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
A85396	Hybristodikai. The obstructours of justice. Or a defence of the honourable sentence passed upon the late King, by the High Court of Justice. Opposed chiefly to the serious and faithfull representation and vindication of some of the ministers of London. As also to, The humble addresse of Dr. Hamond, to His Excellencie and Councel of warre. Wherein the justice, and equitie of the said sentence is demonstratively asserted, as well upon clear texts of Scripture, as principles of reason, grounds of law, authorities, presidents, as well forreign, as domestique. Together with, a brief reply to Mr. John Geree's book, intituled, Might overcoming right: wherein the act of the Armie in garbling the Parliament, is further cleared. As also, some further reckonings between thesaid [sic] Dr. Hamond and the authour, made straight. / By John Goodwin.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.; Glover, George, b. ca. 1618, engraver.	1649 (1649)	Wing G1170; Thomason E557_2; ESTC R12380	138,495	164

how unexpert he is in those two passages of the word of righteousnesse unto which he repairs for balast to his Answer When saith he ●e i. the Apostle commands to honour all it m●st be understood all to whom honour belongs superiours not inferiours This glosse clearly corrupts the Text. For the Apostle commanding them to honour all or all men plainly supposeth that there is a debt of honour or respects due from every man to every man not onely from Inferiours to Superiours but from equals to equalls yea and from Superiours themselves to Inferiours This is evident from that of the Apostle Paul Rom. 12. 10. In honour preferring one mother or as our former Translatours rendered the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In giving honour go one before another Therefore it is the duty of Christians to exhibit honour or honourable respects not to their Superiours alone nor to their equals alone but to their Inferiours also Thus Timothy though a chief and extraordinary Officer in the Church is yet enjoyned to honour widows * ● Tim 5. 3. yea and these of the poorest and meanest condition as is evident from the sequel in the context A second Scripture by which our Doctour seeketh to credit his answer is 1. Pet. 5. 5. where as himself saith he commandeth them to be subject to one another But saith he it must not be understood that the Superiour must be subject to the Inferiour a● the Inferiour to the Superiour 〈…〉 Hu●bl●●●●●ess 〈…〉 pag 7 8 but a● the nature of the duty inforces to interpret the Inferiour to be subject to the Superiour onely It seems the Doctour is not acquainted with doth not understand the nature or Law of Christian Church-fellowship wherein there ought to be a mutuall condescention or subjection of all the members one unto another as well of the Superiour to the Inferiour as of the Inferiour to the Superiour in all things reasonable and equal without which it is unpossible that unitie love and peace should long continue amongst them And that it was such an universal reciprocal subjection as this which the Apostle exhort's them in the said words unto the tenour of the place it self sufficiently evinceth Likewise ye younger submit your selfs to the Elder yea all of you be subject one unto another and be cloathed with humility as if he should have said it becomes not onely the younger to submit ●nto the Elder though many times the younger are Superiour in place and the Elder Inferiour but even all of you without exception without standing upon terms either of naturall or Civil Superiority or secular greatnesse in any kind to be subject one unto another i. as well the Superiour to submit unto to comport with the Christian advice the reasonable and equitable requests and demands of the Inferiour as on the contrarie He doth not here speak of that subjection which Christians as well as others stand bound to exhibit in a politick consideration but of that which they ought to practice among themselves in their Christian communion and in a spiritual consideration And thus Peter accords with Paul who injoyn's the Ephesians to submit themselves one unto another in the fear of God * ●ph 5 21. Thus we see how the main pillars upon which the Doctour build's his Answer to his Objection fail him so that the Objection remain's still in full force strength and virtue the said Answer notwithstanding and consequently the Interpretation assaulted by the Objection falls before it though upon another account also which hath been fairly cast up it be null But though the Scriptures be but strait-handed towards him Sect. 20. in his conceit his confidence is very great and hardly to be born that Reason will deal bountifully by him Passing by his impertinent demands 1. Whether if Adam and his posterity H. 〈…〉 Humble Addresse c. pag. 8 9. had remained in that innocencie wherein both he and they in him were created they would not have been capable of positive precepts in order to a civil life and consequently whether in reason some one or more men should not have had superiority over all others Parents over children and the like 2. Whether the diverse orders and subordination of the Angels that never fell be not an evidence that even in state of innocence God designed superiority not equality passing by I say these impertinencies wherein he plainly confounds naturall superiority with civil and which by himself in the very next passage of his discourse are rendered impertinencies indeed let us close with him in such allegations wherein his cause is more nearly concerned To prove that God gave not all men that freedom which he saith is the supposed foundation of that Doctrine which places supreme power in the people he alledgeth that it is most certain that God did design and appoint Government But this alledgement may stand and yet his cause fall For what though God design and appoint Government doth it therefore follow that all men viz. collectively taken in their respective communities were not naturally free i. to chuse by what kind or form of Government they would be Governed as whether by Kings or by Counsel of State or by popular Suffrage c. 2. In case of either of the two former Governments to chuse what persons they pleased for the administration of that Government whereunto they thought good by Common consent to subject themselves 3. To proportion limit and circumscribe that power which they were to confer upon the Administratours of that Government they should chuse for the exercise thereof by what Laws or Covenants they pleased onely provided that in all these they have a due respect unto and make a competent provision for the due and just end of Government which is the politique or civil welfare and good of the Governed Doubtlesse Gods appointment of Government doth not any wayes inferre a restraint in civil or politique societies or communities of men in respect of any of these things For if men set over themselves any lawfull and just Government whatsoever sufficient for their Regulation in a politique way they do not at all contravene Gods appointment concerning Government but duly comport with it But if the Doctours meaning be that the Doctrine he speaks of which placeth supreme power in the people stands upon any such foundation as this that God gave all men freedom either to doe what they list or to live without all Government or that he gave a freedom to every or to any particular man to refuse Subjection to that particular Government which is lawfully established in that Community where he liveth so far as it is lawfull he puts darknesse for light and bitter for sweet That Doctrine is built upon no such sand but upon this rock amongst others that no Governour whether Supreme or subordinate hath any just power beyond what he hath been invested with by that Community of men which he Governeth That notion wherein

the Doctour very inordinately pleaseth Sect. 21 himself as if it had made him some such promise as Peter once made to Christ that though all the rest of his Disciples should be offended at him and so forsake him yet ●e would not will be found deceitfull upon the weights and serve him no better than Peter did his Lord and Master at whom he was not onely offended but so deeply as to abjure him The notion or conceit we now speak of the Doctour makes to go far as poor men use to doe that little money they have and spreads it very thin to make it cover two pages or more of his discourse In which respect it is somewhat hard to gather it up clean or fix into a regular body of an argument Yet I suppose I shall not eclipse any part of the glorie or strength of it by casting it into this Hypotheticall form If no man by nature hath power over his own life so as that he may lawfully kill or destroy himself and yet Kings have such a power over the lives of all those that are subject unto them then cannot this power be derived unto Kings by men or from the people Sed verum prius ergo posterius The strength of the consequence stands in the Authority of this topique Maxime Nihil dat quod non habet Nothing gives that to another which it hath not it self And if the consequence be tight and will hold water it is a clear case that Regal or the supreme power ●● not originally in the people but conferred upon the Supreme Ruler immediately by God To this Argument I answer by denying the consequence in the proposition The reason of my deniall is this because though no man .i. no particular or individual person considered apart by himself hath by nature any such power over his own life as is here mentioned yet as a Member of a Community or politique society of men he hath not simply a power but a necessity lying upon him by way of duty in order to the peace and civil good of this community to consent with others that his life also shall be taken from him by the hand of Justice as well as any other mans in case he shall wrong the community by any crime deserving death The power of life and death is eminently virtually in the people collectively taken though not formally And though no man can take away his own life or hath power over his own life formally yet a man and a body of men have power over their own lives radically and virtually in respect whereof they may render themselves to a Magistrate to laws which if they violate they must be in hazard of their lives and thus they virtually have power of their own lives by putting them under the power of good Laws for the peace and safety of the whole This is evident in all those who either make or consent to the making of any such Laws which inflict death in any case of misdemeanour deserving it First it is a clear case that they who are intrusted with a legislative power for the good of that community which intrusteth them stand bound by way of duty to enact or consent unto the continuation of Laws already enacted for that punishing with death such and such Transgressours against this Community as Murtherers Rebels Traitours c. 2. As clear it is that the persons we speak of who are of duty to joyn in and consent unto the making of such Laws are themselves as Subject unto these Laws being made as other Members of the same community 3. It is as little questionable as either of the former but that these persons both before and at the time of their making or consenting unto such Laws clearly know that themselves are must and ought to be thus subject unto them Therefore it is a noon-day truth that men by nature have such a power over their lives as voluntarily according to a due course and processe in Law to expose them to the stroke of publick Justice in case they shall offend that community whereof they are Members by any crime or crimes worthy death Nor hath the King himself any other power over the lives of any of his subjects but that which is thus conditioned and limited The King hath no power to take away the life of any of his subjects without cause no nor yet for every cause nor indeed for any cause but that onely which by the Law is made punishable with death Nor hath he any such power over any of his subjects or their lives which enables him to command any of them to be their own Executioners though by Law guilty of death yea and sentenced accordingly So that that principle Niiil dat quod non habet shew no countenance at all to the Doctours argument own any relation to it Men have such a power over their lives as is vested in Kings nor could Kings have any such power over them as now they have did not men themselves invest them with it and that in a regular and lawfull way Men have by nature a right or power over their lives whereby they may lawfully submit them unto the sword of a Lawfull Magistrate and consent that in case they shall commit things punishable with death by the Law they shall be taken from them thereby And what power have Kings over them but onely as hath been said according to the tenour of such a submission and consent as this Or upon what other account at least immediate doth even this power it self a cerve unto Kings but by the equitable force and virtue of such a submission and consent from the people The very image tenour and form of the power which Kings have over the lives of their subjects plainly sheweth it to be the off-spring or naturall issue of that power which themselves by nature have over the same And that men in some cases have not onely a power by nature but even a necessity by Religion to expose their lives unto death is evident from that of the Apostle John Hereby perceive we the love of God because he laid down his life for us and we ought to lay down our lives for the Brethren 1. John 3. 16. 1. To be alwayes ready and willing to lay them down upon any just occasion Besides if the power which the King hath over the lives of the people were as the Doctour supposeth immediately from God than he might lawfully execute the same and take away the lives of men without any mediating Direction or warranty from any Law at least from any politique or humane Law whatsoever For certain it is that the execution of no Commission immediately issued by God ought to be suspended upon or determined or regulated by any Commission or constitution of men But whether the King hath any regular or just power over the lives of men other than that which is proportioned formed set out and bounded

world amongst men in case upon a just and due trial he shall not be found in respect of his wayes actions and administrations in the world every wayes worthy of them For of what other tendencie or import can those words of the Prophet Eliah be supposed to be If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal than follow him * ● King ●● ●● Doth not the Prophet and that by commission from God himself in these words give the people a full liberty to desert the worship and service of God and to turn Proselytes unto Baal in case God hath not or should not in a way of due examination and triall approve himself unto their judgements and consciences to be the true God the omnipotent Jehovah and Baal should do it Sometimes indeed God pleads the prerogative of his will in opposition to the wills or weak conceits of men and so claims a liberty or power to do what he pleaseth but still he accounts for the equity or reason ablenesse of what he willeth or pleaseth to do as we shall God granting life and health demonstrate more at large from the Scriptures in due time Therefore they who would make Kings too great and of too sacred an investiture to account for their wayes and actions unto men make him greater than God himself and crown him with a prerogative if yet a prerogative it be and not a mischievous snare rather or an importune and fullsome attribute which ●e that inhabiteth eternity never judged meet or equitable for himself to claim or exercise over his creature That confessionate strain of David unto God Tibi soli pe●cavi Against thee thee onely have I sinned is too sandy a foundation to bear the weight of such a tower as we now speak of whose top reacheth up not unto but into yea and above Heaven as had been sheewed For 1. It is sencelesse to imagine that David should think that in those sins for which he humbleth himself before God in the Psalm as viz. his adultery with the wife and murther of the Husband he sinned not against his neighbour as well as against God Certainly there is no such thing as sinning against men if such acts as these be not Nor 2. Can it be proved nor is there the least colour of reason for it that David in that clause pleaded any priviledge or exemption for himself from suffering the penalties of those Laws which God himself had enacted against murtherers and Adulterers David at this time was in no case either in respect of the frame or temper of his heart and soul being sorely shaken and afflicted with the sence of the guilt under which he now ●ay or in respect of his obnoxiousnesse unto the heavy displeasure of God to claim priviledges to plead regal prerogatives or to stand upon terms of Royalty with God Therefore 3. Calvin upon the place importeth ●e words thus Lord though the whole world should acquit me yet for me ●● think and ● D●… t●t●…●●s●… ●●●i tamen pl●… sa●● est qu●●●● s●●um ●●dio●● s●… feel that thou alone judgest me or wilt judge me ●● more than I am able to bear This is the Interpretation also of most of the Fathers 4. Lyra glosseth the words as if David should therefore say unto God against thee onely have I sinned because God onely could pardon him Hugo Cardinalis because God onely could wash Sect. 80 him which he asketh in the text Junius and Tremellius upon the place conceive that David in saying that he sinned onely against God meaneth nothing but what the Prophet Nathan chargeth him with 2 King 12. 12. Thou didst it secretly i. thou despisedst the inspection and all-seeing eye of God and because there was none conscious to thy sin but those whom thou supposedst would be secret enough in concealing it therefore thou expectedst to escape the shame and punishment due to it But saith God by his Prophet I wil do this thing 1. punish thee as I have said before all Israel and before the sun This last exposition hath credit and countenance from the words immediately following And done this evill in thy fight As if he should have said unto God so foolish was I above measure and so desperately full of my wickednesse that I took care only to secure my self from the knowledge or sight of men but never remembred that the eyes of thy Holinesse were broad-looking upon me in the whole perpetration In which respect I somewaies honoured men and thou onely wast he whom I despised therein 5. The import of the words in hand may be this Against Sect. 81 thee or unto thee thee only have I sinned 1. I do not value or weigh any trouble shame or sufferings in any kind that may come upon me for my sin from any other hand whatsoever in comparison of the losse of thy favour and displeasure which I have cause to fear is kindled in thy breast against me I can bear the ignominie and reproach or whatsoever punishment it be that men shall or can inflict upon me for my sin onely the sence and dread of thy displeasure is unsupportable unto me But 6 ly And lastly the clearest and best interpretation of the Sect. 82 clause is doubtlesse this Against thee thee only have I sinned i. I am deeply and dreadfully sensible of those many and mighty ingagements wherein I stood obliged in conscience unto thee above all others to walk uprightly and to have not only refrained but even abhorred all such abominations as those whereof I now stand guilty in thy sight So that though the love which thy people my Subjects have expressed unto me and more particularly the friendly respects and faithfulnesse of my servant Uriah towards me were bands and ties upon me sufficient in a way of ingenuitie and humanity it self to have restrained me from those most odious and shamefull practices wherein I have now miscarried yet am I so above measure in my present agony astonished with the consideration of the number and weight of those infinitelygreater bands wherein I stood bound in duty and conscience unto thee all which I have des●ised and trampled upon in these provocations that I am sensible of no wrong no injury I have done to men but onely of that measure of vilenesse and unthankfulnesse which I have measured out unto thee Against thee thee onely c. This interpretation might be confirmed by many reasons as first by considering that the restrictive particle onely is frequently used in Scripture in such a comparative sence as the interpretation given puts upon it in the clause under debate See Psal 71 16. Mat 4. 10 c. Secondly by weighing the sequel of the context in these words That thou mightest be justified c. there being nothing more proper to clear the justice of God in punishing than the vouchsafement of means and motives in abundance to keep men from sinning Thirdly and lastly by considering that nothing