Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	contrary_a	good_a	great_a	464	4	2.0864	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39994	The differences of the time, in three dialogues the first, anent episcopacy, the second, anent the obligation of the covenants against episcopacy, the third, anent separation : intended for the quieting the minds of people, and settling them in more peace and unity.	Forrester, David, fl. 1679.	1679 (1679)	Wing F1589; ESTC R10780	86,473	238

husband and which her posterior Vow could never free her of Others expone these words he shall bear her sin thus he shall take away her sin Now the Husband may take away the Wifes sin she doing but her duty in obeying him and yet he may be guiltless too if he revocked his former confirmation upon just and rational grounds And as to the Wifes part some Interpreters say Mariti authoritas uxorem absolvit voto culpa That is the authority of the Husband absolves the Wife of her vow and sin too Now the application of this to our own case is easie D. Your second case wherein you say the obligation of an Oath about a matter in its nature indifferent may cease to bind is when there comes such a change of affairs that the Oath can no longer oblige without sin how apply you this to the Oath against Bishops I. Upon supposition that Episcopacy is indifferent and that it is abjured in the Covenant Since that Oath there is this great change of affairs Episcopacy is by Law Re-established and we commanded to submit to it so that now we can no longer think our selves bound by our Oath without palpable disobedience to Authority D. But my Oath against Bishops had the first obligation on me from which I can not be loosed by any Law of Authority that is made after I. Your Oath hath not the first obligation on you but the Law of God that commands you to be obedient to your Superiours viz. the fifth Commandment 1 Pet. 2.13 and such like Scriptures You came under an Oath at Baptism that you should obey the will of God now this is a part of his will that you obey the lawful Commands of Authority and this Oath or Vow you were under before the Covenant Oath If you think your Oath can secure you from obedience to the Magistrate commanding to do contrary to what you have sworn you are in a very dangerous error and by this means would easily elude the express Command of God Ecclesi 8.2 The Author of the grand Case Pag. 56 57. tells that in King James his time sundry Jesuits went from England to Rome and there took an Oath according to a constitution of the Pope that they should return unto England and there Preach the Catholick Faith Wherefore there was a Law made in England prohibiting such practices Hereupon arose the case whether those who had taken that Oath at Rome were obliged to obey the Law though made after their taking of the Oath and it it was resolved abstracting from the unlawfulness of that Oath in it self that an Oath can not bind against a Law though the Law be made after the Oath is taken D. Your third case wherein an Oath ceaseth to obliege is when it becomes an hinderance to a greater good This seemeth to allow people too great a liberty for how easily may they pretend that some greater good is hindered by adhering to their Oath I. When that greater good is a certain good and no otherwise attainable but by the discharge of our Oath and especially if it be a good we are preoblieged to before ever we took the Oath then as Casuists commonly teach the Oath ceaseth to bind Now by our Oath against Bishops these goods are hindred as matters now stand obedience to Authority avoiding of Schism Ministers serving God in the work of the Ministry to which they were called c by our still adhering to the Oath all these good things are hindred and are in themselves greater and better goods than our adhering to the Oath which we now suppose is about a thing indifferent and as to that of Ministers choicing rather to lay aside their Ministry than their Oath it deserves our serious thoughts whether a Minister can warrantably by any deed of his especially about an indifferent thing incapacitat himself or do that which by consequence may incapa●●tat him for the Ministry Now many Ministers think that by their Oath they are warrantably oblieged not to continue in their respective stations as matters stands It is incontroverted among Divines as I hinted before that lesser duties must give place to the greater when they come in competition together and the lesser is omitted or even may be the contrary to it commited without sin as David's eating the Shew-bread when he could have no other meat to keep him from starving Paul and his company their casting the good Creatur's of God unto the Sea to save their lives Act. 27.38 Christ will have mercy even to our Beast much more then to the souls of people to be preferred to ceasing from all our works on the Sabbath He will have mercy and not sacrifice No doubt where he can have both he will but where not he will have mercy although he lose sacrifice yea rather than lose mercy he will have no sacrifice he prohibits sacrifice Therefore go and learn saith Christ what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice as if little understood and less practised even by the Pharisees the great teachers of those times and much admired and followed by the people yet Christ sends them to School again to learn better and lets them see they were but blind guides notwithstanding the great opinion the people had of them So the Rechabits judged themselves discharged of the strict observance of their Vow in case of hazard and self-preservation Jer. 35. vers 9 10 11. D. Yet for all you have said you know Joshua and the Princes when they had sworn to the Gibeonits Josh 9 They looked on their Oath as so binding that they would not adventure to break it even after it is discovered to them that these Gibeonits were of the Canaanits with whom God had commanded them to make no peace but root out and Joshua and the Princes might have said the command of God looseth us from our Oath and the keeping of it will be a hinderance to a greater good yet the tye of the Oath was so sacred to them that they chosed rather to dispense with the command of God in that particular than with their Oath and that their so doing was acceptable to God appeareth from his displeasure against Saul who many years after killed sundry of these Gibeonits to whose predecessors Joshua and the Princes had sworn I. I confess I wonder much you should make use of this argument in the manner you do to prove the obligation of your Oath against Bishops for that place is quite mistaken by you Therefore first If you think Joshua was forbidden to make peace at all with any of the Canaanits upon any terms but was to root them all out and yet because of his Oath he spared the Gibeonits though it was contrary to an express command of God you run your self into a most wild and gross opinion that can not be admitted viz. That an Oath can bind against a Command of God whether it be a Moral or particular Command it

sin and the Apostle saith we must not give offence nor lay a stumbling block before others I. When the word forbiddeth us to give offence First it is meant of not doing that before others which is in it self sinful whereby we indeed offend or grieve the godly as also lay a stumbling block in the way of others by our ill example Now when you do your duty in obeying God you cannot be said to give offence unto any And if any will be offended at you it 's their own sin and weakness for they take offence where none is given and in the present case if any will be offended at you for your maintaining unity and peace in the Church and for not forsaking the assembling of your self together with the rest of his people It 's their own weakness while you give them no Offence at all but on the contrary by your good example is in a holy way provoking them to their duty with you and if you shall ly by for fear of their offence you shall both omit your own duty and harden them in their sin 2. Ordinarily where the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to give offence to others he is shewing how they ought to use their Christian liberty in things indifferent That they must not use it to the offence of their weak brother when either thereby he shall contrary to his conscience be emboldened to sin 1 Cor. 8.10 or yet should be grieved with us because he thinks we sin in doing what he conceives we should not Rom. 14. verse 15. Yet you must know if the Command of Authority interpose and injoyn me to use a thing in it self indifferent or not use it then and in that case it 's no more indifferent to me as to that particular and time my liberty pro tunc is determined and restricted by Authority and the thing though in it's own nature indifferent still is by the supervenient command of Authority made necessary to me in my using or not using it according as Authority hath determined Act. 15. vers 28. These necessary things though some of these things were not necessary in themselves yet abstaining from them was at that time made necessary by the Authority of that Council for the good of the Church Then and in such a case as this my obedience to Authority will preponderat the other of not giving offence the first being the greater duty of the two as Divines and Casuists shew And even in this case I give no offence but do my duty and if any take offence it 's causeless on my part and is occasioned through my brothers weakness It is Scandalum acceptum non datum Scandel groundlesly taken by him not at all given by me When the Apostle forbiddeth Christians to use their liberty to the offence of the weak he speaketh to those who were not determined by Authority Have you any more to say for your Schism D. You still impute Schism to us I. And in doing so I wrong you not but am sorry ye give me too just ground either ye are Schismaticks or the christian Church never had any ye have miserably rent the bowels of the poor Church your mother I pray the Lord discover to you this sin and give you repentance ye both forsake the Church Assemblies and also erect Separate meetings of your own both in private houses and in the fields D. What ill in so doing did not Christ preach in private houses and in the fields and people hear in any place and why may not we do the like I. It 's true Christ preached in houses and in the fields and people heard But did he so upon such grounds as ye do to wit that he might separate and teach people to separate from the Jewish Church Or did he either think or teach that the Jewish teachers at that time ought not to be heard I trow not He was oft in the Temple and in the Synagogues he allowed of hearing of the Scribes and Pharisees only with this proviso to beware of their leaven and bad lives some whom he miraculouslie healed he sent to the Priests to offer their Offering according to the Law and did not bid people decline or disown them for as corrupt as they were But ye on the contrary erect meetings of your own because ye think ours unlawful to join with But further Christ preached in any place 1. Because he was about the bringing in of the Gospel Doctrine into the World and of Preaching himself the true Messiah which was necessarie to be done and therefore took all occasions for doing it in anie place and the rather because of the opposition this Doctrine though in it self most necessarie met with from the Jewish teachers And 2. Christ was the head of the whole Church and therefore was not to be limited in the waie and manner of his Ministrie as other Teachers ought and must be but might Preach when and where and to whom he pleased for all belonged to his Ministrie and I know none in the World will say that he is universal Pastor of the whole Church except the Pope Nor will any say that it is warrantable for meer men to do what Christ did in everie thing These meetings of yours ye hold and frequent in despight of the Laws of the Land which are verie express against them And so to Schism ye add disobedience to the Civil Powers D. Should I be hindered by the Law of the Land from hearing the Word of God and other parts of his Worship Or Ministers hindred to preach You know it 's better to obey God than men I. The Laws of the Land hinder not but allow and command you to hear the Word of God in your own Congregations where ye have the Gospel purelie preached by the allowance and under the defence of Authoritie a mercie ye too little value Is it not better to Worship God in a way not contrarie to the Law of the Land the Law allowing me to Worship him purelie than in a waie that is contrarie to the Law and joyned with disobedience to it As for what you bring out of Act. 4.19 From the Apostles their not obeying the Council of Jerusalem discharging them to speak at all or teach in the Name of Jesus it doth no waie quadrat with your case For First The Apostles had an immediate extraordinarie call from Christ himself to Preach in his Name and so were not to be discharged by anie Power on Earth 2. The Prohibition given to them was intended to suppress the Gospel absolutelie and as such and therefore it was not lawful for them to obeie Nor was there anie other visible waie to propagate the Gospel through the World but by their Preaching But among us though some Ministers be silent there are manie others not discharged but allowed to Preach And blest be God the opposition of Authoritie is not against the Gospel it self but against your disorders D. Can the King and the

the stroner But as I told you before the ablest Champions for Presbyterie have not adventured to assert Episcopacy unlawful as being contrary to any Divine or Apostolical warrant If it be indifferent that is neither commanded nor forbidden or lawful but not necessary but left to Christian prudence Then the question will be if we could by our Oath make it absolutely and in every case unlawful to our selves so that we can never in any case after own or submit to it You are mistaken if you think an Oath against the use of a thing in different so binds that in no case after the swearer can lawfully use that thing Casuists say an Oath taken about an indifferent thing may in some cases cease to bind we now suppone Episcopacy to be in it self indifferent if the thing sworn against be a matter wherein our Superiours have power to command us They by their authority given them of God may require obedience from us in any thing lawful and so in that particular they may command us to do or use that which we have sworn against it being a thing in it self lawful and in this case our Oath ceases to bind 2. If after we have sworn there come to be such an alteration in the State of affairs that what was lawfully promised cannot now be lawfully performed In this ease the Oath ceases to bind Si res non permanent in eodem statu say Casuists cessat juramenti obligatio Or 3. When our Oath comes to be Impeditivum majoris boni that is a hinderance to a greater good if we still stand to what we have sworn In such cases as these the obligation of an Oath about a matter in it self not sinful ceases to bind as Casuists commonly teach and the Author of the Seasonable Case and of the Survey of Naphtaly at length applyes to the Oath of the Covenant abjuring Episcopacy and shews that upon supposition of the lawfulness of Episcopacy in it self and that the Episcopacy of this Church is meant in the Covenant As matters now stand none ought to think themselves bound by their Oath to stand out against it on● Superiours now having commanded u● to obey and submit to that Government c. And solidly repells any thing that is brought by the Apologist or Naphtaly to the contrary An Oath about things in their own nature not sinful but alterable is always to be taken with this re-restriction and limitation if not expressed yet necessarily to be understood so long as lawfully I may for the very nature and matter of such an Oath requires this And the reason is because the takers of such an Oath may be under prior and greater obligations viz. Obedience to their Superiours and the like then any obligation they come under by their Oath about a matter indifferent and therefore when it comes to this that they cannot both satisfie those greate● and prior obligations and keep their Oath too Then the Oath being the lesser obligation must cede and give place to the greater especially those greater such as obedience to Superiours in things lawful and the like being such as God himself hath brought us under and our Oath about a thing indifferent being but a knot of mans casting This should be clear and undoubted to any that when two duties at one and the same t●me seem to require performance of us and we cannot get them both satisfied then and in that case the greater must take place of the lesser and the lesser is omitted without sin Matth. 9.13 and 12.7 Go and learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice And therefore Divines teach that every Command doth not oblige at every time D. To what you say of the first case in which a promissory Oath about a thing indifferent may cease to bind viz. The Authority of Superiours interveening you would do well to consider that the obligation of an Oath is a very Sacred Bond and I think it 's hard to say that the authority of any man can loose the Oath of God In that case we should say We have opened our mouth to the Lord and cannot go back I. And do you think that by your Oath you can warrantably bind your self up from obeying the Law of God in the fifth Commandment and in many other express Scriptures that biddeth you honour and obey your Superiours I told you that the Law of God enjoyning obedience to Superiours layes the first and greatest obligation upon you And further consider what a door you would open to frustrate Superiours of all that obedience which Inferiours owe to them for when these in Authority shall require obedience of their Subjects in such a particular they may answer hold us excused we cannot obey you for we have sworn not to do this thing And if we may thus warrantably shift in one thing why not in another thing And so may by our Oaths pre-limite and bind up our selves from obeying any thing which those in Authority can require of us And thus you may see whether that opinion of yours tends even to cast off the Yoke of all Obedience and Subjection which the Lord so expresly in his Word hath laid upon the necks of Subjects Read the 30. Chapter of Numbers and there you will see that if the Wife or the Daughter in the Fathers Houseshould bind themselves by a Vow the Husband or Parent had power to anul and make it void and by proportion and analogie the King who is Pater Patriae hath the same power over us D. Yet in that 30. of Numbers If the Father or Husband did once confirm the Vow of the Wife or Daughter though but by a tacite consent then there was no more voiding of it Now our Superiours have confirmed the Oath and therefore I think it can never be made void again I. Read the 15. vers of that 30. of Numbers where you find that even after the Husband hath heard and by his silence confirmed the Wifes vow of which was spoken vers 12. he hath notwithstanding of his tacite confirmation still a power of anulling and making void her Vow and if he do so she is bound to yield to her Husbands commands and is exonered of her Vow Indeed if the Husband the like may be said of the Parent do thus without good ground irritate and make void the Wifes Vow he is culpable he shall bear her sin but she is free because bound to obey her Husband as being under a prior obligation of obedience unto him by the Law of God You may consult Interpreters on that 15. vers of Numbers 30. and shall find them expounding it of the Husbands voiding his Wifes Vows even after he had confirmed them and if he do so he shall bear her sin that is say some If there be a guilt here it shall lye one the Husband who made the Vow void not on the Wife who by a prior obligation was bound to obey her

through their mistake hereof But giving though not granting that all the Ministers who took the Covenant and now preach under Bishops are perjured it will be hard for you to prove That therefore they are not to be owned as truly Ministers of the Gospel nor submitted to It is true personal faults and vices make a Minister justly liable to Church censure and if they be of a high scandalous nature to deposition especially if he be impenitent in them But so long as he is not convict and censured the question is whither or not the people may yea and ought to wait on his Ministry You know Judas was sent forth to preach with the rest by Jesus Christ himself and who will say that it was unwarrantable for any to hear him who came cloathed with such a mission and commission from Christ as long as he was not convict even though they had known what a knave he was for Christ knew very well what he was And ye know what great exceptions might have been brought both against the Life and Doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 15.23 and in other places They were most bitter active enemies against Christ the Messiah by all means sought to undo him they neglected the weightie duties of the Law such as Mercy Judgement and Faith were full of Pride and gross hypocrisie I will not insist to tell you how Naphtaly in a great distemper miscalls the Ministers of the time very ill though much were true of what he saith as God forbid yet they would be no worse than the Scribes and Pharisees yea not so ill for they did most maliciously oppose Christ Jesus himself and that directly neither have I any pleasure to make that parallel betwixt the Scribes and Pharisees and your Preachers ye so much glory of that some have done in their long prayers devouring of widows houses compassing Sea and Land to make Proselits c. They have given but too much ground for these comparisons But to our purpose as the Scribes and Pharisees were very gross in their lives so there was much Leaven in their Doctrine they brought in a number of humane Traditions into the Doctrine and Worship of God and taught for Doctrines the commandments of men they took away the Key of Knowledge c. Christ in his Sermon on the Mount Mat. 5. purges the Law from their corrupt glosses and yet for all this Simeon and Anna two old Saints did not forsake the Temple Luk. 2. Nor turned Separatists though it was turned into a den of thieves Joseph and Mary went up yearly to the Temple to keep the Passover and Christ himself went with them at twelve years of age And Mat. 23. He biddeth hear the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses Chair notwithstanding their bad lives and corrupt Doctrines only he gives a Caveat to bewar of their Leaven and their ill example Read Mr. Durham on Revel Chap. 3. Commenting on the Epistle to the Angel of Sardis who had a name that he lived but was dead Pag. 187. He saith that comparing that Angel with him of Laodicea There is ground to say that men who are for their own case unsound may yet be Ministers in the Church of Christ and ought to be esteemed so while they continue in that room seing Christ doth so here And again saith The Ordinance of Christ ought not to suffer derogation in whatsoever hands it be And that hence the Lord recommends to his hearers to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees Mat. 23. Even when he is about to discover their rottenness and that Judas was by the people to be accounted an Ambassadour of Christ with the rest because it is not grace that intituleth one to that charge but Christs Call and Commission And seing a call may be separated from grace as grace from a call it will follow that according to his Soveraignity he may make use of whom he will he may make use of men even more sinful than others that it may be known that edifying of souls doth not necessarily depend on the holiness of the Instrument Act. 3.12 Mat. 7.23 Thus Mr. Durham Now how can you justifie your Separation when you dare not with any face say the Ministers of the time are as corrupt as were the Scribes and Pharisees if there be any other knowledge or moderation in you And suppose you think them as bad yet they are to be heard as these were read the London Ministers their Jus Divinum Minist Anglic. pag. 2. D. Christ Math. 23. vers 1 2. Biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees the words will not bear that I. I hope ye will not say that he forbiddeth to hear them as ye use to forbid people to hear among us a thing your Preachers are much on as a ready way to gain followers to themselves It 's said some of them are so far transported as to threaten people with damnation if they hear the Curats so they call Ministers how true this is I will not positively say the matter reported being so gross renders it hardly credible What truth may be in it you know better than I. You say Christ biddeth not hear the Scribes and Pharisees yet I told you Mr. Durham saith Christ there recommends to the people to give due Ministerial respect to the Scribes and Pharisees Now is not hearing of them a part of due ministerial respect think you Certainly without this their ministerial respect should be very lame Christ biddeth the people observe and do what the Scribes and Pharisees from Moses Chair enjoyned them to observe and do and how could they obey Christs injunction in this unless they heard the Scribes and Pharisees teach them those things from Moses Chair He that biddeth me obey my Ministers Doctrine delivered to me from the Word of God his injunction carrieth also in it an injunction to hear the Minister deliver those Doctrins to me or presupposeth my hearing as the ordinary mean or antecedent of my obedience Be pleased to consult Interpreters on the place and you will find them generally expounding that place both of hearing and obeying And truly it is too clear a Scripture for you to elude but will stand against you to your great conviction Brounists and such like Separatists in Queen Elizabeth's time and since found the dint of it from the old non-conformists who disputed against their dividing practices which ye so much follow D. It may be so Yet many Episcopal Ministers have entered in upon honest mens labours and for this reason ought not to be heard but discountenanced as Intruders I. All the Episcopal Ministers entered not so very many of them kept still the places the change of Government found them in Others entered unto Churches upon the vacancies by the death of those who had been there before or upon their transportation to some other Church You must confess this reason sayeth nothing against any of those Yet you say many