Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	allegiance_n	king_n	law_n	1,738	5	5.0572	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60706	Sober advice to church-wardens in a letter to a church-warden in London, from his friend out o7the countrey, and may serve indifferently for constables, and others, who are required to make presentments for not going to their parish-churches, or communicating, &c.		1683 (1683)	Wing S4400; ESTC R41687	10,566	15

lawful that Man was guilty of sin and liable to be damn'd for the same He that doubteth is damened if be eat because he eateth not of Faith Saith the Apostle Paul Rom. 14.23 I will grant that it may so fall out that a Man may be so minded that he sins both ways whether he do that which is required or forbear it but that is when he his absolutely oblig'd by God to do it and he through an Ignorant or ill inform'd conscience thinks it unlawful but in the case we discourse of our Bishops and Ministers acknowledge that in the things doubted of by those that do not frequent their Parish Churches there is no obscure comand of God why they should be done they become a Duty say they by Humane Authority which may be with-drawn and being with-drawn they are no longer any Mans Duty now how it comes to be in the power of Christians to imposer upon their Fullow Christians to do those things which no Law of God or Christ oblige them to and which their Fellow-Christians account unlawful or doubt of and to punish them for Disobedience when their Obediance would be a sin against God I leave you to determin But if neither you nor your Minister nor yet your Bishop can remove the doubts of these Ghristians and if they behave themselves as Christians in Obedience to all things that Christ requireth of them in Profession of Christian Faith in Christian Worship and Prayer in the Celebration of the Lords Supper as they understand Christ to have commanded it c. If you will not admit these People to be reasonably excus'd of their absence from their Parish Church I doubt Christ will not exchse you of injustice and uncharitableness at the great day I confess the Prosecution of these People with penalties is not so great a Sin as the Apostle Paul caused Christians to commit when his Name was Saul before his Conversion for he compell'd them to Blaspheme and sinning against ones own conscience in a matter of Circumstance is not so bad as blaspheming of Christ against ones Conscience but the same Apostle says in a less case When ye sin so against the Brethren and wound their weak Conseiences ye Sin against Christ 1. Cor. 8 12. now that which you Brother cannot do without Sin and that which you cannot prosecute him for not doing without Sin should me thinks be a reasonible excuse both for him and you Obj. You will perhaps urge against what I have said that there is no other way but this of presenting them for not coming to Church to convict Papists of Recusancy and that they also as well as Protestants may escape upon the pretence of Conscience so the Laws in these cases provided be made of no effect Ans To which I answer that the case of Protestant Dissenters and of Papists is not the same but far different For the reason why Papists do not communicate with Protestants in Parish Churches is Their acknowledgment of a foreign Power and Authority Superior to that of the King and the Laws of the Land namely the Authority of the Pope of Rome who is the declared Enemy of the King and the People being Protestants whence it is that their not coming to Church is an effect and indication of that acknowledgment and against them were the Statutes of the 1st and 23d of Queen Elizabeth made the last whereof is An Act to retain the Queen Majesties Subjects in their due Obedience and the Presace gives this as the reason of making that Act viz. That diverse all disposed Persons have practised by other means than by Bulls to withdraw diverse the Queens Majesties Subjects from their natural Obedience to her Majesty to obey the usurped Authority of Rome and in respect of the same to perswade great numbers to withdraw their due Obedience to her Majesties Laws established for the due Service of Almighty God For it is observed by the Lord Coke in his charge at Norwich and by others that not any Papists during the first ten years of that Queens Reign did refuse to come to Church that Cornwallis Beddingfield and Eylyard were the first Recusants in the beginning of the eleventh year of her Majesties Government And then Pope Pius Quintus being informed by some English Jesuits that such was the number of Roman Catholicks here is if he would Excomunicate her they would presently enter into an open Hostility with force sufficient to depose and utterly supplant her Highness and re-establish the Roman faith whereupon the Pope does Excomunicate her and Plots with the King of Spain to invade her Then did the Papists withdraw themselves from our Churches Thus you see it was not Conscience of Duty to Christ as it is in the Protestant Dissenters who own no Authority on Earth but the King and the Laws but Veneration to the Autority of the Pope the Queens Enemies and implaceable hatred of all Protestants that led Papists together to forsake the Church and their Allegiance and still contiuues them Recusants so that it is the true intent of the Law that it should be executed against Papists upon this Ground it was that as I am well informed a Grand Jury of Middlesex having Presentments brought against several great Papists would not find the Bill against them for not going to Church till the Constable or Witnesses had given Testimony that they were commonly reputed to be of the Roman Religion and that the Clerk had inserted in the Bill of Indictment Pontificiam Religionem Profitentes wherein I judge they did persue the true Intent of the Law in that case provided If you shall still insist and say that Papists do religiously give this Authority to the Pope I answer First that that Opinion is so manifestly contrary to Reason and Christianity that every man that uses Reason or owns Christ's Religion except Papists themselves must condemn it Think you that a Mahometan or a judicious Heathen upon a fair Hearing of both Parties would judge the Pope's Pretensions to his Infallibility and Supremacy reasonable or in the least doubt of their Invalidity But Secondly They that would have Liberty of Religion and Conscience do not pretend to such that is incosistent with the Sovereignty of Independent States and Kingdoms in things necessary to civil Society much less to such a Liberty as shall permit Religious Enemies to cut their Throats whenever they can by Watchfulness find an Opportunity Such is that Conscience which this Objection pleads for as may appear by what I have said above And the very thing I am pleading against is The depriving Men of their Properties and Liberties upon any Pretence whatsoever saving for a Crime that 's inconsistent with common Liberty and Property But the Consciences of Dissenters require nothing but a Liberty to that which if it were not forbid would be so far from being hurtful to the Commonwealth that it would rather be a Vertue nothing detracting from but conducing to the Common Good And I hope every honest Man will make a difference between those Laws that are necessary to the common Cood and those that are made merely for the Pleasure of the Law-givers and which others as wise and Christian as they would either null or make contrary Surely the Consciences exercized about the Obedience of these two sorts of Laws are far different one from another And that our Penal Laws so far as they respect Dissenters are of such a Nature as that they are not now to be press'd upon Protestants who have the Opinion of the House of Commons in the last Parliament at Westminster Gentlemen of as good Credit for Wisdom and Love to Protestantism and for Estates and Interest in their Countries as perhaps ever was seen in England wherein it was resolved nemine contradicente That the Persecution of the Protestant Dissenters upon the penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weakening to the Protestant Interest an Encouragement to Popery and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom Jan. 10. And now methinks Sir you should have as great Respect to the Opinion of the whole Nation of Commons in Parliament as you have to the Opinion of his single Grace my Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from whom this Order for prosecution of Protestant Dissenters by Presentments Excommunications c. issues in flat Contradiction to the Opinion now mentioned especially considering withal the Doubtfulness of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Laws and all the rest that I have said and argued in this Case which I presume may have some Influence upon you and any rational honest Man I pray you consider in the Fear of God in Honor of Christ and his Religion and in the Love of your Christian Neighbours and do what such Consideration shall direct you to Take the safer Course which is always the more moderate in penal Matters Be sure you act not against Conscience neither compell others so to do Your affectionate Friend and Servant April 14. 1683. FINIS

SOBER ADVICE TO CHURCH-WARDENS IN A LETTER TO A CHURCH-WARDEN IN LONDON From his Friend out of the Countrey And may serve indifferently for Constables and others who are required to make Presentments for not going to their Parish-Churches Communicating c. Id Tantum possumus quod Jure possumus LONDON Printed for F. Smith Senior at the Elephant and Castle in Cornhill 1683. Kind Friend I Received yours and am heartily sorry to hear of the severity used and intended against Protestant Dissenters for their Nonconformity because I am throughly perswaded many of them are sincere and harmless in their Dissent and give as good Testimony of their being so as we generally do of our sincerity in our Dissent from Popery however cannot be condemned to Penalties without Infringment of our Protestant Principles But since some of our Ecclesiastical Rulers and Judges are not of this mind but requires by publick charge that all Persons Aged above Sixteen Years should take the Sacrament now at Easter or to be presented by the Churchwardens or Minister of the place to be proceeded against by Excommunication with all its grievous Concomitants and Consequents whereof perpetual Imprisonment is now in the least You desire my advice What you being sworn Church-warden should do in this case You are very loath to have so great a hand in the Ruin of your honest Neighbours for their Conscience towards God and on the other side you must be true to that Duty which you have obliged your self before God to perform You know my Friend I am not one of the Learned in the Common nor Civil Laws and therefore can only tell you what course my self a private Person willing to keep a good Conscience towards God and towards Men would do in such a case And you are pleased to tell me you therefore desire my advise because that I being of like condition and in like circumstances with your self am more likely to give advice fit for you than they whose education has enured their minds to Subtilties and Quirks of Law I can easily grant the Reason you give of your Choice to be good but I cannot allow your application of it to me for though I am resolved in the power of God to be honest yet there is another quality wanting to make me a fit adviser in so nice a case to wit an understanding well exercised in discerning between good and evil and things indifferent But I may remember you only desire to know my opinion you do not oblige your self to follow it neither would I have you to do so without better Judgments then I can pretend to except you find my Reasons to be convincing In the first place I am sorry you have taken the Church-wardens Oath which obliges you to Execute the Office of a Church-warden in your Parish for the ensuing Year according to his Majesties Laws Ecclesiastical for its a difficulty scarcely to be overcome by the most Skilful to resolve what Ecclesiastical Laws are in force what not therefore beyond your capacity to execute according to what you know not and give me leave to mind you by the way that Reason Equity and Religion requires that we should never proceed to imputation of Crimes or Executions of Penalties in doubtful Cases In matters of favour and benefit we may be liberal but in matters of hurt and damage to our Neighbour we should be so far from any thing of that nature in a controverted point that we should not go to the utmost the Law allows though in a most clear Case Now if the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. chap. 2. be revived by Repeal of that Statute which Repealed it the Ecelesiastical Persons ought to use the Kings Name and Seal to their Processes and their holding Courts in their own Names is contrary to Law However it is at least doubtful whether they have any legal Power and likewise whether any of their Cannons have any force of Law If then you make presentments to those Courts whereby your Neighbour is vexed and indamaged you know not but you may therein be injurous to your Neighbour without legal Authority which no wife and conscientious Man will venture But Secondly I conceive that a Man chosen Church-warden may lawfully refuse that Oath as being contrary to Law as may appear by a Statute made in the Thirteenth of this King chap. 2. and incited in the prohibition for Waterfield where it is enacted that it shall not be lawful for any Arch-Bishop Bishop Vicar General Chancellour Commissary or any other Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Judge Officer or Minister or any other Person having or exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to Tender Offer or Administer to any Person whatsoever the Oath usually called the Oath ex Officio or any other Oath whereby such Persons to whom the same is Tendered or Administred may be charged or compelled to confess or accuse or purge him or her self of any criminal matter or thing whereby he or she may be liable to Consures or Punishments But I am perswaded that no Man that makes Conscience of an Oath but will find himself obliged by the Laws Ecclesiastical supposing all those to be in force which the Official says are in force burdened and compelled to confess or accuse himself of some criminal matter or thing and therefore such Oath ought not to be Administred to him However having taken that Oath you must endeavour to perform it as well as you can without breach of the Laws of God or Laws of the Land which latter must always give place to the former and by them be made new or interpreted In the next place as to the business of presenting those of above Sixteen Years of Age that come not to the Sacrament at Easter First I say it is contrary to Christianity and all civility of Neighbourhood to present a Man as a Criminal so to expose him to so dreadful a Sentence as Excommunication and all Calamities that attend it without first discoursing their Neighbour to know what he can say for himself in Vindication for in this Case the presentment of one or two Church-wardens is of as much force and more dangerous consequence than the presentment of Twelve or more of the most substantial Men of the County in civil Cases and therefore the least that the Church-warden can do is to hear what his Neighbour can say for himself before he put him into so much trouble and danger as such an accusation amounts to For there may be divers lawful and reasonable Excuses of a Man 's not coming to Church such a Month or not coming to the Communion at Easter as for instance suppose a Man be Sick and not able to come or have had business abroad for One Two or Three Months together at the time of Easter are not these and such like lawful Excuses I remember the Statute of Eliz. 23. chap. 1. to retain the Queens Majesties Subjects in their due obedience made against Papists