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
A87530	A looking-glasse for the Parliament. Wherein they may see the face of their unjust, illegall, treasonous and rebellious practices, 1 Against Almighty God. 2 Against their King. 3 Against the fundamentall lawes of the kingdome. 4 Against their own oaths and covenants. Argued betwixt two learned judges, the one remaining an exile beyond the seas, the other a prisoner for his allegiance and fidelity to his King and country.	Jenkins, David, 1582-1663.; R. H.; Heath, Robert, Sir, 1575-1649, attributed name.	1648 (1648)	Wing J595; Thomason E427_17; ESTC R202656	43,342	52

Lord and King Therefore this Oath is against the Law of Reason Lastly whereas the Law of Reason is never changeable by any diversity of place or time and whereas mine Allegiance is due to my Sovereigne in all places in all cases and at all times I am forbidden by this unchangeable Law to change so unchangeable and unalterable a duty by such an unwarrantable Oath in these changeable times To conclude all in this point as it is against reason to take this Oath so it is against reason to require it of me for it is most unreasonable to offer any Christian man such an Oath as that by taking of it he must by perjury and sin of presumption as he is perswaded destroy his soule or by refusing of it because it is against his conscience to take it either by perpetuall imprisonment or starving destroy his body and estate And it is likewise most unreasonable for any men to offer this Oath to another that have not taken it themselves for by the rule of the civill Law l. in Aren. Quod quisque which is a branch of the Law of reason Quod quisque juris in alium statuerit ipsum quoque uti debere No man ought to impose a Law upon another which he himselfe hath not submitted unto I come now in the next place to make it appeare that I cannot take this Negative Oath with a good conscience Conscience as Doctor and Student well observes l. 1. cap. 15. T is the direct applying of any science or knowledge to some particular act of a man and of the most perfect and most true applying of the same to a mans particular actions follow the most perfect the most pure and the best conscience which enabled St. Paul by his right applying of the Law of God to the Actions of his life with confidence to plead his cause before the Counsell and to cry out men and brethren I have in all good conscience served God unto this day Acts 23. 1. And in the 24 14. being accused before Felix by the Jewes saith But this I confesse unto thee that after the way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers beleeving all things which are writ in the Law the Prophets And herein I indeavour my selfe to have alwaies a cleere conscience towards God and towards men whereby it is cleerly proved that the applying of the Scriptures and the knowledge of divine truth to the actions of ourlives is and ought to be the only direction to our consciences It is expedient then for the clearing of this point that I should set forth and consider the actions of my 〈…〉 to this particular which concernes some Allegiance ●●●● then I doe well remember that when I was matriculated in the University I was sworne to be a faithfull and true Subject ●o the King and to beare him ●●ue Allegiance Secondly I have taken th●… of Oath which I have particularly s●● downe before th●● I w●… and ●●●● bear● to him of life and m●… and terre●… Thirdly I have foure times taken the Oath 〈…〉 enjoyned by the Statute of 1. Eh● cap. 1. and three 〈…〉 Oath of Allegiance enjoyned by the Statute 3 Iac. cap. 4. It rests now that I should apply that divine knowledge and science which I have obtained ●y reading of the Scriptures to th●se actions First then an Oath is to be carefully weighed before we take it ●…ch as 〈…〉 duty towards our King and 〈…〉 E●●les 8 ● Ec●… Pre●c●e● adviseth me thus 〈…〉 of the ●●o●●h of the King and to the Oath of 〈…〉 upon which plac●… thus gl●sse that is ●… King ●●● keepe the Oath that thou hast made for that cause 〈…〉 Zachary gives us this commandement from God Zach 8 17 ●●t none of you imagine evill in your hearts against his neighbour and love no false Oath for all these are the things that I hate saith the Lord And our blessed Saviour in his Sermon in the Mount Matth. 5. 33. Delivers me this prec●p Thou shalt not for sweare thy selfe but shalt performe thy Oathes to the Lord By applying of these Scriptures to my former Oathes I finde I cannot take this Negative Oath without a great sinne against God and trespasse against my conscience for having bound my selfe by so many severall former oathes made to my King to pay unto him mine Allegiance faith and truth to him of life and member and terre●●● honour and acknowledged him to be supreame Governour of this Realme how can I now withdraw mine Allegiance from him or sweare that I will not aide or assist him o● adhere unto him by this latter without manifest perjury breach of myne Oath to the King and by taking of a false Oath or the name of God in vaine by a questionable authority imposed upon me contradictory to those Oathes which by undoubted and lawfull power agreeable to the Lawes of God and the Realme I have already bound my conscience to the observance of It fareth not with us in Oaths as it doth in cases of Lawes Quod Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant That the latter Lawes repeale the former that are contrary unto them for in the case of Lawes the rule is admitted to bee true where both are constituted and made by the same power but it is cleane contrary in the case of Oathes for when a man hath taken a lawfull Oath by and from a lawfull authority though it be grounded upon humane or positive law onely as upon a Statute or the like that Oath is binding to his conscience untill the Statute that injoynes that Oath be repealed by the same power that made it and if he afterwards take a contradictory Oath to that former Oath before such repeale and a lawfull authority to take the same that Oath which he so takes is both unlawfull and false unlawfull in that it is against the law that warrants the Oath he hath before taken and false in regard that he ingages himself by that Oath to performe that thing which by the Law of God and conscience he is not enabled lawfully to performe so that till the lawes that impose upō me the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance which I have taken be lawfully by the same power as they were made that is to say by the King Lords and Commons by Act of Parliament repealed And this Negative Oath by the same power of Act of Parliament imposed upon me I cannot submit my conscience to take that Oath without perjury and falshood Againe when a man hath taken an Oath to performe that which by the law of God and nature he is bound to performe as to obey his King or to honour his Father and Mother this Oath can never be abrogated or dispensed withall nor a man absolved from the duty of observance of it by any power under heaven and therefore if I shall take any Oath contradictory to the former Oathes of Allegiance and duty to my King which

domino ex homagio tantum debet illi dominus ex domino praeter solam ex reverentiam the knot of faith ought to be mutuall between the Lord his subject or tenant for look how much subjection or obedience the tenant or subject owes to his Lord so much doth the Lord owe to his tenant by way of protection reverence excepted which knot Aristotle in his first book of Politicks proves to be the duty of nature for saith he To command and obey is of nature for whatsoever is necessary and profitable for the preservation of the society of man is due by the Law of nature Now Tully lib. 3. de legibus tells us that sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest which is That without command or government neither any house nor City nor Nation nor mankinde nor to conclude the world cannot stand but peradventure that will be confessed and yet it will be denied that the world cannot stand without Monarchy and objected that Monarchy is not that government that ought to be by the Law of nature to which I answer with Aristotle in his first booke of Ethicks That Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentiam That is the Law of nature which with all men hath the same power Now as Aristotle in his first booke of his Politicks Cap. 3. and Plato in his third book of Laws jump in this opinion that in the first beginning of time the chiefest person in every house was alwaies as it were a King so when numbers of housholds joyned themselves together in civill societies Kings were the first kinde of governours among them which is also as it seemeth the reason why Kings have alwayes been and are to this day called patres patriae or fathers of their Country and it is not unknowne to any man learned in Antiquity History or Chronologie that it was 3198 years after the creation before any Law was written or given in the world according to the computation of Ioseph Scaliger by the Julian account The Law being given in that year and delivered by God unto Moses on Mount Sinai and whether the old world before the floud were governed by Kings it is disputable but sure I am that Nimrod the sonne of C●sh the son of Cham the sonne of Noah was a King for I finde Gen. 10. 10. that the beginning of his Kingdome was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh in the Land of Shinar and according to the computation aforesaid began his reigne in the 2479 yeare of the world which was 720 yeares before the Law was given and 149 yeares after the floud in all which time it is more then probable that all the Nations of the world except the Jewes were governed by Monarchies or Kings and long after the Law was given to the Jewes which is proved unto us by that demand of the Jews made unto Samuel 1 Sam. 8. 5. And they said unto him behold thou art old and thy sons walke not in thy wayes make us now a King to judge us like all Nations And we see it yet continued to this day among all the Gentiles heathens upon the earth by which sort of people above twenty parts of thirty of the knowne world are now inhabited That the only government of each severall Nation among them is Monarchy and much more subjection and allegiance performed by the heathen subjects to their Gentile Kings then is amongst us towards ours which is a full argument to mee that Monarchy is not only a divine ordinance or institution of God Almighty from the beginning and a branch of the Law of nature but also the best of governments too because those Gentile Nations which guide their actions only by the Law of nature imbrace this forme of government and none other making good that maxime of their heathen Philosopher afore remembred Jus naturale est quod apud omnes homines eandem habet potentia which induces me to affect the opinion the more because I see the Gentiles ever submitted to Monarchy call regiment for with Monarchy I say non potest error contingere ubi omnes idem opinantur And with Teles● non licet naturale universaleque hominum judicium falsum vanumque existimare an error of judgement cannot be where all men are of the same opinion and we ought not to esteeme the universall judgement of naturall men to be false and vaine But I will dwell no longer upon the fringe of this particular but make this point evident by the Laws of this Kingdome which are a part of natures Law That this Oath is against the Law of nature and for that Cause only that if I take it I am thereby withheld from the execution of mine allegiance whereby I make violation of natures Law To make this cleare and evident it appeares unto us by Calvins Cas recorded in the seventh part of Sir Edwards C●●ks Reports that there are in our Law foure kinds of allegiance the first 〈…〉 all which is due from every subject bo●●e within his Majesties dominions to his Majesty as to his Sovereigne Lord and King The second is ligeantia legalis or legall Allegiance which is due by every subject to the King by reason of his suit Royall and this is not naturall but created by King Arthur for expulsion of the Sarazens and continued after by others for the Danes exile and is proper for the suppressing of insurrections and expelling invaders The third is Ligeantia acquisitia or purchased allegiance which comes by indenization The fourth and last is locall allegiance and that is due from strangers friends to Kings whilst they are in their dominions I meddle not with the two last and omit for brevity sake and because I shall not need to draw any argument from it to helpe my selfe withall to speake any thing of legall allegiance But for naturall allegiance it is absolute pure and indefinite that such an allegiance there is as naturall if you read the indictment of the Lord Dacres 26. H. 8. you shall finde it runne thus Quod praedictus Dominus Dacre debitum fidei ligeantiae suae quod prefato Domini Regi naturaliter de jure impendere debuit minime c. which in English is thus That the aforesaid Lord Dacre not regarding the duty of his faith and Allegiance which he did naturally and of right owe to and ought to pay to King Henry the 8. c. And Cardinall Poole 30. H. 8. being likewise indicted of Treason Contra dominum Regem supremum naturalem Dominum suum that is against the King his naturall and supreame Lord which indictments prove a naturall Allegiance to be not only due but of right due from every subject to his sovereigne King and as this allegiances is naturall so is it absolute so is it pure and indefinite

duty and allegiance belongs to him from me by the law of God and nature as before is made manifest that Oath were utterly unlawfull and false by the lawes of God and nature and against conscience I conclude then that in conscience I cannot take this Negative Oath I learne likewise by Saint Paul Heb. 6. 16. That men verily sweare by him that is greater then themselves and an Oath for confirmation is an end of all strife and therefore Ioshua when he had made a league with the Gibeonites though it were grounded upon a fraude on their parts did omit to question them for it and forbore to breake the league with them to avoyde strife having confirmed that league with an Oath saying in that case Thus will we doe to them and let them live least the wrath be upon us because of the Oath which we sware to them Ioshua 9. 20. And by that law of an O●h was Sh●mei put to death by Solomon for walking out of the City contrary to his Oath because he had sworne hee would not goe out of it which he ought to have observed as a confirmation of his undertaking to Solomon and as an end of their strife as we find● 1 Kings 2. 43. c. and we finde a notable instance of the punishment of the breaking of the oath of Allegiance or subj●ction made by the King of Jerusalem to the King of Babel reported unto us by the Prophet Ezekiel Eze. 17 16. 18. in these words As I live saith the Lord he that is King of Ierusalem shall dye in the midst of Babel in the place of the King whose Oath he despised and whose covenant made with him he broke Neither shall Pharoah with his mighty hoast and great multitude of people maintaine him in the Warre when they have cast up Mounts and builded Rampires to destroy many persons for he hath despised the Oath and broken the Covenant yet he had given him his hand because he hath done these things he shall not escape The application of these Scriptures to my present purpose I make thus Is it so then that an Oath is taken for confirmation Is it so then that an Oath is and ought to bee the end of strife Is it so that God punisheth the violation of Oathes and that the greatest power on earth cannot protect a man against him I learne then by the rule of a well informed conscience to discerne that I ought not to breake my Oathes lawfully taken upon any grounds or pretence whatsoever Nay by this Oath I finde that if I take it I should in stead of an end of strife in my conscience incur great vexation through the horrour of the sinn as being an act unlawfull and because by it I have offended God in the breaking my former Oathes lawfully taken I should raise strife and trouble in my soule and conscience and great strife and perturbation of minde for feare of punishment I conclude therefore that I cannot take this Oath by the rule of Gods law with a sound and good conscience against the light whereof if I should take it I should declare my selfe either to be an Athoist in thinking there were no God to punish for s● great a wickednesse or else to imagine that he were either unjust and would not punish or unable and could not or so carelesse of the actions of men that he either not seeth or not regardeth their wicked acts which opinion even the very heathens confuted and rejected as you may finde at large in Tullys first booke De natura Deorum But if I were minded to bee so wicked as to lay aside all the former considerations of Religion nature law reason and conscience to gaine my estate which God forbid yet in honour neither my selfe nor any that have served his Majesty in this late War can take it as I conceive when I speake of honour I meane not that Membranall or Parchment honour of dignities and titles conferred upon men sometimes for money sometimes for affection sometimes for alliance to favorits sometimes for flattery ●u● most commonly more for some sinister respects then proper 〈…〉 by letters patents of Kings and free Princes but I meane that ●●●●●all honour that is inherent in every truly noble minde and direct it ends alwayes to that which is Lundabile honestum la●daol● just and honest of which honour the Poet Juvenall●●i●h thus Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus vertue is the onely ●●ue nobility and in another place describing this kinde of honour in the person of a Father to his Son saith thus Malo pater ibi sit Thersites dummodo tu sis Aeacidae similis vulcaniaque arma capessas Quam tibi Thersiti similem producat Achilles That is that he had rather his son were the son of Thersites a base and ill conditioned fellow and were like Aeacides a person of great valour honour and justice then that he were descended of Achilles the noblest house of the Grecians and should be such a base fellow as Thersites the application is easie It is an honorable minde which makes a man honourable and it are his honourable actions which are the proper effects of vertue that render a man truly honourable and gaine him esteeme The Ethicke Philosophers say that Honor est plus in honorante quam in he●… there is more honour in him that gives the honour then in him that receives it or is honoured and it is true every way for as there is more honour in a King that bestowes it then in the subject that receives it from his Prince so is there more honour proceeds from him that bestowes it in report or esteeme upon him that deserves it for his noble and vertuous actions then there is in the party deserving it himselfe and the reason is plaine for let a man do never so many honourable actions yet if they are not esteemed ●y others he reaps not the fruit of his labours his honour is lesse though the actions in themselves be honourable then if they were esteemed This honour and esteeme is the life of every Souldier and Gentleman which if he once lose by any voluntary act of his owne he had as good lose his life Now for any man that hath served the King in his Wars for him to swear that he will no more aide nor assist the King in the War wherein he ingaged himselfe by his oath and upon his honour to serve him with his life and to his uttermost power it would lose that Souldier his honor and esteeme amongst all sorts of men amongst his owne party for deserting a cause they hold just amongst the adverse party for lightnesse and inconstancie as one that would not stand to his principles he should amongst all men get the opinion of a Coward or a base fellow that for feare of death punishment or perpetuall imprisonment would be starved into an oath or ●ut of his allegiance or of a K●●ve that to

not directly nor indirectly adhere unto or willingly assist the King in this warre or in this cause against the Parliament nor any forces raised against the two Houses of Parliament in this cause or war And I do likewise sweare that my comming and submitting my selfe under the power and protection of the Parliament is without any manner of designe whatsoever to the prejudice or proceeding of this present Parliament and without the direction privity and advice of the King or any of his Councell or Officers other then what I have now made knowne So helpe me God and the Contents of this book I am much scrupled in my judgement and conscience whether it be not both against the Law and word of God against the Law of Nature against the setled knowne established and unrepealed Laws of this Kingdome against the Law of reason and against all reason conscience honour and pollicy either to take it or require it First this Negative Oath seems to me to be opposite to the word of God in restraining me from the performance and execution of a du●y to my King which by the Law and Word of God I am enjoyned to discharge towards him By me Kings reigne saith God Prov. 8. 15. therefore I cannot doubt of the lawfulnesse of their calling and that they are of divine right and institution the blessed Spirit of God speaking in Solomon Prov. 24. 2. Solomon exhorts his sonne that is every childe of God in these words My sonne feare God and the King and meddle not with them that are given to change or as some Translations have it that are seditious Here the Holy Ghost joynes God and the King under one feare or under one precept as if hee should say to feare the King is to feare God and unlesse thou fearest the King thou canst not feare God this is no unsound or improper inference for it is the will of God that thou shouldest feare the King wich will if thou performe not thou canst not be said to feare God Now feare in this place is only taken for subjection and obedience and this duty of thy obedience and subjection is as properly belonging unto the King as thy feare is to God which our most blessed Saviour Jesus Christ expresly declareth Matth. 22. 23. in these words Give unto Caesar those things that are Caesars and to God those things that are Gods and though the question were there only concerning Tribute and asked of the Pharisees and Herodians which were not naturall subjects to Cesar but onely brought under by conquest and force yet our Saviour exhorts the Jewes and Herodians to performe subjection to Caesar in paying the tribute due to him as well as to perform their duties towards God which saying of his though the wicked Jews thought to entrap him by the question yet could they not reprove it before the people because they were convinced of the truth of it by the light of nature having not faith to perceive the divine right that was couched in it and therefore they marvelled at his answer and held their peace as it is recorded Luke 20. 26. And though our blessed Saviour might have challenged an exemption from the payment of tribute as being free yet because he would not offend Caesar he caused Peter to pay tribute for them both as we may read Math. 7. 26. 27. St. Peter writing unto the strangers that dwelt in Pontus Gallatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia who were at that time under the dominion of the Roman Empire only by reason of their aboad and so owed but locall allegiance to Caesar exhorts them that they should submit themselves unto all manner of ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as unto the superiour or unto governours as unto those that are sent of him for the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that do wel for so is the will of God that by weldoing ye may put to silence the ignorance of the foolish men 1 Pet. 2. 15. where we are to understand by the way that according to the Geneva notes upon that place by this word ordinance is meant the framing and ordering of the Civill government which the Apostle calleth the ordinance of men not because men invented it but because it is proper to men to exercise upon which place of the Apostle there are these things observable First that wee ought to submit to the King as superiour Secondly that where a government is Monarchicall as in England governours are sent by him and by him only for if governours had been to have been sent by any other the Apostle writing by the Spirit of God if their calling had been lawfull would not have omitted to have instructed those strangers to performe subjection and obedience to them Thirdly that it is the will of God that wee should submit our selves to the King as superiour Fourthly That in so doing wee doe well And fifthly That in doing this well we shall put to silence the ignorance of the foolish men that is to say of such who hold that subjection and obedience belongs not to Kings or such that seeke to withdraw us from ours wherefore as St. Paul saith Rom. 13. 5. we must be subject not because of wrath only or for feare of punishment but also for conscience sake for this cause wee ought to pay tribute to whom wee owe our tribute custome to whom custome feare to whom feare honour to whom honour is due in which words St. Paul coupleth together the whole duty of subjection and obedience which we owe to our King tribute feare and honour where in the first place we are to consider that St. Paul wrote those precepts to men as free in Christ as our selves and to Romans men of as much learning courage and warlike imployments as were any at that time or since in the world and men who not long before were brought from the subjection of a popular state to the obedience of a sole and sovereigne Monarchy neither must we forget that these percepts were written in the time of that heathen Emperour Nero which then ruled over the Romans and the most bloody tyrannous and persecuting Tyrant and enemy to the Church of Christ that ever was before or since his time And yet St. Paul tells those Christian Romans they must be subject for conscience sake and his doctrine was true and not without warrant from Gods owne mouth for let a King be never so wicked yet he is Gods ordinance upon us and being Gods Ordinance we are to obey him by his especiall commandement Ieroboam was a wicked Prince and an Idolater and caused Israel to fall away from God and to sacrifice to Idolls yet we finde that God sent Ahijab the Prophet unto him with this message 1 King 14. 7. Goe tell Jeroboam for as much as I have exalted thee from among the people and made thee Prince over my people Israell and God