Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	authority_n	child_n	parent_n	1,909	5	8.7664	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30406	Reflections on The relation of the English reformation, lately printed at Oxford	Burnet, Gilbert, 1643-1715.	1688 (1688)	Wing B5854; ESTC R14072	57,228	104

which they account Infallible It is true some have thought they could get out of this difficulty by denying these to be the Acts of that Council But if our Author be the same Person with him that writ concerning the Adoration of the Eucharist he is of another mind and doth acknowledg that those Canons are the true Acts of that great Assembly and not only the Designs of the Pope It is true he saith the sense of the Canon concerning the secular Powers is by Protestants mistaken But he hath not yet given himself the trouble of laying before us the true sense of that Canon and one would think that he who writ the Treatise that is now under Examination had very favourable thoughts of the Doctrine of Subjects shaking off an heretical Prince for he reckons up the many risings that were in K. Edwards days chiefly for matter of Religion as a proof that the Body of the Clergy went not into that change Which rising saith he of the Laity in such numbers for their former way of Religion would not have been had not their Clergy justified it unto them Rising is a soft word for Rebellion and one would think that it would have afforded no small matter of reproach against us if we brought in a company of Rebels to make up a Muster of our Religion But to own that the Clergy justified it to them without adding the least Word expressing our Author's dislike of this shews plainly enough that how good a Subject soever our Author may be to a Prince of his own Religion yet he thinks a Catholick Clergy may be able to justifie to the Laity a Rising against a Heretical Prince upon the account of Religion And it seems our Author had a great mind to make a huge appearance of his Catholick Rebels in K. Edwards days For besides that he speaks of Risings in many more Counties then are mentioned by the Books of that time he also represents all those Risings to have been upon the account of Religion tho the History makes it clear that the Risings over England were chiefly occasioned by Parks and Enclosures and that it was a rage of the Peasants against the Gentry in most places chiefly in the Northfolk-Rebellion where Religion was not at all pretended nor doth it appear that any pretended Religion except those of Devonshire so that our Author would make his Party and the Clergy more Rebellious than indeed they were In this whole Period he seems to have been forsaken of common Sense CHAP. III. Some general Considerations on the Regal Supremacy that was raised so high at the Reformation OUR Author hath brought together many Acts of Parliament with their pompous Preambles that seem to carry the Kings Power in Ecclesiastical Matters to a very Indefinite degree and upon all this he triumphs often as if this was so improper that it alone is enough to blast the whole Reformation Our Author is much more concerned to justifie all Papal Bulls than we can be to justifie all the Words of our Laws especially the Rhetorick that is in their Preambles If he believes the Pope infallible the general Parts of Bulls that set forth the Doctrine of the Church are such solemn Declarations that he must be determined by them But at lowest he believes the Popes to be the Centers of the Catholick Unity and all Bishops are bound by Oath to obey all their Decrees and Ordinances Now when our Author will undertake to justifie all the Preambles of Bulls that are in the Bullarium then we may undertake to justifie all the flourishes that may be in any Act of Parliament When any Authority is asserted in general and indefinite Terms these are always to be understood with those Restrictions and Limitations that the nature of things require to be supposed even when they are not expressed St. Paul expresses the Obedience of Wives to their Husbands in terms so extreamly extended that as the Church is subject unto Christ so ought the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing He expresses also the Duty of Children in as comprehensive terms Children obey your Parents in all things Now if one would draw Inferences from the extent of these words he might taking the liberty that our Author takes upon some of the Expressions that are in our Acts of Parliament represent the Authority that St. Paul vests both in Husbands and Parents as a very boundless and a very extravagant thing This is enough to shew that in all those large Phrases of Obedience there are some necessary Reserves and Exceptions to be understood and if this Qualification is necessary even in writings that were inspired it is no wonder if some of the Rhetorick of our Acts of Parliament wants a little of this Correction It is a very unreasonable thing to urge some general Expressions or some stretches of the Royal Supremacy and not to consider that more strict Explanation that was made of it both in K. Henry the 8th's time and under Q. Elizabeth That were so clear that if we had to do with Men that had not resolved before-hand not to be satisfied one would think there could be no room for any further cavilling In K. Henry's time the extent of the Kings Supremacy was defined in the necessary Erudition of a Christian man that was set forth as the Standard of the Doctrine of that time and it was upon this that all people were obliged to take their measures and not upon some Expressions either in Acts of Parliament or Acts of the Convocation nor upon some stretches of the Kings Jurisdiction In this then it is plainly said That with relation to the Clergy the King is to oversee them and to cause that they execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and especially in those Points which by Christ and his Apostles was committed to them And to this it is added That Bishops and Priests are bound to obey all the Kings Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God. So that here is expressed that necessary Reserve upon their Obedience it being provided that they were only bound to obey when the Laws were not contrary to the Laws of God. The other Reserve is also made of all that Authority which was committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Bishops and Priests and we are not ashamed to own it freely that we see no other Reserves upon our obedience to the King besides these So that these being here specified there was an unexceptionable Declaration made of the Extent of the Kings Supremacy yet because the term Head of the Church had something in it that seemed harsh there was yet a more express Declaration made of this matter under Q. Elizabeth of which indeed our Author hath taken notice tho I do not find he takes notice of the former which he ought to have done if he had intended to have represented this matter sincerely to the world which I confess seems not

were reformed in the last Age were Erroneous or Idolatrous than any supposed Irregularities that might be in the way of managing it can never blemish that Work. It is certain that all Rules are only for quiet times in the days of Peace and Order the transgressing of established Rules is without doubt a very censurable thing but this must not be applied to all times For tho in a setled time we know how much respect we owe to Judges and Ministers of State yet if these very Persons will go to set on a Rebellion and authorize it all that respect ought presently to be thrown off CHAP. II. Some general Considerations upon what is alledged of the uncanonical Proceedings in the Progress of our Reformation IT hath a very ill Grace to see a man of the Roman Communion talk so highly of the Obligation to obey the Canons of the Church so as almost to Vnchurch us upon some supposed Irregularities in our Reformation For what is the whole Constitution of the Papacy but one continued Contradiction to all the Ancient Cannons And what is the whole modern Canon Law but the Exaltation of the Papal Authority above all the Canons of the Church Is there any thing clearer in the Primitive times than the establishing the Authority of Metropolitans that was confirmed by the Council of Nice the equalling the Bishops of Constantinople to the Bishops of Rome which was done by the 2d and 4th General Council the establishing the Independency of those Churches that were in Possession of it and so freeing them from all Subordination to other Sees which was done by the 3d General Council And yet tho here we see the four first General Councils all concurring to establish this form of Government the Papal-power is no other than a breaking in upon all these Canons What is more uncanonical than the establishing Legatine Courts the receiving of Appeals the obliging of Bishops to sue for their Bulls in the Court of Rome the dispensing with all the Canons of the Church the exempting all the Regulars from Obedience to their Bishops which is not only contrary to the express Canon of the Council of Chalcedon but is plainly contrary to that Authority that Bishops derive from Christ to govern the Flocks committed to their care In short the whole System of the Church and Court of Rome is so direct a revolt from all the Primitive Canons that it is a degree of Confidence which I do not envy in our Author for him to talk of uncanonical Proceedings Canons are Rules established either by Provincial Synods or more General Councils which import no more but that they ought to be commonly observed for it is plain that there is no Church in the World that hath looked on the Canons of the former times as things so sacred and unalterable that they could never be dispensed with The Schism of the two Popes at Rome and Avignon and all that was done in consequence of it was uncanonical with a Witness and yet how was all that buried by the Council of Constan●● And tho one of the two Obediences was certainly in a state of Schism yet all that was passed over and without any Submission of either side all was healed up The whole Constiution of Metropolitans with their Provincial Synods which was the ancientest and clearest of all the Primitive Rules arises only out of the several Divisions of the Provinces of the Roman Empire when then the Civil Constitution of all Europe is so much altered from what it was then all that Fabrick subsists now rather upon a respect to ancient Rules than from the Authority of those Canons which can no more remain the ground upon which they were built being now removed And one may as well pretend that we are bound to obey the old Roman Law or the Feudal Law because those Laws were once received amongst us as to tell us that we are bound to obey all the ancient Canons especially those that had a visible Relation to the Constitution of the Roman Empire Therefore the Subordination of Churches of Synods and Metropolitans and Patriarchs that was only the knitting into one Body and under several degrees of Subordination a Church that was all under one Civil Society and Empire hath sunk with the Roman Empire So that the tearing that Empire in pieces hath quite put an end to all that Ecclesiastical Subordination And if there is any thing of that yet kept up amongst us it is rather for the preserving of Order than that we are under any Obligation of Conscience to submit to such Constitutions And therefore as oft as a great Conjuncture of Affairs carries along with it considerations that are of more weight than the adhering to ancient Forms then all these may be well superseded For all Rules are temporary things and made according to several Emergences and Occasions which altering frequently it were a very unreasonable thing to expect that every Church should at all times conform it self to them And tho we condemn that Dissolution of all the Canons which the Church and Court of Rome hath brought into the World yet on the other hand we cannot acknowledg any such binding Authority in them that they can never be dispensed with The methods of those men with whom we deal are wonderful Now they reproach our Church with a Violation of ancient Canons and yet when we lay to their charge some of the Canons that their Councils have made in these later Ages such as those of the Lateran for the Extirpation of Hereticks and for the Pope's power of deposing Heretical Princes they tell us that great difference is to be made between the Decisions of the Church in the Points of Faith and the Decrees that are made in matter of Discipline since tho they assert an Infallibility in the one yet the other are transient things in which we ought not to admit of so absolute an Authority This is false with relation to Decrees that declare a Christians Duty or a Rule of Morality For Decrees in such matter do import an Article of Faith or Doctrine upon which they are founded And therefore a Church may indeed even in the Opinion of those who believe her Infallible err in a particular Judgment against such or such a Heretical Prince for that being founded on a matter of Fact she may be Infallible still even tho she were surprised in matters of Fact. But she cannot be Infallible if in declaring the Duty of Subjects towards Heretical Princes or of the Popes Authority in those cases she hath set Rules contrary to the Word of God. In such matters as these are I do acknowledg the Decrees of the Church are for ever Obligatory upon all those who believe her Infallible Therefore since our Author urges so much the Authority of the Canons I would gladly know what he thinks of these which are not I confess Ancient yet they were enacted by the Supream Authority of that Body