Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n archbishop_n bishop_n church_n 3,423 5 4.3453 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A29881 Some reflections on a late pamphlet entituled, A vindication of Their Majesties authority to fill the sees of the deprived bishops, &c in a letter from the city to a friend in the country. Browne, Thomas, 1654?-1741. 1691 (1691) Wing B5179; ESTC R2122 15,967 23

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Affection which his wiser Men Pag. 11. are inspired with which perhaps was the cause of that unmannerly Effort that instance of Rudeness and Folly in him of calling the Doctor Fool which is the softest Name that his good Breeding could bestow upon him which I am apt to think was a little too rude treating of so Reverend a Person whom the Government thought worthy of so high a Character had he not been too self-denying to accept of it He then proceeds in the next Paragraph Pag. 11 12. to his Conclusion from the Premisses This says he plainly proves that supposing it Lawful to have taken the Bishoprick no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the Refusal in our Circumstances If then according to his own Argument it be unlawful or if the Doctor thought it so his Refusal is justifiable But he knows not how to suppose that the Doctor could think it unlawful Which that he could not do he endeavours to prove by two Arguments The first is drawn from the Doctor 's Submission to the Government and taking the Oaths of Allegiance as early as any Man and never that our Author heard had the least Scruple about it Pag. 12 Perhaps the Doctor took the Oath as some of the Kentish Clergy took it i. e. as the Israelites did eat Manna to keep 'em from starving But perhaps the Doctor repents and sees his Error and is sorry for what he has done and therefore as a true Penitent will not add Sin to Sin And though he took the new Oath of Allegiance and that perhaps a little too precipitantly yet he will not Rob or Steal nor commit Sacriledge But our Author is very uncharitable and will allow no place for Repentance though as Esau a Man seek it carefully with Tears For says he this was the time to have been Scrupulous if he would have been so for it seems a little of the latest when he is become a sworn Subject to K. William and Q. Mary to question their Authority to make a Bishop But if true Repentance be not too late with God I know not why Man should account it so His second Argument is drawn Pag. 13. from the Doctor 's exercising Archi-Episcopal Authority by Commissien from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury during the Vacancy of the See by the Deprivation of the A. B. as it is expressed in the Commission And this he tells us he takes to be altogether as unlawful if either of them were unlawful to seise upon the Authority of the A. B. upon the Account of his Deprivation as to take the Character and exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop Let the Doctor answer for this himself as I doubt not so great a Canonist is able to do Though at the first sight it appears to any one that is not so well vers'd and learned in the Canon Law that to exercise Archi Episcopal Authority when the Arch-Bishop's hands were tyed up and could not do it himself is a less Fault than to enter pleno Jure upon the Right and Possession of a Bishop unjustly deprived and seise and enjoy the Revenues of his See But I cannot but observe how industriously and malitiously our Author like the Great Abaddon endeavours to keep the poor Doctor from Repentance by shewing and exposing the Absurdity and Unreasonableness of his Refusal from this Consideration That he has plung'd himself so deeply in one Act after another in compliance with the Government which is suppos'd to confirm his Opinion of the Lawfulness of it that he cannot now Stop but must go on ad Finem usque Alas what a Dilemma do Men bring upon themselves when they go out of God's Way and leave the Paths of Truth Justice and Righteousness He that makes one false Step knows not whither he may wander He that presumptuously commits one Error knows not when or where he shall end Uno Absurdo dato sequuntur Mille. But this is the Sinner's Comfort amidst the frightful View of his repeated Acts of Sin that sincere Repentance will expiate for his greatest Errors resolving If I have done Evil I will do so no more Thus our Author having endeavour'd to prove that the Doctor could not think it unlawful to take the Bishoprick He tells us Pag. 14. what the Peoples Sentiments are of his Refusal Which says he after an appearing forwardness to take it hath tempted People to think that he judges it unlawful And if they do so our Author has put a very fine Argument in their Mouths by an easy Train of necessary Consequences wherein he speaks great Truths perhaps against his Will which may be more disserviceable to the Government than he is aware of the bare Recital of which will be enough without a Comment If says he Pag. 15. it be unlawful and perhaps not only the Doctor but others besides him think so to succeed a deprived Bishop then he is the Bishop of the Diocese still and then the Law that deprives him is no Law and consequently the King and Parliament that made that Law no King nor Parliament Which indeed some have been so bold to question thinking it hardly possible that that can be a lawful King who was made so by the People or that a lawful Parliament which was cut out of a Convention not summon'd by the King's Writs but made a Parliament by the celebrated Miracle of Transubstantiation A true Jest perhaps But Ridentem dicere Verum Quis vetat But to go on with his admirable Train of Deductions Pag. 15. If says he the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop then the People and Clergy of his Diocese are bound to own him and no other then all the Bishops who own the Authority of a New Arch-Bishop and live in Communion with him are Schismaticks and the Clergy who live in Communion with Schismatical Bishops are Schismaticks themselves and the whole Church of England now Established by the New Law is Schismatical and Dr. B himself a Schismatick if he communicate with it And thus we have no Church or only a Schismatical Church as well as no King and all that Dr. B has got by refusing a Bishoprick is to prove himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion or to make a Schism if he Separate from ● The last Branch of his Disjunction I deny For though Dr. B proves himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion with a Schismatical Church yet he does not make a Schism by separating from it For he makes the Schism who makes the Terms of Communion unlawful And by the way if all is true in this Train of Consequences neither our Author I hope nor his swearing Brethren will be offended at or condemn the New Separation And so I pass to his second Head of Discourse Pag. 17. viz. the Lawfulness of the Thing it self which he says is so evident when set in a clear Light that it will admit of no Dispute with Men of