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
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
A25216 A reply to the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls's reflections on the Rector of Sutton, &c. wherein the principles and practices of the non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture, but by Dr. Stillingsfleet's Rational account, as well as his Irenicum : as also by the writings of the Lord Faulkland, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, &c. / by the same hand ; to which is added, St. Paul's work promoted, or, Proper materials drawn from The true and only way of concord, and, Pleas for peace and other late writings of Mr. Richard Baxter ... Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.; Barret, John, 1631-1713. 1681 (1681) Wing A2919; ESTC R6809 123,967 128

There are 4 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Though Magistrates may regulate us in the Circumstances of those Duties which the Law of Nature or Gospel doth command yet if on such Pretence they violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel and dedstroy the Duty it self or its End whether we are bound in such Cases to obey them Or whether it be not enough that we patiently suffer First Plea for P. p. 104. Q. 6. Whether the Kings of Israel had Power to forbid the Priests exercising their Office according to God's Law Or whether they could change or abrogate their Office ibid. p. 20. Of Solomon's puting out Abiathar see p. 21. Whether might they then have put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office Or might they have put any one in his Place that had not Right from God or that was unqualified Or might they have forbidden the Priests the Work appointed them by God ibid. p. 22. Q. 7. Whether such as Christ's Laws empower to ordain others to the Work of the Ministry have Power from Christ to hinder the Ordination of such as Christ's Laws admit into the Ministry ibid. p. 25. Q. 8. Whether the Magistrate besides the Power of the Temples and Tithes and publick Maintenance and Liberty also hath the Power of Ordination or Degradation that no Man may be a true Minister without or contrary to his Consent Sacrileg Desert p. 11. Whether were not many of the Non-conformist's true Pastors of their several Flocks before they were silenced and cast out ibid. And whether did the ejecting them from the Temples and Tithes degrade them or make them no Pastors to their Flocks Though Prudence may require Minister and People to consent to a Dissolution of such a Relation when they cannot hold it without greater hurt than benefit ibid. Q. 9. Though Princes or Patrons may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just Cause for their Interposition 2. And may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intolerable Men. 3. And when a Peoples Ignorance Wilfulness Faction or Division makes them refuse all that are truely fit for them may urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples Duty to consent Yet whether Christ and his Apostles have not settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of consenting in the People First Plea for P. p. 33. And whether any Man can be the Pastor of a Church de jure or truly de facto against the Church or Peoples Will or without their Consent ibid. p. 25. As the Saying of Cyprian is well known that the People have the greatest Power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy ibid. p. 77 And when in England it belongeth 1. To the Patron to present 2. To the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. To the People Iure Divino to be free Consenters 4. And to the Magistrate to protect and judg who shall be protected or tolerated under him if these four Parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several Men and cannot agree in one Whether the culpable Dissenters will not be the Causes of Schism ibid. p. 50. Q. 10. Whether the Churches and Councils were in the right or no which for 700 yea 1000 Years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent And if Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and Conformists and make themselves our Pastors against our Wills what would the Bishops think of such Would they hold it unlawful to separate from such agreeing with them in Doctrine and Worship Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 27. Q. 11. If a lawful Magistrate or Prince put in place of Pastors Persons of untried and suspected parts of Fidelity Whether will his Imposition make such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples Consent Fi●st Plea for P. p. 55. If so then whether might not one Roman Emperour have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great Degree by imposing on them insufficient heretical or malignant Pastors ibid. p. 56. If People were as much under Princes for chusing Guides for their Souls as a Daughter in her Fathers House is under her Father for the choice of an Husband which yet we have not seen proved yet as he can be no Husband to her without her Consent though She culpably deny Consent Query Whether it be not so here that they can be no Pastors to People till they consent Way of Concord p. 209. § 18. But whether hath God authorized the Magistrate to chuse what Persons every Man in his Dominions shall entrust his Soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey Ans. to Dr. Still Serm p. 14. Whether shall the People have any Judgment of discerning or not If yea must not the Bounds of it be shewed without denying the thing as if that would bring in all Confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown must not Subjects judg which is the true King and defend his Right Will any say if the People be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King When they are but Discerners of that which is before their Duty and have no Right to err or alter the Law and Right can any dreadful Cons●●uence be proved to follow on it Or if it be otherwise must they not be ruled as Brutes and so must not ●udg so much as whom they are to obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the People be made Judges First Plea for P. p. 70 71. Q. 12. Whether the Ministerial Office be taken up upon Tryal or for a time or during Life with a Capacity to perform the work If the latter be granted then whether it be any less than 1. Horrid Sacriledg 2. Perfidious Covenant-breaking 3. Disobedience to God 4. Cruelty to Souls 5. And unthankfulness for great Mercies if any of us shall desert our undertaken Office yea tho a silencing Diocesan should forbid us the exercise of it unjustly Sacriledg Desert p. 25 30. Q. 13. If Rulers may silence the faithful Ministers of Christ who knoweth where to bound his Obedience to such Silencers If a 1000 or 2000 faithful Ministers must cease Preaching when so forbidden why not 3000 why not 4000 If half a Kingdom can you satisfy the Consciences of the other half that they must not do so too and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Muscovy when the Prince commandeth it And if a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must chuse the apparent hazard of their Souls and refuse such helps as Experience certifieth us they greatly need in Obedience to Man why must not the rest of the Parishes do so
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not s● left Chillingworth grants there may be just and nec●ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cath●lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most sensl●ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus imp●ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fit● But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you mak● them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
also May I give away the needful helps to my Salvation because others have them should their Salvation satisfy me instead of mine own First Plea for Peace p. 89 90. Whether should Men persuade the poor to famish rather than against Law to beg because if thousands of them dye of Famine yet other People are supplied ib. p. 102. Q. 14. Whether the antient Christian Pastors preached not against the Will of Princes for 300 years and after that against the Will of Christian Princes as Constantius Valens Theodosius junior Valentinian c. And whether not only Apostles said that God was to be obeyed rather than Men but such as Timothy who was ordained by Man were not strictly charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judg the living and dead at his appearing and Kingdom to preach the Gospel and be instant in season c. ib. p. 226 227. Q. 15. Whether any Man hath Authority to forbid a Faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-Power to perform the Office to which he is ordained And whether such remain not under a Divine Obligation which Man's Law cannot dissolve Whether it be not right as Bishop Bilson saith If Princes forbid us we must go on with our work What if an Interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdom Must all obey What if it silence more than can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that would so bind Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists c. or only the Orthodox Must God ask leave of Rulers to be worshipped as God Hath God made Men Judges whether the Gospel shall be preached or not or whether People shall be Saved or left to perish in their Ignorance and Sin And how cometh the Orthodox to be authorized to do Mischief or to forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than an Heretick or a Christian more than an Heathen Is he not bound to do more good than they rather than authorized to do more hurt Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 84 85. or 78 79. See also p. 21. Q. 16. Where such Sins are made the condition of Ministration by Men in Power as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in Conscience to deny Consent and Conformity thereto Whether is it not the duty of all the Ministry in primo instanti to forbear their Ministerial Office or of none the Reason being the same to all Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office because forbidden by Men to exercise it then is it not in the Power of a Prince to cast out Christianity when he pleaseth and to deny God all publick Worship And must we not then ask leave of Rulers that Christ may be Christ and Souls may be saved as if the Keys of Heaven and Hell were theirs First Plea for Peace p. 114 115. But whether must not all agree that to silence all the Ministers of the Nation is a thing that God hath not given any Man authority to do because of the necessity of their Ministry and consequently to silence any necessary Ministry at all ib. p. 223. And if all must not lay down their Ministry why must a 1000 or 2000 do it rather than all the rest If it be said the rest are a competent supply to the Churches how shall we be sure that other Mens sinning will absolve the Innocent from their Duty As if I were bound to be a Minister only till other Men will Sin And where can the Wit of Man ever set Bounds as to this Matter Will it not be granted that if the most in France conform to Popery this will not disoblige all others from the exercise of their Ministry And who then can say what those Untruths and Sins are which a weak and erring Ministry may be guilty of which shall serve to disoblige the rest And were not this an easy way to introduce any Error by forbidding any but the Defenders of it to Preach Ib. p. 115 116. Q. 17. Whether God hath authorized the Magistrate to chuse and command in what Words only every Pastor shall publickly pray to God and what Books and Words of Men he shall profess Assent and Consent to and what dedicating Symbols of Christianity he shall use as engaging in the Christian Covenant and to command Ceremonies and Modes for Dissent wherein he shall deny Baptism and Church-Communion to all Dissenters tho the things be taken to be indifferent by the Magistrate and great Sins by the Dissenters Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 14. Q. 18. Whether Pastors usurp not Power over one another when they command all about them to speak to Men from God or to God from Men in no other Words but what they the Usurpers shall write them down making Ministers but Cryers to read their Prescripts and Proclamations Second Plea c. p. 142. Q. 19. Whether any but Volunteers should be taken for true Christians or admitted to Holy Communion to receive the Seals of Pardon and Life Way of Concord third Part p. 27. § 7. And whether Pastors of the Churches should be constrained to administer Sacraments to any against their Consciences Whether it be not their Office to be Judges who is to be baptized and to communicate Ib. p. 123. Q. 20. If any be urged to take a Re-ordination against their Judgments whether Morals must not be preferred before Rituals and Rituals never set against them And whether they should not be of this Mind that deny the Scriptures to have unchangeably fixed all Rituals and yet confess that Morals are fixedly determined Ib. p. 214 215. It is not contrary to the temper of the Gospel which ever subjecteth Ceremonies Rites and External Orders to Morals and to Man's Good and the great Ends Ib. third Part p. 81. Q. 21. When the most learned sober judicious Conformists differ not at all from us about the Matter it self to which we deny Conformity but confess it to be unlawful as to the hardest Points of the imposed Subscriptions Oaths Declarations and Covenants and only take the Words in such a Sence in which we our selves could take them were we persuaded that it was indeed the true meaning of them Query hereupon How it comes to pass that they who are as much as we against that Sence which we disown and agree with us in the Matter should deserve Liberty Honour and Preferment for otherwise interpreting the Words of the Law which the Lawgivers themselves will not interpret when our Supposition that the Law-makers mean properly as they speak is taken to deserve Scorn Silencing c. from them that will not expound their Words to us Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea c. p. 116 117. And seeing as those worthy Conformists must grant that if the Words of the Laws be properly to be understood and not with their Limitations then the Conformists are in the wrong and the Non-conformists in the right