Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	christian_a	church_n	religion_n	1,340	5	5.5492	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90523	A defence of church-government, exercised in presbyteriall, classicall, & synodall assemblies; according to the practise of the reformed churches: touching I. The power of a particular eldership, against those that plead for a meere popular government, specially Mr Ainsvvorth in his Animadversion to Mr Clyft. &c. II. The authority of classes and synods, against the patrons of independencie: answering in this poynt Mr Davenport his Apologeticall reply, &c. and Mr Canne his Churches plea, &c, sent forth first by W. Best, and afterwards for this part of it, under the title of Syons prerogative royall. By Iohn Paget, late able and faithfull pastour of the Reformed English Church in Amsterdam. Hereunto is prefixed an advertisement to the Parliament, wherein are inserted some animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance against Presbytery: by T.P.	Paget, John, d. 1640.; Paget, Thomas, d. 1660.	1641 (1641)	Wing P166; Thomason E117_1; ESTC R16734	348,418	298

able to resolve the controversie True it is the Hierarchie (d) D. Whit. g. T. C. 3. deny this of whose opinion Mr Paget must either be or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief that this Scripture Act. 15. will yeeld unto them ANSVV. 1. Had Mr Canne well understood the state of the question or what he saith and whereof he affirmes he might easily have knowne that we are of the same minde with Mr Parker in this that as Antioch so every other particular Church hath like authority to end their owne controversies if they finde themselves able This condition concealed by Mr Canne is foure or five times repeated by Mr Parker in the (e) Pol. Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 301 302. place alledged speaking of Antioch and other particular Churches with these expresse words si modo possit si modo vires suppetivissent c. if they could if they had ability if they found not themselves too weak in case of impotency c. Mr Canne hiding these conditions from the eyes of his Readers doth hereby hood-wink them and keeps them in darknes from seeing the right meaning of Mr Parker 11. Besides the case of impotency alledged by Mr Parker there was another reason why this controversy at Antioch was to be brought unto a Synod viz. because it was causa communis a common cause that concerned both many other Churches in regard of the matter and in speciall the Church of Ierusalem because the authours of this controversy were not members of the Church of Antioch but came from Iudaea and from them of Ierusalem Act. 15.1 24. and therefore that Church of Ierusalem had more right and authority to judge of them then they of Antioch had 111. Whereas he would have it to be well observed that the Church of Antioch sent to them of Ierusalem not as being a dependent body standing under another Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves the right and well observing hereof stands in this that we acknowledge particular Churches to be dependent bodies not by way of subjection unto any one supposed to have more authority then the rest but so dependent that every one is equally and mutually subject to one another as occasion requireth The Churches of Ierusalem of Antioch of Samaria and others were all of equall authority and yet each standing under the authority of a Synod compounded of them all and this appeareth by the instance of this controversy referred here to the decision of the Synod at Ierusalem IV. For the testimony of D. Whitaker (f) Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. that the Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto 1. It is misalledged by him for in the Chapter mentioned by him there are no such words to be found the words are indeed Mr Parkers and not of another as he sayth poynting at D. Whit. in his margine He jumbles testimonies together that which one sayth he sets downe in anothers name and followes the mistake that is in Mr Parkers (g) Pa. 314. book through the Printers or Writers fault And though in the (h) De Cōc Qu. 1. c. 2. p. 6. Chapter following D. Whit. sayth of Ierusalem that there was as it were a certaine castle of Religion and the head of the Church yet the other words are none of his So licentious and negligent is Mr C. in his quotations 2. For the thing it self though in the combination of Churches into Synods they are not limited and simply bound in duety ex obligato as Mr Parker sayth to any one Church more then another yet this freeth them not from their duety of uniting themselves to some Classes or Synods even as particular persons though they be not simply bound to one Congregation more then another but may use a Christian liberty therein yet are they bound in duety to joyne themselves as members to some Chuch and further where no absolute necessity is imposed yet godly wisedome teacheth men a duety in respect of circumstances and accidentall occasions to make choyse of one Church rather then another V. He alledgeth D. Whitg so defectively that no man by his quotation can tell how to finde his words But whereas he sayth of the Hierarchy that I must either be of their opinion or els the Classes as they now rule must fall to the ground for any relief c. this consequence remaines to be declared and proved by him I. CAN. VI. When the Hierarchie alledge Act. 15. to proove their Diocesan and Provinciall Synods lawfull marke how they are answered by the Reformists (i) Park Polit Ecc. l. 3. c. 20. p. 315 316. The particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed If this reason be effectuall as indeed it is against them then it is no lesse effectuall against the Classes Now I have in part already shewed how quite contrary their doings are unto the Example in Act. 15. unto which this further may be added that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church Pag. 338. and sent thither by their mutuall desire and consent And hence our Divines teach that the power of bringing things from one Congregation to another belongeth not to any one Officer but to the whole Church If this be true by what word of God then doth Mr Paget by his * Thus he is accused by our Elders in the records of our Church Oct. 6. 1631. owne authoritie and without the consent of the Consistory or any one of them carry matters to the Classis and there he and they together undoe all that which the Elders with the Churches consent had before joyntly concluded ANSVV. 1. That the particular acts of the Apostles in cases alike must alike be observed I doe willingly grant and thereupon ground our Argument for the authority of Synods To this end it is alledged of Mr Parker in this very place which Mr C. doth cite viz. to shew how controversies are to be brought from particular Churches not to one person to a Bishop or Arch-Bishop as the Hierachy would have it but unto a Synod according to the example in Act. 15. How Mr Canne doth imagine that this should be effectuall against Classes he neither declareth neither can I conjecture II. Whereas he addeth that the matter carried from Antioch to Ierusalem was agreed upon by the whole Church c. I argue thence if a whole Church sometime be so offended and troubled by false teachers that they hold it needfull to seek help of a Synod it is lesse marvell that sometimes one or two should be driven to seek such help Had there bene but one person in Antioch troubled and unsatisfyed in conscience about that poynt of justification and salvation by the works of the Law who could have forbidden him to seek help of the Synod either by way of counsell or judgement when he could not finde it

lawfully not onely when it condemneth and excommunicateth those which are to be condemned pronounced Anathema but also when it ordaines and maintaines those decrees which agree with the Scripture c. Had he bene of my opposites opinion he should have sayd the contraty viz. that a Synod may not lawfully excommunicate or condemne those that deserve to be condemned but onely admonish them and so leave them to others Yea he proceeds further sayth concerning Generall Synods that (b) Ibid. p. 270. In them is a soveraigne power and they have the highest authority in the Church He doth not onely grant unto them jurisdiction but greater then is in any particular Church or in any other Ecclesiasticall judicatory Moreover whereas Bellarmine maintaines that Synods cannot erre when they are approved and confirmed of the Pope and that all their authority depends upon him hereupon D. Whita argueth thus against him (c) Ibid. c. 1. p. 214. If there be such weight in the Pope that without him neither Provinciall nor Generall Synod have in them any force it may worthily be demanded what part the Bishops have in a Synod whether they be onely admonishers or counsellours or whether they be judges for if they be counsellours onely why are none but Bishops admitted unto Synods why not others rather who are more learned then Bishops c. He notes it as a poynt of great absurdity and as a great strait whereunto the Papists are brought against their will against their profession that Bishops should have no other place in Synods but of admonishers and counsellours For indeed what use is their of suffrages of definitive and determining voyces if in the end all be determined by the Pope why might not advises and counsels have sufficed in such case This observation D. Whitaker holds to be of speciall use and worthy to be remembred and therefore repeats it oft (d) Ibi. c. 2. p. 221 222. What place I pray you doe Bishops obtaine in Synods what doe they to wh●● end doe they meet Is it that they may judge or is it that they may onely counsell and admonish Are they therefore judges or are they onely admonishers counsellours This indeed some of them thinke that they may onely admonish in Synods that they may move questions and dispute but may not judge Naclantus Bishop of Clug as we taught before in his treatise de potestate Papae Concilii sayth The power of the Pope is royall the power of the Synod is consiliaria by way of counsell the power of the Pope is altogether definitive the power of the Synod is of ambulatory definition that is as I interpret it wandring uncertaine Bellarmine indeed and the Iesuites that now are hold that the Bishops are judges but doubtles they meane an ambulatory judgement that is none at all For indeed they give all judgement unto the Pope alone Now this absurd opinion which he notes to have bene the conceit of Naclantus expressed in plaine words and of Bellarmine and other Papists by consequence is even the same that is professed by Mr Jacob Mr Dav. Mr Cann for though they differ in respect of the power of the Pope yet in respect of the power belonging to Synods they make the persons whereof the Synods consist to be no other then admonishers or counsellours not having any jurisdiction at all D. Whitaker yet leaves it not thus but speaking againe of the Popes over-ruling of Synods he doth againe record this observation saying (e) Ibid. c. 3. p. 267. Certainly this is that which we sayd before that Bishops assembled in a Synod are not judges but onely admonishers that the Pope alone is judge of all controversies that the rest have no authority For if Bishops were judges judgement should be done according to the greatest number and the sentence of the most judges should prevaile We may think that D. Whitaker was guided by a speciall providence of God and directed by his Spirit thus particularly and remarkably aforehand to poynt out and commend to our consideration this evill consequent of making Synods to be onely admonishers or counsellours that so we might have his writing for a Testimony against this errour which within a while after was to be broached made common by Mr Jacob and some others that which the Brownists had done before being neither so commonly knowne nor regarded VNto this his writing De Conciliis we may adde his treatise De Pontifice Romano in which controversy he discusseth 8 questions and in the most of them he gives testimony for the authority of Synods against my opposites The Questions be these 1. Whether the government of the Church be Monarchicall 2. Whether any Monarchy of the Church was setled in Peter 3. Whether Peter was Bishop of Rome and dyed there 4. Whether the Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in a Monarchy Ecclesiasticall 5. Whether the Pope be Antichrist 6. Whether the Pope can erre in the faith 7. Whether the Pope can make lawes to binde the conscience 8. Whether Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction be given by Christ to the Pope immediately In handling the first Question whereas the Papists require a Monarch to keep inferiour Officers in order and unity D. Whitaker sayth (f) De Pont. Rom. q. 1. c. 2. p. 19. If any will not doe their duety and discharge their office they are to be admonished and rebuked and except they obey they are at length to be remooved by the judgement of the Church or the Synod or the Christian Magistrate and there are knowne meanes enough of keeping Ministers in their duety and the Church in unity without a Pope He acknowledgeth that Synods have not onely power to admonish which every Christian may doe but after admonition to censure remove or depose the obstinate When Bellarmine to prove the superiority of Bishops objects 1. Tim. 5. Those that sinne rebuke before all D. Whit. answers (g) Ibid p. 43. This equalls also may doe So of old if any Elder or Bishop was accused the Bishops brought the matter unto an Ecclesiasticall Senate or Synod and if he did seeme worthy of it they condemned him by a publick judgement that is they eyther suspended or excommunicated or deposed him He declares (h) P. 48. 49. that the Church hath bene preserved in greatest tempests and troubles by Synods and commends them for their use of jurisdiction in judging of causes and shewes how those that would not yeeld unto such authority were removed from their places and others amended by their examples He sayth (i) P 92. Though one alone could not judge of another yet a Synod and as it were a Senate or Session of Bishops hath had the right and power to take cognition and judge of their causes He observeth againe out of Cyprian (k) P. 93. No Bishop could be judge of another of another I say not of others because a Synod of Bishops could alwayes judge

some redresse (d) Esth 7.4 I crave leave therfore to suggest a few of the wofull fruits ❀ sad consequents of Prelaticall proceedings * Sad consequents of Prelacy For evē hence it is come to passe that I. Some well affected Parents have beene discouraged from training up their hopefull sonnes in such learning as should fit to the Ministery II. Some conscientious yong men having attained to a good degree of learning have diverted applied their studies otherwaies III. Some in the Ministery concerning the faith have made shipwrack or schismed dangerously entertaining unsoūd unwarrantable opinions courses turning to be Anabaptists Separatists Semi-separatists c. and others become licentious or meerly formall and careles in the execution of their calling IV. Some of the (e) 2. Pet. 2.2 people have follovved their pernicious deceivable waies of Anabaptisme Separation Independēcy Popularity Profanesse by reason of whom the way of trueth is evill spoken of (f) Hos 4.9 Like Priest like People V. But behold greater scandals thē these for hence (g) Ezek. 8.3 the image of jealousy which provoketh to jealousy even (h) 2. Thes 2.7 the Mystery of iniquity hath beene more bold to lift up the head (i) Ezek. 8.12 16. chambers of imagery have beene raised at the upper end of Chācels Altars placed theron and worship directed towards the East VI. Hence * In the yeere 16 17. D. Mortō B. of Chester framed the directions for the first liberty grāted to sports on the Lords day at the same time he soe eagerly prosecuted the Non-conformists about Ceremonies a wide gap hath beene opened to Libertinisme in the audacious profanation of the Lords day grosse contempt of the faithfull ministery scorning at the performances of family duties bolstring of ignorance the stepdame of devotiō countenancing of Wakes Rush-bearings Mixt-dancings May-poles Beare-beatings Stage-playes Revellings Healthings all manner of the like disordered courses with a censuring all strictnes in religion circumspect walking to be foolish precisenes Puritanisme VII Hence have followed those irregular confusions in the popular and independent governmēt of the Brownistically affected breaking in pieces againe and againe to their great reproch yet discovering therby that their (k) Act. 5.38 nevv way is not of God sith it doeth daily come to nought by their owne disuniting and unchurching of themselves viii (l) Iudg. 5.15 Hence have risen those great thoughts of heart amongst brethrē occasioning bitter contentions fruitles janglings censorious words tart galling writings alienation of affections strangenes of countenance breach of Christian fellowship interruption of prayers neglect of necessary mutual offices ix Yea hence doubtles hath issued as from the proper originall that unworthy Remonstrance against Presbytery represented to the house of Peers from divers Noblemen and Gentlemē of Cheshire as appeareth by a printed booke under the name of Sir Thomas Aston Baronet 1641. The greivous scādal offence wherof may in some part be evinced by these short animadversions following Animadversions on the Cheshire Remonstrance I. The title of it A Remonstrance against Presbytery ANIMADVERS Of the title the same may be said which was observed Declaration against Vorstius by the great wise king Iames of famous memory touching the title of Bertius his booke de apostasia sanctorum viz. The title only were enough to make it worthy the fire Because I. The holy Scripture approveth of Presbytery as a divine ordināce both for the (m) 1. Tim. 4.14 impositiō of hands also for (n) 1. Tim. 5.17 the exercise of rule government II. Presbytery is established in the neighbour Reformed Churches which are precious in the eyes of the Lord of all well-affected to the reformed religiō in England III. Prelaticall men are not wont in their writings to contradict it simply How commeth it then to passe that some in Cheshire (o) Numb 12.8 are not afraid to speake against Presbytery II. The pretended occasion of the Remonstrance against Presbytery alledged by the contriver subscribers is A Petition Positions preached at Chester Knutesford annexed to the Remonstrance ANIMADV The occasion of the suggested pretence is but a meere pretence having noe just ground at all For I. Neither the Petition nor Positions anexed to the Remonstrance doe seeke for * Presbyterian discipline mentioned in the positions in greater characters seeme to be the words of Remōst not of the Preacher disaffected to Presbyterian government Presbytery but seeme rather to affect a popular government II. The Patrons of popular government contended for in the positions are for the most part either Separatists or Semi-separatists who are as opposite to Presbyteriall governmēt as they are to Prelacy as is well knowne to them that know them And therfore it behooveth Cheshire men to (p) Iohn 7.24 give righteous judgement when they take upon them to censure in-no-wise confound jumble together opiniōs defenders of them soe directly opposite For (q) 2. Cor. 5.10 we must all appeare at the tribunall of the (r) Gen. 18.25 righteous judge of all the world who will doe right III. REMONSTR taketh for granted that * Provinciall Diocesan B B. are to be understood by the Remonstr otherwise nothing is concluded Provinciall Diocesan Bishops are of Apostolicall institution (f) Philip. 1.1 1. Tim. 3.1 alledging in the margent two texts of Scripture for his proofe ANIMADV Neither of the texts alledged doe inferre an Apostolicall institution of Provinciall Diocesan Bishops For I. The originall words translated * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Overseers * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Presbyters or Elders are equivalent names of the same office are soe used in the (t) Act. 20.17 28. 1. Pet. 5.1 2. Scripture II. The pleaders for Hierarchie doe grant that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are the same III. The text in the Epist to Phil. 1.1 mentioneth Bishops in the plurall number that is such officers as did oversee the Church at Philippi not a Bishop alone superiour to other officers in degree or government according to the opiniō of Hierarchicall men (v) 3. Iohn 9. affecting preeminence IV. The text in 1. Tim. 3.1 mentioneth also office as well as Bishop which office is described in the (x) 1. Tim. 3.2 3 4 5 6 7. subsequent verses to be the office of the Presbyter And this may appeare further by comparing therwith the (y) Tit. 1.5 6 7. Epist to Titus V. It is good to be wise according to sobriety in understanding some things in (z) 2. Pet. 3.16 Pauls Epistles other Scriptures lest for wāt of learning stability they be wrested to destruction This is an usefull item for Cheshire men others also IV. REMONSTR commendeth Bishops that they were the great lights of the Churches and Martyrs in primitive times ANIMADV

as appeares (p) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. in the lawes orders prescribed by the Illustrious LL. the States Generall c. III. Even of those which by a lawfull election deputation are sent unto Synods whether they be Ministers and Elders or other members of the Church there ought to be a limited and certaine number for if every Church in a whole nation might send as many as they would or could there might be thousands and ten thousands gathered together into some Synods whereby great confusion and disorder in the discussing and judging of many causes would apparently follow D. Whitaker saith (q) De Cōc q. 3. p. 81. Certainly confusion cannot be avoyded when too many meet together And as for that Synod at Ierusalem he saith * Ibid. q. 1. c. 6. That assembly could not be great because they were compassed about with the Priests and Pharisees And therefore also in the practise of these Churches there is a certaine number determined of such as are to be sent unto Synods as appeareth likewise in (r) Act. Synod Nat. Dordr Sess 4. Art 3. those lawes before mentioned If Mr Canne will allow any limitation of number and can therein satisfy himself that he doth not deprive the people Churches of their right he may thereby also satisfy himself for any thing that he objecteth unto us in this behalf IV. We doe further grant this liberty even unto such as are no Delegates or Deputies of the Church that though they be not allowed for judges yet many of them (ſ) Inn. Animadv in Bell. de Concil l. 1. c. 15. n. 2.3 9. as hearers may for their edification be present at the cōmunication conference in the Synod that they may profit in godlines This also is the practise of these Churches both in Provinciall and Nationall Synods so farre as the place will conveniently receive a competent number and so also it was observed in the Nationall Synod at Dort V. This liberty of hearing in Synods is so moderated restrained that though they which have no calling unto the Synod may heare questions touching doctrine and religion discussed yet such are not allowed to be present and to heare when personall matters of scandall and offence come to be examined because as Iunius saith (t) Ibid. c. 15. n. 9. contra charitatem fuisset Nam veritatis cognitio ad omnes pertinet infirmitatum minime that is It had bene against charity for the knowledge of the trueth belongs unto all the knowledge of infirmities not so VI. Touching the right and liberty of Synods there are many other things to be further observed When Mr Cartwright had spoken very much for the liberty of the people in Synods yet for prevention of mistaking and by way of correcting himself after a sort he saith (v) Confut. of the Rhemists Ann. on Act. 15. V. 6. n. 5. Yet write we not this as though the peoples presence either in all Councels where the doctrine is not in controversy were * The negative particle added there seemes to be the Printers fault being concrary to that which went before and followes after making no good sense in his words is therefore to be omitted needfull or that in those Councels where they were present they have like right with those Bishops and Elders For they we mean Bishops and Elders may first by a severall and foreset deliberation take counsell whether it be expedient to propound any such matter as is in cōtroversie in that Councell where the people shall be present Whereby if they perceive any generall and obstinate opposition of them against the truth they may hold that poynt of doctrine back This we see to have been done by Iosias who or ever he assembled the people first of all assembled the Elders of Iuda and Ierusalem 2. King 23.1 Also by Iames who at Pauls arrivall to Ierusalem first assembled the Elders to debate of the matter or ever he was presented before the Church Act. 21.18 19. Secondly if the people should bewray a wilfull stubbornesse against the truth not suspected by them yet the Governours being sound without whom there can nothing be concluded there should not follow any prejudice of the Councels authority against the trueth albeit the number of the people assembled were greater then of those Bishops and Elders Hereupon it commeth that the Decrees of the Councell are after called the Decrees of the Apostles Elders leaving out the brethren which Luke had first set downe And upon the same ground in the decision of doubtfull matters Moses Deut. 17. commandeth that they should have recourse unto the Priests of the Leviticall stocke for that they bare the principall sway in those deliberations Lastly the case of Councels being as it hath bene declared it is no marvell although Augustine call a Generall Councell in some respect the consent of the whole Church considering that not onely those Bishops and Elders but some of the people were in all likelyhood there assembled That which Mr Cartw. sayth of the severall and foreset deliberation agreeth with that which Beza (x) Ann. in Act. 15.12 writes of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or foregoing consultation The same is acknowledged by (y) S. Theo. l. 7. p. 277. Mr Fenner also And hereunto accordeth that which Gersom Bucerus fitly noteth concerning the meaning of Cyprian who writing unto the Elders Deacons that he had determined from the beginning of his government to doe nothing by his owne judgement privately (z) Cyprian l. 3. ep 10. without their counsell and without consent of the people Bucerus explaineth his speech distinctly on this manner (a) Dissent de Gub. Eccles p. 145. Behold first he mentions the counsell which was to be borrowed from the Presbytery and then the consent whereby the judgement of the Presbytery was publickly approved of the people And this he applyes also to the order of that judgement described 1. Cor. 5. But concerning the judgement of Cyprian we have occasion to speak more hereafter I. CAN. V. Howsoever the Church at Antioch sent some Brethren with Paul and Barnabas unto the Church at Ierusalem notwithstanding and let it be well observed they did not this as being a dependent body and standing under another Ecclesiasticall authoritie out of themselves For as Mr Parker (b) Poli. Eccl l. 3. c. 20. p. 301. 314. excellently proves it the Church at Antioch at this time had absolute power in and for her self to have ended the controversy and might have done it I say in respect of authority without acquainting therewith any other Congregation at all To the same purpose another saith (c) D. Whit. Conc. qu. 1. c. 1. The Church of Antioch sent not to Ierusalem as being bound in duety thereto But in regard it was the chief place of Religion therefore they made choyse freely of that Congregation as knowing them to be best