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 master_n wife_n 2,782 5 6.2775 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A36486 An examination of the arguments drawn from Scripture and reason, in Dr. Sherlock's Case of allegiance, and his Vindication of it Downes, Theophilus, d. 1726. 1691 (1691) Wing D2083; ESTC R5225 114,324 80

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

that we will not allow God to deliver us unless he do it by Law This is pretty and passionate but to use his own Eloquence is a very nothing It is often a Duty to refuse Deliverance when God does deliver us we are sometimes bound to suffer Martyrdom not accepting Deliverance A Master of a Family does cruelly treat his Wife his Children and Servants God delivers them by suffering a Robber to drive him out of his Possessions he offers to govern them gently if they will swear to resist the former Possessor and accept of him as a Husband Father and Master A Prince oppresses his Subjects many of them rebel and bring Deliverance to the rest with this Condition that they will swear to joyn in the Rebellion In these Cases is it lawful for the oppressed to accept Deliverance When a Deliverance is offered which cannot be enjoyed without Sin it is God's Providence that offers it not for our Complyance but our Tryal and to accept of such a Deliverance will make us liable to his Vengeance The Question then is whether it be a Sin to abjure our lawful Sovereign and to assist an Usurper against him we believe that it is a Sin against humane Laws and against the Laws of God and Nature and if it be a Sin then interests of Flesh and Blood cannot make it lawful and therefore to talk of God's Deliverance when the only Question is about the lawfulness of abjuring a lawful Sovereign is in plain English only Cant and Banter His 6th Argument wherein he undertakes to confute Bishop Sanderson has fallen into better Hands and there I shall leave it the summ of it is this That we must renounce our Allegiance to the dispossessed Prince for the sake of the publick Good the Necessity and Ends of Government and I shall only observe that here he Argues upon the Fundamental Principle of the Jesuites Republicans and Fanati●ks who have written for Resistance and if the Doctor expects it I will make good this Charge against him His 7th Argument is this These Principles answer all the Ends of Government both for the security of the Prince and Subjects and that is a good Argument to believe them true These Principles What are they Non-resistance Non-assistance and Allegiance to Usurpers A Prince who is in Possession is secured in Possession by them as far as any Principles can secure him against all attempts of his Subjects who must submit to him without Resistance though they are ill used On the contrary here is no Security for even the best of Princes his Subjects are indeed forbidden to resist him but if any attempt be made against him by Subjects or Foreigners he may be left to duel them all and to sight his Battles by himself against all his Enemies He will say that a good Prince must be defended by his Subjects and so say the Republicans that he must never be resisted and deposed But it is the unavoidable Mischief of their Principle that the Subjects are made the Judges of their Sovereign and they will often judge the best of Kings to be Tyrants And is not the Doctor 's Principle liable to the same Mischief If Subjects have a very bad King who notoriously violates their Rights they are not bound to defend him and are they not plainly then the Judges of his Crown They may judg the best of Kings to be a very bad one and then David look to thy self for Absalom or Sheba any Rebellious Son or Subject may destroy thee at their Pleasure there is but little difference between Resistance and Non-Assistance as to the Security of Kings the one exposes them defenceless to be murthered by the other this brings them to the Scaffold and that chops off their Heads and 't is the same thing to Princes whether they are betrayed or resisted abandoned or deposed assaulted by Assassins or exposed naked to them But The Doctor 's Principles will not serve the Revolutions of Government to remove one King and set up another and why so the Revolutions of Government are not the Subjects Duty but God's Prerogative that is God may make Revolutions but the Subjects must not promote them and if God can change Governments without the Subjects Assistance why may he not do it without their Complyance But yet Subjects must comply and transfer their Allegiance and then the new King is secure till he disobliges his Subjects for then they who have Power from God will think they have a Call to execute his Prerogative and the rest will say in their Hearts let him go if he cannot defend himself and if sighting by himself he chances to ●e beaten then God removes him we must ●dore the rising Sun and Allegiance must ●e always a Lacquey to Success These ●re Principles sure that Princes have reason ●o be jealous of for whatever Service they may do them at one time they may do them as great disservice at another they advance Usurpers to the Throne and then tumble them headlong from it But when any Prince is setled in the Throne these Principles put an end to all Disputes of Right and Title and bind his Subjects to him by Duty and Conscience I may answer in his own way it is evident that these Principles were either unknown to the World and that is an Argument against them or else that they cannot put an end to Disputes of Right and Title for there have been such Disputes in all Ages and I believe will be to the end of the World If this be trifling let the Doctor answer for it But admit his Principles were generally receiv'd it is evident they can never put an end to Disputes of Right nor bind the Subjects by Duty and Conscience to an Usurper for he expresly acknowledges that the Providence of God removes and sets up Kings but alters no legal Rights nor forbids those who are dispossessed to recover their Rights The dispossessed Prince has still a legal Right and Claim which he may lawfully prosecute by War And is not here an admirable end the Controversy about Right Oh! but this Controversy is between the Princes only upon these Principles it can be none among the Subjects for they are bound by Duty and Conscience to the Prince in Possession And what are they bound to Non-Resistance and Submission Is that any Security to the Sovereign when he is invaded by the lawful Prince Are they bound to Allegiance or to an actual defence of the Usurper against him That they cannot be for it would be a bond of Iniquity if the dispossessed Prince has a just cause of War and this is evident to the Subjects Is it lawful for them to support an unjust Cause against a just Cause It is generally agreed that a War cannot be just on both sides Grotius gives this Reason because in the nature of the thing there cannot be a moral Faculty unto contrary Actions a right in one