Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	church_n	communion_n	particular_a	2,155	5	7.6323	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36249	The doctrine of the Church of England concerning the independency of the clergy on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely spiritual, reconciled, with our oath of supremacy, and the lay-deprivations of the popish-bishops in the beginning of the reformation / by the author of The vindication of the depriv'd bishops.	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing D1813; ESTC R10224	66,791	94

recommend arbitrators She knew none of their differences nor dividing Opinions and therefore cannot be suspected of partiality And it was withal an Argument of her being constituted agreeably to the mind of her blessed Lord that she was so perfectly one Communion as he designed her And the acquiescence of particular Churches in her decision is easier and less mortifying than it would be to any other Arbitrator To return to her is indeed no other than to return to what themselves were formerly before their Divisions or dividing Principles So that indeed for modern Churches to be determined by Antiquity is really no other than to make themselves in their purest uncorruptest condition Judges of their own Case when they have not the like security against impurities and corruptions I cannot understand therefore how even on account of Authority our late Brethren can excuse their pretended Zeal for even our common Mother the Church of England when they presume to oppose her Authority to that of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages I am sure we have been used to commend her for her deference to Antiquity and to have the better opinion of any thing in her Constitution as it was most agreeable to the Patern of the Primitive Catholick Church Here by the way I think it not amiss to take notice of a mistake common to Dr. Hody and the other Answerer to the Vindication of the deprived Bishops The rather because it is introduced by them both with some insulting triumph The Vindicator had charged his Adversaries with Heresie in regard of their singular opinions on which they insisted so far as to found their Schism upon them This they both retort upon the Vindicator himself as grounding his Defence on opinions now singular and different from the greatest numbers of our present Churches I should have thought their retortion just if the Vindicator had grounded his Defence on Opinions singular in the first Ages of Christianity But they might both of them have observed that the Vindicator did not grant this to have been his own Case He did pretend the Principles insisted on by himself to have been generally received as fundamental to all the Discipline that was practised in the first and purest Ages What was generally received then and therefore to be presumed true because it was so cannot change its nature by being afterwards as generally either forgotten or deserted in later degenerous Ages And as the Vindicators Cause did not so neither did his design nor Topick of Reasoning from the Sense of the Primitive Catholick Church oblige him to be concluded by a generality in these later degenerous Ages But this is again another instance of their advancing the sense of our particular modern Church as a standard of Primitive Catholick Antiquity But this is a deference too great not only for our own Mother but indeed for any particular Church whatsoever at such a distance from Primitive Originals § IV. HERE therefore we cannot be of our Adversaries mind But as for the Duty owing to our particular modern Church which is consistent with her Subordination we still profess as great a Zeal for her as themselves can and are ready to strive with them in a generous Aemulation who shall best express their affection to her and their zeal for her preservation Indeed our difference from them is wholly grounded on such Principles as we should think in all other parallel Cases would be taken for Arguments of a greater affection We are willing for a Vindication of her Rights to expose our selves to all the effects of the displeasure not only of her Adversaries but even of her own late Children and our own late Brethren This is a glory wherein our present Adversaries cannot pretend to rival us Whatever they pretend of good will to her they cannot pretend to suffer any thing for her So far they are froin that that they are not contented to be neuter and at least to connive at their Brethren asserting their common Mothers Rights They defend the Magistrates encroachments on their Ecclesiastical Liberties Even the Ecclesiasticks do so whilst the Magistrate has the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Revenues The Doctor has indeed wisely postponed the Vindication of the Magistrates Right for doing what has been done though nothing short of that can satisfie the Consciences of Ecclesiastical Subjects as to the lawfulness of acquiescence and submission to the Invaders of those Rights which they are by the Constitution obliged to defend as unwilling to expose himself an Ecclesiastick to the odium of betraying them He therefore here proceeds on the Supposition that the Rights of the Church are invaded not only injuriously but invalidly and pretends to prove after his way of proving by naked Facts that we not only may but must submit to the Usurpers Upon this he pretends what the Vindicator says for disproving the Right of the civil Magistrate for doing what has been done to have been impertinent To what end is all this but that he may avoid the Odium of betraying the Rights of his own Function and of defending laical Encroachments on them But I cannot conceive how this will excuse him from this charge He promises in another Book to defend professedly what he is yet so willing to be excused from even the Right of the Magistrate for such Invasions He even here makes all asserting such Rights impracticable and unavailable for preserving them He makes the Bishops whose Rights are invaded obliged in Conscience to yeild as often as they are invaded when the substituted Successor is not a Heretick that is as often as there is no other question but only that concerning Right And what can a Plea of Right signifie for preserving Right that must never be insisted on We know all Laws make frequent cessions of Right at length to extinguish the Right it self Much more that must do so which is perpetual as often as a stronger hand is pleased to invade it Much more that which must be perpetually yielded on obligations in Conscience And what can restrain the Laity from invading them as often as they please when they are told before that the Persons whose Rights they are must not 〈◊〉 ought not oppose them in it if they will be true to Obligations of Conscience When they are told also that this very consideration of an irresistible force is alone sufficient to oblige them to it Suppose notwithstanding the Bishops not satisfied with what he says to prove their obligation to recede yet he makes it impossible for them to assert their Rights for he discharges the Subjects from Duty to them whether they will or no. He pretends the irresistible force sufficient for this purpose whether the Ecclesiastical Superiors will or no. And how then is it possible for such Ecclesiasticks to assert their own Rights when they are oppressed by the irresistible force and deserted by their own Subjects He allows

Deposition of the Heretical or Schismatical Incumbent to be liable to the charge of Schism as it would have been in Case the Incumbents had been Bishops of the same Communion For the Popish Bishops therefore the Lay Deprivation alone was sufficient there being on account of their difference of Communion no Duty owing to them from the Protestant Subjects of those Dioceses even Antecedently to the Deprivation But this cannot be pretended to be the Case of our present Deprived Fathers Our Adversaries themselves have acknowledged them for Bishops of the same Protestant Communion with themselves If therefore the Lay Deprivation prove Invalid they cannot excuse themselves from the same Duties which oblige them still with regard to Conscience § XXX THIS Answer will abundantly clear the disparity between our present Lay Deprivation and that of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation And we may the more securely rely on it because it depends on no private opinions of ours first thought of now and sitted to our present Case but proceeds as the rest of our Reasonings in this affair generally do on the Sense and Practise of unquestionable Antiquity A new Schism indeed or a new Heresie I confess was allowed a Synodical Hearing And there was reason for it because it might well be supposed not yet sufficiently manifest whether Heresie or Schism was indeed concerned in the Case or at least whether of the two Parties between whom the Dispute was raised was guilty of the Charge But when the Case was once adjudged and the difference of Communion which must necessarily follow on the pertinaciousness of the Criminals was once formed then the Church never troubled her self to inflict new Censures on every new Instance of the same Case And there was reason for it From the time that they constituted a distinct Communion she reckoned them without and with such St. Paul himself denies her to have any thing to do And it is plain that all the Church's Canons are only for maintaining a Correspondence between the several Jurisdictions of the same Communion that they may not interfere among themselves This is the reason why one Bishop must be deprived before another can be Canonically introduced because till the first be deposed the Duty of the Subjects of that Jurisdiction belongs to him and cannot without Schism be paid to any besides him But Duty was never thought owing unless in the same Subordination which cannot be but in the same Body and in the same Communion Where therefore there is no Duty in Spirituals owing to any other there it can be no undutifulness to set up a new Spiritual Body with a new Spiritual Jurisdiction any more than in a Case of a wast To be sure it can be no Schism where there is no common Body that can be said to be divided by it and where there is but one only Government to which the Obedience of the Subjects can be pretended in Conscience due What need therefore can there be of a Spiritual Deprivation where nothing is already due Indeed what can they deprive him of who has no Power which can intitle him to the Duty of the Catholick Subjects of his Jurisdiction What such a Heretical or Schismatical Bishop may pretend over the Consciences of his own Heretical or Schismatical Communicants is not the Catholick Church's Interest or Duty to intermeddle in So in the many Sees of Africa wherein it appears by the Conference at Carthage that there were Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Catholicks took no more notice of the Donatist Incumbents whenever a Predecessor failed than the Donatists did of the Catholick Bishops of the same Sees It was Peace and Reunion that was designed in the Proposals that were made for discontinuing the like distinction of Successions for the future The like was the Case of the many Arian Bishops in the time of Constantius and downwards Where there were no Bishops but such the Catholicks acted as if there were no Bishops at all They expected no sentence of Deprivation against them yet acted in the mean time what they could not have justified without such a sentence if it had been necessary Lucifer Calaritanus a Western Bishop had no Jurisdiction at Antioch Yet finding no other Bishop there but such as he judged Arian if not in Opinion yet at least in Communion as having been Consecrated by those of the Arian Communion he took upon him to substitute another and to assist at his Consecration as a Catholick Bishop may do where there is no Bishop at all I am not now concerned how rightly he judged so who afterwards did things to extreams in his zeal against that Heresie However that Example shews how far his Catholick Principles would have warranted him to have proceeded in Case the Incumbent had been as bad as he supposed him to be § XXXI YET besides this I may add further that suppose the Popish Bishops on account of the Invalidity of their Lay Deprivations retained a Right in Conscience over the Protestants themselves yet it will not thence follow that the error if any had been in that Age could affect the Titles of our present Bishops It might indeed have made the first Protestant Bishops Schismaticks if they had been immediately before of the same Communion But this could last no longer than the Persons lived who were injured by the Substitution So long as they lived the Duty had been owing to those who had been Invalidly deprived and therefore could not have been paid to their substituted Rivals without Schism After their decease this reason perfectly failed The Duty to them had been extinguished with their Lives So that thence forward their Successors were alone Then there could be no pretence of Injury to their Predecessors when their Title to Duty was at an end Nor could there be any danger of Schism when the Duty was payable only to one who had no Rival in his Claim to it And in that Case the Interest of Mankind in general which is an Argument of Right has always allowed the Title of the Possessor where there is none other living who can pretend a better Title Nor have they ever stood upon new Solemnities of investing them with the same honours they had before when upon the death of their Predecessors they who before had an ill Title were judged to have a good claim afterwards to the Duty and Obedience of the Subjects The tacit consent of all Persons whether Subjects or others concern'd in the Election or Investiture and by consequence in Legitimating the Title was thought sufficient to give those a good Title from that time forward who had none before As therefore Kings who had at first an ill Title whilst those who had a better were living have continued their old Possession which from that time was not thought doubtfull without any new Coronation or Inthronization so Bishops who were at first Consecrated in Schism whilst those were living who had a

as the Vows of Wives and Maids were under the Law when made against the consent of the Husbands and Parents And the will of GOD concerning the lastingness of the Spiritual Power was manifest from the will of the Ordainers who before those Lay-Patents never intended to confer Orders for any other term than that of Life If therefore such would take upon them to exercise their Spiritual Power independently on their Patent though they might contradict the designs of those who made them take out their Patents in doing so yet having indeed Authority from GOD to do so what they did by that Authority might expect a ratification from GOD and therefore must have been valid with regard to Conscience The greater difficulty was that of the others who received their first Authority from their Patents before their Consecrations These might more plansibly be thought to receive no more Power by their Consecration than what they had already received by their Patent Especially if they had the same thoughts concerning their own Consecration as Archbishop Cranmer had that it gave them no new Power but was only a Solemnity of Investiture with the same Power which they had already a Right to by their Patent And if withall the Bishops who Consecrated them had been also of the same mind and must therefore have thought themselves obliged to give them no new Power by the Authority themselves had received not from the Prince but from Christ. But I have already shewed that even in those encroaching Reigns there was no Obligation laid on the Bishops to profess their Belief of those Impious Opinions I have shewed that at the same time that they were supposed in Practice yet their Belief was Odious and Singular and in express terms generally decried I have shewed that the most received Opinion even then was that the Right of Administring the Sacraments was derived from Christ and his Apostles and by them given only to the Church and consequently that it was only given by the Acts of Ecclesiastical Consecration These things therefore being thus believed must also have obliged them further to believe that whatever Power and Authority did follow from this Right of Administring the Sacraments could not be given by the Lay-Power but only by them who had continued the derivation of that Right of Administring the Sacraments from Christ and his Apostles These things therefore being generally believed by the Bishops might make them generally design the giving and receiving the same Power in their Consecrations which had been given and received by Consecration formerly What then could hinder even those Bishops which were Consecrated then from receiving it It was consequentially inconsistent you 'l say with those Patents by which they derived a Right of giving Orders and of inflicting Spiritual Censures from the King But it was no more so than those Patents were with those Doctrines that all Power of that kind was to be derived from Christ and his Apostles who had given it to the Church not to the Lay-Magistrate The consequence whereof must be that being mutually inconsistent they ought to be made consistent as far as is possible in Practice by Interpretation That is that one Duty be performed so far and so far only as is consistent with the performance of the other But in this way of proceeding it is unavoydable but that one of the two Duties must take place of the other so as to leave no place for the other any further than is consistent with the Interest of the Principal Duty And then there can be little doubt if an Ecclesiastick be Judge and of such only I am Speaking at present whether of the two Duties must be judged Principal If they be considered as Ecclesiasticks the Church is the Principal Body for which they ought to be concerned Consider them also as good Christians and as good Men and the same Obligation will hold still to prefer the Interests of the Church because they are indeed the greatest Interests in the Judgment of GOD and in the Judgment of Right Reason and the most immediatly and firmly obliging that which is indeed the immediate Subject of Obligations the Conscience All therefore that Persons so perswaded could promise and which the Magistrates of that Age acting against Principles might be Satisfied with as sufficiently answering his ends was to behave themselves in reference to the Magistrate so as if indeed they had no Power but what they derived from him That was to hold their places from whomsoever they had received them no longer than He was pleased they should hold them This Promise they might make as to the Temporalties that they would be no longer Legal Bishops entitled by the Secular Laws to Temporalties Tho' this was a particular Hardship put upon their Order For as for the Secular Peers the held their Peerage by Law not barely at the Pleasure of the Prince However these conditions importing no loss of Spiritual Authority the Bishops might with a safe Conscience submit to when imposed on them by unavoidable force They might also promise when they were deprived of their Temporals to quit their Spirituals also in order to the qualifying another of the same Communion to succeed them without any imputation of Schism But a general promise of this kind could not oblige them when quitting their Rights might betray the Church and make it depend precariously on the pleasure of the Magistrate However they not foreseeing this Case and not fearing it in the Circumstances then in view might make this indefinite Promise and intend really to fulfill it And whether they did well in doing so or no yet they might do it without owning the Right to Spiritual Power to be at the disposal of the Civil Magistrate Yet as long as they did not think it his Right they could not think themselves obliged in Conscience to quit their pretensions to their Spirituals barely because the Magistrate was pleased to invade them All the Obligations therefore they could have to do it must either have been from their Promise or from the present exigencies of the Case which might in their Opinion seem to require it Yet all this was consistent with an Opinion that whilst they had the Power they had it from an Authority Superior to that of the Civil Magistrate wh●●h till the Magistrate did deprive them might make all their Acts valid as done by a Divine Commission It is very plain withall that after the Patent was given yet the Magistrate himself took care to recommend them to Bishops for their Consecration Why so unless he believed that if he had done otherwise his Bishops would never have been taken for valid Bishops with regard to Conscience VVhy so if he had not therein designed to gratify the Ancient and Received Opinions concerning the Original of Church-Power which without such Consecration supposed them liable to so just Exceptions It was not the Magistrates fancy that Consecration gave them no new Power that