being forbidden by the Cardinals of the Inquisition without declaring any cause either in particular or in generall why it it is forbidden of wnich their prohibition I will say more beneath may here most clearley see how soundly and without any irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse I propound to him the reasons for which English Catholikes thought themselues not bound to obey his declaratiue precept contained in his Breues humbly requesting him that in regard of his Fatherly care and Pastorall dutie he would vouchsafe to instruct vs in the Catholik faith and to make knowne vnto vs but one of those many things which hee saith are in the Oath so manifestly repugnant to faith and saluation 17 Whereby the Reader may easily perceiue the egregious fraude of this my vnlearned Aduersarie in vrging so vehemently to my disgrace the obiection drawen from the authority of his Holines Breues concealing the principall answer which I brought thereunto whereby I cleared my selfe from all iust imputation of irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse For what irreuerence or vndutifull respect to his Holinesse can be iustly imagined in propounding to him being the supreame Pastour of our soules with all reuerent and respectiue words the reasons which doe mooue vs to thinke that he hath beene misinformed of the true sense of the Oath and the difficulties which do perplexe our consciences concerning his Breues and humbly requesting him in regard of his Fatherly loue and Pastorall office that he would vouchsafe to teach vs instruct vs in the Catholike faith in those things which he saith are in the oath contrary to faith and saluation No Catholike subiect is bound so to respect and reuerence his superiour albeit he be the Pope as to obey his commandements with blinde obedience when his conscience doth dictate vnto him that they are vniust but hee may with all dutifull respect propound to his Superiour although he be the