Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	child_n	father_n	husband_n	1,444	5	7.6618	4	true

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