Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	king_n	law_n	people_n	3,485	5	5.2685	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58387	Reflections upon the opinions of some modern divines conerning the nature of government in general, and that of England in particular with an appendix relating to this matter, containing I. the seventy fifth canon of the Council of Toledo II. the original articles in Latin, out of which the Magna charta of King John was framed III. the true Magna charta of King John in French ... / all three Englished.	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.; Catholic Church. Council of Toledo (4th : 633). Canones. Number 75. English & Latin.	1689 (1689)	Wing R733; ESTC R8280	117,111	184

is a Title that puts Children out of a Condition of setting themselves against him whose cruelty they have experience of But besides that there is a great deal of difference between these two Titles which is the ground of the difference there is between the Subjects and a King and the Children and a Father is it not notorious and practised every day that a Father who is become the Enemy of his Children is deprived of the administration of his Goods and of the disposal of his Children which practice being grounded on the Law of Nature doth not in the least violate the order of the Society Moreover it is certain that a Title how venerable so ever it may be cannot secure him that bears it from the resistance of those that are oppressed by him Let us conceive a Physician that has a design to Poison his Patient the Title of a Physician which has induced his Patient to commit the care of his Health to his trust can it hinder the Patient from prosecuting him as a Murtherer in case he resolv'd to take away his Patients Life instead of contributing to his Cure. We know that Divines look upon the Government of the Church as a Government instituted by God and immediately instituted by him and yet who knows not that they have deposed the Pope Bishops and Popish Priests by withdrawing themselves from their Dominion and that upon this Ground that tho there be something lawful in their Ministry yet they oppose themselves to the end of their Ministry by reason of the Tyranny which they exercised over their Consciences But some may imagine that because God has not expresly given this Right to People to cast off their Kings when turn'd Tyrants and that he has thought it sufficient to recommend Obedience to them he has thereby authorized all their unjust Proceedings and Violence without leaving any means to the People of opposing themselves against their Oppression by deposing them This is a meer Delusion and to see through it we need only consider God's Silence concerning the irregular comportment of the High Priest who notwithstanding was subject to the same Punishments as were the meanest Levites in case of his violating the Rules of his Institution and transgressing the Laws which God had given to all the People of Israel and to the Priests in particular Indeed it was not needful that God should prescribe any such thing to the People because Nature alone is sufficient to teach People aright they are possessed of by giving their Consent to the Elevation of the Powers that govern them In a word I say that God had sufficiently intimated to the Israelites that they could not lawfully be oppressed in that he had expresly forbid their Kings to heap up vast Riches or to multiply the Number of their Cavalry which the Kings could not do without violating the Law of God and without drawing upon themselves the Resistance and Opposition of their Subjects as Josephus very well infers who maintains Lib. 4. cap. 8. That the People ought of Duty to oppose themselves against a Prince who transgress'd the Bounds God had prescribed to him in the 17th of Deuteronomy But this Point leads us insensibly to consider more particularly what kind of Royalty it was that obtained amongst the Jews which deserves carefully to be examined This I intend next to consider and afterwards shall proceed to take a view what was the Law of Royalty among the Romans and shall make it appear that the Kingdoms of Europe which have been formed out of the Ruins of the Roman Empire have neither followed the one nor the other of these Models tho some Divines have asserted it without respect to Truth CHAP. IX Concerning Regal Dignity and the Rights belonging to it amongst the Jews I Am to make out four Things in order to the clearing of the Character of Royalty which obtain'd amongst the Jews The first is to enquire whether it was immediately established by God 2ly To shew that it was limited according to the Description we have of it in the 17th of Deuteronomy 3ly To evince solidly that all that Samuel declared concerning the Right of Kings was only a Prophecy about the Tyranny of Kings and not the Right of Royalty 4ly To make it appear that supposing that of Samuel's to be a Description of a Lawful Right yet that particular Settlement could not be of any Consequence to those Estates that had another Institution For the first I say that the Institution of some Magistrates amongst the Jews was by express and immediate Revelation from God Moses his Ministry and Authority was established and confirmed by miraculous Signs and Tokens as appears Exod. 3. And for the Judges of the People of Israel as may be seen in the 18th Chapter of the same Book But we find nothing like this in the establishment of the Kingly Authority amongst them For we do not find that God in the 17th Chapter of Deuteronomy enjoins the People to establish a King over them as the Jews themselves believe but only that he foresaw the disorderly Inclinations of the People who in Time to come would demand a King to rule over them in conformity to those of their Neighbour Nations A demonstrative Proof of what I say is because that God himself having declared himself solemnly to be their King in giving them Laws in leading their Armies c. they could not reject him without committing a great Sin. This is that which Gideon was very sensible of as appears by his absolute refusal of the Royal Dignity The same thing may also be gathered from the words of Samuel 1 Sam. 8. and of God himself I own indeed that when the People shewed themselves obstinately resolv'd to have a King there happened something of an immediate designation of Saul to that Dignity as may be seen 1 Sam. 10. for the Election was made by casting of Lots in the presence of Samuel to shew that the appointment of Saul was immediately from God. But for all this it continues a great Truth That the establishment of the Royal Power in Israel was an Act of the People and not an immediate Act of the Deity And we ought to give the more heed to what was immediate in the Institution because it is the Foundation of many particular Expressions we find in Scripture when it is said of the Judges of Israel Deut. 1.17 That their Judgment was God's Judgment That they are Gods Exod. 21.16 22.8 9 28. Psal 82.1 John 10.35 That God is with them in their Judgment 1 Chron. 19.6 All those Expressio●s refer to their immediate Divine Institution When the Scripture speaking of the Kings of Judea saith That Solomon sat upon the Throne of God 1 Chron. 29.23 that is to say that God had placed him on the Throne of Israel which God himself was possest of till their demanding a King of Samuel 2 Chron. 9.8 When it calls them the Kings of God 1 Sam.

to the Society Now that Samuel had not any the least Design to appropriate an unbounded Power to the Kings of Israel 1 Sam. 8. by these Words hoc est jus Regis appears 1st Because the word Mispath ordinarily signifies consuetudo agendi ratio a custom manner or way of acting in case we do not explain this word in the same sense it carries in the 2d chap. of the same Book ver 13. we shall make this passage to contradict Deut. 17. which cannot be otherwise avoided This is acknowledged by Learned Men who therein agree with Schickardus de jure Hebraeorum Cap. 2. Thess 7. p. 65. 2ly The Fathers are of the same opinion see what Beda saith in his Exposition upon Samuel Lib. 2. Hoc erit jus Regis qui imperaturus est vobis Non qualis esse debeat moderatus justus Imperator exposuit cujus in plerisque Scripturae sacrae locis maxime in Deuteronomio perfectio docetur sed potius Rector improbus qui austeritate subjectos sit oppressurus intimat ut per hoc populum a pertinaci ejus petitione revocet This will be the Behaviour of the King that shall rule over you He doth not s●t forth the Qualifications of a moderate and just Ruler who is fully represented to us in many places of Scripture but especially in Deuteronomy but rather those of a wicked Governour who by his Cruelty should oppress his Subjects that thereby he might deter them ●●om their obstinate demanding of him 3. The Divines that did not understand Hebrew yet by good sense and Reason were led to the true meaning of this word Gerson lays it down as a certain Truth that this word does not express a lawful Right but an unjust Power Dictio haec Jus non significat semper Jurisdictionem sive Justitiam sed significat interdum Potestatem quae non est justa c. sicut haec dictio Rex quandoque sumitur pro Tyranno Benedictio pro maledictione Lex injustitiae pro injustitiae execratione Deus pro Diabolo This word Jus doth not always signifie Right or Justice but sometimes an unjust Power c. even as also the word King is sometimes taken for a Tyrant and Blessing for Cursing and the law of unrighteousness for the execrable unrighteousness and God for the Devil Opusc contr Adulator Princip in Consid 8. The same also was the Judgment of Claudius Espenseus a famous Divine of the Romish Church who told Henry II of France Your Majesty ought to abhor that Right nothing less than Regal and nothing more than Tyrannical which God by the mouth of Samuel did not allow the King but wherewith he threatned the People saying Hoc erit Jus Regis this will be the Right of a King. Treatise of the Institution of a Prince Ch. 8. 4. It appears evidently that Samuel represents to us the picture of a Tyrant in opposition to the description of a King God had set down in the 17 chap. of Deuteronomy 5. The Jews of old have always owned as much as appears from Josephus Lib. 4. cap. 8. 6. It appears that those who conceive the matter otherwise suppose a greater Power and Authority in Princes than they ascribe to God himself who never commands any Thing but what is reasonable and just as St. Paul judged who calls all the Duty we owe to God a Reasonable Service Rom. 12. 7. If any one will take the pains to read the Characters Solomon has given of a King in divers places of the Proverbs he shall find that nothing can be more opposite to this Idea of an unbounded Power which some would gather from these words of Samuel 8. The Kings of Israel never enjoyed any such Power or ever pretended to it the History of Naboth whose Vineyard King Ahab greatly desired is a proof hereof beyond all exception 1. Kings ch 21. Jezebel would never have been put to the trouble to employ false Witnesses to destroy Naboth as a Blasphemer if she had had in Israel some of those Divines Flatterers of the Grandeur of Princes who abuse the Holy Scripture to authorize all the injustice and oppression they are guilty of I am sure it is impossible to read without astonishment the extravagance of some Divines who conceive that the words of Samuel contain an Explication of the Rights of Royalty and that Samuel wrote them in a Book as being the publick and incontestable Rights of Monarchy Withal let us make this Reflection which is very natural The Jews here complain of the injustice and violence of Samuel's Sons who made a mock of the Laws whereupon 't is supposed that they to remedy this mischief require of Samuel to set a King over them that might govern them according to his own Fancy and treat them like Slaves Is there any thing of sense in the Supposition We suppose that the King has already a Rule prescrib'd him in the 17 of Deuteronomy and at the same Time we maintain that Samuel a Prophet has in a publick Record set down the Description of a Tyrant to whom God gives Right to violate all the Rules he had prescribed in his Law. Sure it is that neither the Antient nor Modern Jews did ever conceive any such thing If we read Josephus where he sets down an abridgment of the 17 of Deuteronomy we shall find that he expresly asserts that it was not only the Right but also the Duty of the People to oppose themselves against their Designs in case they violate the Rules of the Royalty God had prescribed them Let us consider the carriage of the Maccabees against Antiochus and we shall find that they did not believe it unlawful to resist Tyrants and to oppose themselves to their destructive Government Let any one read the 14 of the first Book of the Maccabees and he will see whether the Rights of the King which at that Time were engraven on Brass had any resemblance with what we find in the 8th chap. of Samuel This is a sure way to judge whether the Jews ever pretended that God by these words of Samuel had granted to Kings an unlimited Power They to this day acknowledg that the Scripture does not only prescribe Moral Laws which their Kings could not violate but also positive Laws to which they were obnoxious and which they could not transgress without submitting themselves to the same punishments with the rest of their Subjects This is the common opinion of the Jews as we may see in Maimonides de Regibus Cap. 3. Sect. 4. and in the treatise of the Sanhedrim cap. 19. num 166 167 168. which Doctrine he borrowed from the Talmud cap. Cohen Gadol and from Siphri upon the Parasche Schophetim 2ly They hold that if the King did change the form of Government into Tyranny the People had Right to reject him The History of Rehoboam rejected by the ten Tribes is a proof hereof beyond exception 3ly They hold that the People suppos'd

themselves to have Right and that it was their Duty to reject Athaliah who tho she was a Woman yet had invaded the Throne 2 Kings 11 ch ver 3. which the Jews pretend to be contrary to the Law set down in the 17 of Deuteronomy 4ly They declare that King Herod appeared as a Criminal and indicted Person before the Sanhedrim tho they mistake themselves in the story related by Josephus lib. 14. cap. 17. Antiq. whence it appears that he was only Vice-Roy I acknowledge that Casaubon Exercit. 13. § 3. from whence Bishop Vsher seems to have taken it maintains that the Jews believe That no Creature can judge the King but God alone and to this purpose quotes a passage out of Midrasch Devarim Rabba in Shophetim but it is now 64 Years since Schickard has observed Casaubon's mistake in handling a matter he did not understand for indeed the Jewish Maxims are directly opposite to it 1st In the place by him cited we find a Gloss which shews that that passage did not concern the Kings of Judah but those of Israel who by their Power had changed the Government into Tyranny Schickard de Jure Regio pag. 63 64. and trampled under Feet the Laws of God which made them obnoxious to punishment 2ly We must observe that the Jews believ'd that the Maxime never took place but a little before the last extirpation of their States upon occasion of one of their last Kings named Jamneus Gemar in cap. 2 Sanhedrim I own that Samuel doth not set down any express Law for the deposing of Kings or punishing of them when turn'd Tyrants but yet he supposed as a thing certain and evident 1st That their Crimes being contrary to the Law were punishable according to the general Definitions of the Law against Idolaters and other Criminals We don't find that God has spoken any thing in particular neither concerning the High-Priest from whence the Papists falsly conclude That he was exempt from Punishment tho he did transgress the Law. 2ly I say that tho the Execution of those Laws was not committed to Inferiour Magistrates yet did it of right belong to the publick according to the natural Dictates of common Sense But after all whatsoever Idea we may frame of the Jewish Monarchy I maintain that it cannot be of any consequence to other States 1st Because that State was formed immediately by God for particular Ends which do not respect other Societies God might by Example grant to the Family of David which he had a mind to distinguish from others some Prerogatives which he had no design to communicate to other Soveraigns 2ly Because it is false that God has granted any particular Right to the Kings of Israel contenting himself to give way to the Peoples desire who would be govern'd by a King like their Neighbours 3ly Because whatever the Rights of Royalty may have been amongst the Jews it is certain they have been abolished by an Order of Providence which has wholly destroy'd the State of the Jews and the Rights of their Kings We don't find that Jesus Christ obliged his Followers to regulate their Obedience to Soveraigns according to the measure of Obedience the Jews rendred to their Kings 4ly Neither do we see that the Jews since their dispersion did ever take part with Tyrants when the States where they lived rejected them or that they thought themselves oblig'd thereto by the Law. 5ly We should be forced to suppose that all the Christian States and all the Bishops and Pastors in the Churches and States without the Roman Empire had been pitifully mistaken in not following or recommending this Judaical Form of Despotical Royalty and purely Tyrannical described by Samuel which is so strangely extravagant that it is unworthy to insist on the refutation of it CHAP. X. Concerning the Royal Law in favour of the Roman Emperors 'T IS a difficult thing to understand the Nature of the Western Governments without being acquainted with the Nature of the Government of the Roman Emperors of that Empire whose Ruin has been the rise of most of the Western Monarchies Now it is certain that as Contraries serve to illustrate one another so the opposition which is found between the Constitution of those Kingdoms and that of the Roman Empire will afford us a clear sight of the Characters which distinguish them We must know then that in the Year 729. of the City of Rome Dion lib. 53. Tacit. annal lib. 2. Augustus and Norbanus being Consuls Lata est Lex Regia quâ summa Regia Potestas quam sibi Populus Romanus ab ejectis Regibus sumpserat in unum Principem translata est ita ut is nulla Legis necessitate teneretur omnique jure scripto solutus esset ei verò parerent omnes The Royal Law was enacted whereby the Sovereign and Kingly Power which the People of Rome ever since their rejecting of the Kings had taken to themselves was transfer'd upon the Prince alone so that he was not bound to the Law at all and was exempted from all written Constitutions but that all were to obey him This is the true Epocha of the Power which the Roman Emperors had of making Constitutions and to publish Answers to Questions of Law proposed to them Antonius Augustinus has published some of the Remains of the Royal Law which was divided into several Tables See here some of the chief Articles of it which Gruterus has inserted in his Inscriptions pag. 242. foedusve cum quibus volet facere liceat ita uti licuit Divo Augusto Ti. Julio Caesari Augusto Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico Vtique ei Senatum habere relationem facere remittere Senatus-consulta per relationem discessionemque facere liceat uti licuit Divo Augusto c. Vtique cum ex voluntate Authoritateve jussu mandatuve ejus praesenteve eo Senatus habebitur omnium rerum jus perinde habeatur servetur ac si è lege Senatus edictus esset habereturque Vtique quos Magistratus potestatem Imperium Curationemve cujus rei petentes Senatui Populoque Rom. commendaverit quibusque suffraga●●onem suam dederit promiserit eorum Comitiis quibusque extra ordinem ratio habeatur Vtique ei fines Pomoerii proferre promovere cum ex Republica censebit esse liceat ita uti licuit Ti. Claudio Caesari Augusto Vtique quaecumque ex usu Reipublicae Majestate Divinarum Humanarum Publicarum Privatarumque rerum esse censebit ei agere facere jus potestasque sit ita ut Divo Augusto Tiberioque Julio Caesari Augusto Tiberioque Claudio Caesari Augusto Germanico fuit Vtique quibus Legibus Plebísve scitis scriptum fuit ne Divus Augustus Tiberiusve Julius Caesar Augustus Tiberiusve Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus tenerentur his Legibus Plebisque scitis Imperator Caesar Vespasianus solutus sit quaeque ex quaque Lege rogatione Divum Augustum Tiberiumve Julium Caesarem Tiberiumve Claudium Caesarem Augustum Germanicum facere oportuit