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	parent_n	servant_n	5,710	5	6.5909	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

submission Pi●u● or out of any Principle of Conscience but prudential and politick because they are not in probable capacity to give him Battel if they had the tempting opportunity and capacity the case would be altered Then not only violent resistance should come to be duty but pulling of the Magistrate out of his chair of Government as we will hear punishing him and placing themselves though but private Men in his room How contrary such principles and practices of private Mens non-submission to and counter-acting of Church-judicatories supposed to do wrong are unto the Word of God how subversive of Church-government how introductory of Schisme Heresies and all Mischiefs into the Church is well discovered by the learned Reviewer of the Pamphlet intituled Presbytery no Papacy Protesters no Subverters And with equal reason may the same grounds be made use of against this Mans inciting all private persons to counter-act the Magistrate violently when they think he doth them wrong or when they account their Sentences unjust As certain confusion comes on the Church if the Principles of that Party be entertained so let People once drink in this Mans Doctrine in reference to the State there shall be no end of sedition no security for the powers ordained by God for any private persons are made judges of the justice of the Magistrates Sentences and Punishments and what Man will readily condemn himself if he may be admitted to be judge in his own cause And upon their own private judgement of the injustice of the Magistrates dealing with them are allowed without any further prerequisite to use violence against him pull the sword out of his hand and pull himself out of his seat onely there must be probable capacity for this and nothing excuses from not doing so but want of that capacity If that be wanting there must be submission to unjust Sentences not out of any consciencious respect to the Power but ad redimendam majorem vexationem This is the Libellers mind Such Doctrine surely is neither consonant to Gods Word to the practices of his dear and approven People to the mind of his soundest Servants nor to sound Reason Who ever will consult the holy Oracles of God will find that not only is obedience commanded to be given to Magistrates in their lawful injunctions and submission not only for wraths-sake but also for conscience-sake to their just punishments of sin and wickedness who ever re-offends or violently resists the Magistrate in either of these no doubt resists the Ordinance of God and receive to themselves damnation Rom. 13.2 but also that there is a submission required to be yielded them even when they put us to suffer wrongfully and unjustly may be evidently gathered from Scripture grounds in the case of unjust suffering God hath not left his people without direction what to do in reference to Magistrates abusing their power It is true as hath been said the Lord hath not given a moral power or warrand to any invested with Authority to do evil or unjustly concerning that the question is not But the question is what duty is owed by the Subject unto the Magistrate especially the Supreme for there may be remedies had against the injuries of the inferior by appellation in case of his male-administration and unjust Laws or Sentences according to these Laws or Executions according to Sentence whether they may violate or violent the person invested with Authority and not submit to him but counter-act him by force in self-defence against his violence or if they be bound in conscience or by any Law of God to submit humbly to what he inflicts although unjustly if they can neither move him by their humble petitions to forbear them nor can flee from his wrath or go out of his Dominions This man and his Complices maintain that if the Magistrate abuse his power in making unjust Laws or punishing according to these any private man or company of men that think themselves strong enough for the Magistrate ought never to suffer but use forcible resistance against the Magistrate abusing his power and that all the patience that is required of Christians toward oppressing Magistrates is only to bear suffering patiently when they are out of capacity of acting and may not better do and to suffer patiently when they see they cannot repress the violence of the unjustly-dealing Magistrate with a sufficient contrary violence This Doctrine favouring so strongly of carnal selfie-nature and being too suitable to the way of beasts who know no other thing but to be carried with a natural impetus to repay violence with violence till they be over-powered we utterly dislike and do assert according to the Holy Scriptures That even when Magistrates deal unjustly or put any to suffering wrongfully albeit they are for this to give a dreadful account and albeit Subjects are to judge of their actions as they deserve and not approve their malversation but modestly witness against it as there is opportunity yet suffering persons are bound to a passive submission or obedience enduring wrongs done to them not only with respect to Gods providential Ordinance by which their suffering comes to pass but with respect to his institutive Ordinance of Magistracy wherewith the persons afflicting them are invested albeit in the particular acts concerning them abusing their power For albeit the abuse of the power be not of God yet the abused power is of God and the person invested therewith must have respect from the sufferer other respect then is to be given to a private invader intuitu officii not intuitu abusus officii and this respect is patient submission under the affliction though unjustly inflicted and not daring to re-violent the person invested with Magistratical power although in a particular toward us he abuse his power to commit our persons and our cause to him that judgeth righteously not offering to move sedition albeit we were able for it If we shall only look to these three things in the Scripture we shall see ground for what is said 1. Consider what is required of Children toward their Parents unjustly afflicting them and likewise from Servants toward their Masters and by analogy we may learn somewhat of the mind of God of the duty of Subjects to their Princes who are their political Fathers and have a despotical and lordly power over them For Children Heb. 12.9 10. We had Fathers of our flesh who corrected and chastned us after their own pleasure and we gave them reverence which in the apodosis of the similitude is expon'd subjection v. 9. This is not only spoken of narrativè but approbativè if it were not so the argument taken from our carriage to Parents to enforce reverent subjection to God were not good The Apostle approves the reverend subjection of Children to their Parents though unreasonably and with mixtures of unjust passion correcting them he allows not the deed of the Parent for his own pleasure afflicting the Child but

by themselves And may as they see fit resume what power he hath for he is but their Servant and Vassal as he saith What can Protestant Princes expect but destructive doctrine from this hand and pen that hath written up Page 178. John Marian the Jesuite lib. 1. de Rege for one of his approved Authors as he calls them a reprobate Author amongst all good men is the man and his book commending regicide by any means is infamous in all Christendom however this man count of him as an approved Author and his spirit may be no lesse seen in that while he approves this man he hath set this mark on famous Bishop Andrews known in his time to be most adverse to Papists P. 423. Bishop Andrews saith he his name is a curse on the earth his writings prove him to be a popish Apostate What of his writings this man hath seen who can tell but all that the world hath seen of his writings prove him a great Antipopist and sound Protestant But to our purpose This civil Covenant 'twixt King and People is pleaded as that which is essential and fundamental to the constitution of all politick Societies and whereupon peoples both resisting the Prince and revenging themselves upon him is mainly grounded Yea Naph will have it to be a sufficient ground not only for the Proceres or Body of the people to proceed vindicatively against the King but in application to the Rebellion he intends to justifie for any private persons whatsoever if they be in probable capacity to do mischief without drawing mischief upon themselves and so out-stripes his master who gives not much to any private persons upon this account but to the States of the Land and inferior Magistrates with the Body of the people But as to the Covenant betwixt King and People both L. R. and Naph urge it as the ground for not only resisting but punishing Kings and all Magistrates when they account them Tyrants and will have a tacite virtual Covenant as valid for their ends as where it is express avowing it to be essentially fundamental in the constitution of all political Societies This brings to mind the folly of the man that would have all to be tyed in a Band that he had made aswell these who subscribed not as these who subscribed it But to be serious as to this matter we say 1. it is easily conceded that there is a mutual obligation betwixt Magistrates and Subjects to mutual duties which is indeed essential to the constitution of the politick Body but this obligation arises not from any tacite or express Covenant betwixt them but from the Ordinance and Will of God enjoining them these duties in such relations in that Society wherein they are combined 2. That obligation though it be mutual in the relations they are in yet it is not conditional there is a mutual obligation to mutual duties betwixt Parents and Children but it is not conditional nor is there such a Contract or Covenant that if Parents be undutiful Children should be loosed from their duty or upon the contrary but Children are bound to be subject to their Parents without any condition or p●ction on their part only in point of obedience active Gods will is to be preferred to theirs and nothing is to be done contrary to Gods Will for their pleasure otherwise the subjection is not conditional but absolute So also peoples obedience to Kings properly and truly so called is not conditional si meruerint nor is the duty of the King to them conditional si meruerint but each of them is absolutely bound to do duty in their own relations wherein they are one to another the obligation is absolute salva Deo obedientia Reverend Mr. Calvin speaks home to this purpose lib. 4. inst cap. 20. S. 29. preventing an objection against obeying wicked and tyrrannous Magistrates At mutuas inquies subditis suis vices debent praefecti Id jam confessus sum verum si ex eo statuis non nisi justis imperiis rependenda esse obsequia insulsus es rationator nam Viri Vxoribus Liberi Parentibus mutuis officiis astringuntur c. He sayes that albeit Parents discedant ab officio c. depart from their duty and exceedingly provoke their Children to wrath and Husbands use their Wives reproachfully whom they ought to entertain kindly yet improbis inofficiosis subjiciuntur Vxores Liberi And he adds there gravely that inferiors should not so much inquire into the duties of their superiors as every one should search what is their own duty and no think themselves disoblieged from their duty because the other bound to do duty to them is therein deficient this is Christian divinity indeed As the Magistrate is not to think the performance of his duty is dependent upon the condition of the Subjects doing their duty So neither are the Subjects of a lawful King to account themselves bound only conditionally to him if he do his duty 3. The fancy of a tacite virtual natural Covenant betwixt King and People as they use to call it equivalent to all ends that an explicite and express Covenant can have overthrows the distinction that all sound Protestant Divines and Polititians make betwixt a limited or pactional Prince and an absolute Prince or one who is integrae Majestatis who takes not his Kingdom upon conditions prescribed to him so as in case of failing he be subject to their censure or punishment Est alius principatus absolutus saith Rivet Ps 68. p. 420. Est etiam alius sub conditione pacti conventi temperatus to that same purpose Gerhard de Magistrat p. 935. wherein they agree with Calvin lib. 4 inst cap. 20. art 31. But now this man is bold to say There is no absolute King that such a King is contrary to the Word of God L. R. p. 107. and herein he deserting our Protestant Divines sides with Bellarm. recognit lib. de laicis where he saith Inter principem subditos est reciproca obligatio si non expressa tamen tacita ut Magistratus potest subditos ad obedientiam vi illius obligationis cogere ita subditi possunt à Magistratu deficere si capita illius foederis transgrediatur Whereupon and the like speeches Gerhard in the foresaid place speaking asserts Totam horum similium argumentorum structuram uno impetu dejicit Apostolus Omnis anima Rom. 13. c. and sayes that Barclay Cunerus Albericus Gentilis Arnisaeus solide refutarunt have refuted solidly the arguments of the Antimonarchists as they have done indeed But as to an absolute Prince albeit this Statist sayes he is contrary to the word of God it is most untrue For as our Laws which this man cares not to contradict allows our Kings to be absolute in express termes Jam. 1. Par. 18. an 1606. Act. 2. So the Scripture is not against an absolute Prince as our Laws and we understand him qui non sumit aut

allows the reverend subjection of the Child under such unreasonable and unjust dealing So 1 Pet. 2.18 Servants be subject to your Masters with all fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience toward God endure grief suffering wrongfully c. v. 20. If when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God For even hereunto were ye called No Master had a moral power or warrand from God to afflict his servant wrongfully that was not acceptable to God but displeasing to him yet that Servants should endure a suffering lot in and for following their duty to God with subjection to their Masters afflicting them and that from a principle of conscience toward God was a thing acceptable to God And hereunto were Servants then called it is not only subjection to patient suffering for their faults they were called to nor only subjection to endure suffering in well-doing meerly out of prudence or because they could not help it not being in probable capacity to violent their Masters though they would but a subjection to endure wrongful sufferings from their hands from a principle of conscience toward God moving them to regard their authority albeit abused by putting them to grievous trouble wrongfully And though perhaps they will say there is great difference between respects due by Children to their Parents and Servants to their Lords and Masters and that which is due by Subjects to Kings the King neither having properly paternal nor yet despotick nor lordly power over his Subjects And they will say also there is great difference between the evils spoken of in these Texts to be endured by Children or Servants corrections bufferings c. and that irreparable loss of life wherein should it come to that subjection without resistance is pressed to the wrongful Sentences and Proceedings of the Magistrate or Prince Though I say they will and do assert this to show the disparity of the cases yet 1. There is a full parity and agreement of these relative Powers Paternal Masterly and Magistratical or Royal in this that in the inflicting of evils upon those who are under them such as are competent to them to inflict within their sphere a patient reverend subjection is due from their inferiours without violent insurrection against them even when they abuse their power in some particulars not in way of justification or respect to the abuse but in a humble conscientious regard of their being invested with that power they do abuse 2. Kings are not Fathers of our flesh or by generation nor can they be truly called so political and parental power are different things although they may be co-incident in one and the same subject as most probably they were in the first political Governments that were in the world Yet as Kings and Magistrates should have fatherly hearts to their Subjects they being a sort of official Fathers to them to procure their good and to defend them from evil every King should be Abimelech i. e. my Father King So Subjects ought to have such hearts to their King as Children have to their Father giving them special reverence subjection and obedience from their very soul and inward affections and although sometimes they are not such as they should be yet they ought to account their persons sealed with Gods Ordinance and the Image of his Soveraignty sacred and inviolable resolving to suffer any thing of them rather then to be guilty of parricide although under the colour of self-defence Gods Law in the fifth Command hath injoyned reverence and subjection to Princes under the title of Parents Calvin lib. 4. inst cap. 8. shews the end of that Command is under the name and title of Parents Father and Mother to shew us that all the degrees of eminency God hath ordered to be over us should be inviolable Oportere nobis esse inviolabiles quia omnium est eadem ratio God saith he under the name of the most amiable relations of Father and Mother leads us to subjection to all Superiors Hoc saith he de subjectione praeceptum cum humani ingenii pravitate valde pugnat quod ut est celsitudinis appetentia turgidum aegre se subjici sustinet Therefore he adds to commend this subjection he hath communicate his own name to them who are in eminency In unum ipsum saith he ita conveniunt patris Dei ac Domini tituli ut quoties unum aliquem ex istis audimus Majestatis illius sensu animum nostrum feriri oporteat quos ergo istorum facit participes c. S. 35. These whom God makes sharers in these stiles he illustrates them with some sparkle of his own glory that they may all appear in their places conspicuous and reverend We ought to think that he that is a Father to us habet aliquid divini for he carries not a divine title without cause he that is a Prince or a Lord habet nonnullam cum Deo communionem Thus he And as he adds further we are not to doubt but God is in this Command setting down an universal rule touching Superior● nec interest saith he it is not concerning to consider whether they who are to be thus honoured by us be worthy or unworthy for whatsoever they be they have not attained to such eminency without Divine Providence Cujus ratione ipse Legislator illos honorari voluit So that whatsoever reverence and subjection a man is to give to to this natural Father when he inflicts punishments that are within his sphere that same subjection and reverence is to be yielded to the Magistrate that beareth the Sword punishing in his capacity albeit perhaps he erre in his procedure as Parents may do 3. It shall not be asserted that there is no difference between a Royal or Magistratical power and that which is called dominative and masterly seing besides other differences they do mainly differ in this that the Master or Lord of Slaves hath his own profit mainly before his eyes which he may under Gods glory lawfully have but the profit of his Slaves onely secondarily and also in order to his own good which is maintained by their well doing But a King or Magistrate should think that his power is primarily ordinated to the publick good of the community it self and only secondarily and consequently to the good of himself it being profitable for him that the Common-wealth should flourish 2. In this that a dominative and masterly power such as was of old in use and under which people were made Slaves either having their lives spared in a just War and quitting their liberty to spare their lives serva serviam or being sold and bought by the possessors money which was no way like the condition of our hired servants free to go off when they will did interest these who were invested with it with a greater power over the bodies and goods

of these who were either sold Slaves or saved in War and parting with their liberty for saving their lives then a Magistratical or Kingly power ought to claim over subjects not of such a condition albeit cruelty should be according to Divine Law avoided by any invested with any of these powers 3. In that the person that hath domination or Masterly-power as was ordinarily of old albeit we have scarce a shaddow of that power which Masters then had over Slaves absolutely surrendring their liberty to them hath the Slaves in subjection to him more out of fear and constraint then love or delight but a King or Magistrate hath his inferiours under him in a civil free liberal voluntary and loving subjection knowing that in the Government their good is aimed at by the Ruler more then his own and his subjects will not or ought not for his good and honour which is inseparably connexed with their own good spare to expend Life and Fortunes or what they are or have as publick necessity requires Yet though there be these differences betwixt the Dominative or Masterly and the Royal or Magistratical Power the inferiors subjection in suffering even wrongfully if God permit in his Providence the power to be so abused is no lesse under the one Power then under the other by vertue of Divine Law Subjects are Sons to the Soveraign their Father and Nurse-father to the Church of God but they are also Sons that do under God serve him though they be not Slaves It is ordinary in Scripture not only to find conquered People called Servants to the Conqueror as 2 Sam. 8.14 they of Edom became Davids servants but also ordinary Subjects to Kings were called Servants to them not only their menial Servants nor only their Guard nor their Officers onely but generally their Subjects were called Servants and the King their Lord as Davids Subjects warring against the Ammonites 2 Sam. 11.24 are called his Servants 1 Kings 12.4 We will serve thee saith Israel to Rehoboam i. e. we will be Subjects to thee Subjects for the publick good the Honour of the Prince whom they term their Soveraign Lord and for every ones private good are Servants to the Prince in a free voluntary ingenuous loving way they are his Servants as willingly and chearfully subordinate to him as their Soveraign although he also be in a sense their Servant not in relation of an inferiour to his superiour for so the Magistrate is only the Minister of God for the Peoples good and never called their Minister but in relation of the meanes to the end he is their Servant as Angels are ministering Spirits for the heirs of Salvation And Ministers of Christ are Ministers and Servants to the People though in regard of their official power they are not subject to the People but rules over them according to Christs Gospel Thus we see subjection without violent resistance in case of wrongful suffering is the duty of all inferiours toward their several correlatives Neither hath it any weight to make disparity of the cases the sufferings to which Children or Servants are to submit without violent resistance as but corrections or buffetings not tending to death or mutilation but the subjection required to the Magistrate who bears the Sword when he abuseth the same imports suffering death if he proceed so far which is the greatest evil of punishment and which is not eligible where lawful self defence is at hand For 1. the grounds that such men go upon for private persons violent resisting the Magistrate viz. the abuse of his power if they hold good will as effectually evince a non-subjection and violent resistance to Parents Masters c. abusing their power which is contrary to the Scripture and if the abuse of power by Fathers or Masters warrands not violent resistance against them how should it warrand the same against the Magistrates unjust violence 2. A● death is not so no punishment unjustly inflicted is eligible where lawfully it can be warded off But this is the state of the question if private persons may lawfully violent the Magistrate abusing his power If in greater evils unjustly inflicted there is alwayes a liberty for inferiors violently to re-offend the Powers above them why not in lesse evils too these gradual differences of inflicted evils cannot make such variation in the point of duty seing the ground holds equally strong if a man may resist the Magistrate for abuse of his Power he may do so also against his Father or Master on the same ground and if he may not so deal with them he may not deal so with the Magistrate neither Again our Lord and Saviour did foresee and foretell his Disciples that they were to meet with persecution from the Powers of the world for truth and righteousnesse sake And Mat. 5.10 pronounceth them blessed who are persecuted for righteousnesse sake and who are persecuted and reviled falsly for his sake asserting that their reward is great in Heaven So 1 Pet. 4.14 If ye suffer for righteousness sake happy are ye c. v. 17. It is better ye suffer for well doing then for evil doing c. In such Texts there is a commended suffering for Christ and righteousness sake having the encouragement of a promise of reward consequently it must be a sort of commanded suffering seing God commends and rewards nothing but what he commands it is a suffering contradistinct from suffering for evil doing submission to suffering for evil doing is out of all question a duty because in that case the resistance is a sinful resisting of the Ordinance of God and of these who are invested with that Ordinance of Magistracy while they lawfully use it But there is a further matter commended or enjoyned in these Scriptures even a cleanly submission to suffering in and for well doing when God in his Providence permits Rulers so to abuse their power which passive subjection or submission is not grounded on the Rulers abuse of his Power through his corrupt will but upon the peculiar command of God enjoyning submission in such cases to prevent sedition and confusion The Author of Lex Rex quaest 30. jeers at passive obedience as a chimaera as a dream and as involving a contradiction And he thinks he speaks acutely in saying God never gave to any a command to suffer for well-doing nor at all to suffer suffering depending on the free-will of another without us and not on our own free-will and so not falling under any command of God to us but he reasons very sophistically inferring that because meer suffering which necessarily depends on the action of another is not commended to us therefore subjection to suffering or passive obedience is not commanded when the Magistrate inflicts suffering It is impossible indeed that meer passion as to be whipped to be hanged or headed should be the object of an affirmative or preceptive command of God though the Magistrate may have a command to inflict