Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	account_n	consideration_n	great_a	70	3	2.1254	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36241	A defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops wherein the case of Abiathar is particularly considered, and the invalidity of lay-deprivations is further proved, from the doctrine received under the Old Testament, continued in the first ages of christianity, and from our own fundamental laws, in a reply to Dr. Hody and another author : to which is annexed, 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 supremancy, and the lay-deprivations of the popish bishops in the beginning of the reformation / by the author of the Vindication of the deprived bishops.	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1695 (1695)	Wing D1805; ESTC R18161	114,840	118

a tedious and unconclusive Issue The Doctor 's Talent lies in History and therefore he is willing to bring this Question also to an Argument that may give him an occasion to shew his skill in History Had not this been his Case why could he not be prevailed on to say something to the reason of the thing Especially having in the Title of his Book promised a stating of the Question But where he pretends to have performed his Promise I cannot guess I can find nothing in his Book but what concerns bare matter of Fact Had he offered at any stating of the Question why would be not at least take notice of the distinction of Facts observed by the Vindicator of the Facts excepted against and the Facts allowed by him for Argumentative Had he not allowed the Distinction at least he ought not to have produced more Facts of the Exceptionable kind till he had either answer'd the Vindicator's Exceptions against them or at least produced stronger Arguments of his own to prove his own Facts also Argumentative If he did not think fit either to Answer the Vindicator's Reasons or to produce his own why did he not confine himself to the Practice of the first Ages proceding on Pinciples than received by the whole Catholick Church and Fundamental to all the Discipline then practised Had he done so the Vindicator professing himself ready to joyn issue with him on those Terms had been indeed obliged to Answer him But how can he expect an Answer when the Vindicator's Exceptions against the whold kind of Facts he deals in remain I do not say unanswer'd only but not so much as attempted by him § XXVII We have no reason to suffer our selves to be overruled by him in these Arts of diverting Us. What himself designed in so unreasonable ways of proceeding I will not pretend my self so privy to his thoughts as to be able to determine But it is easie to observe the interest of his Cause in it It shews indeed a greater variety of his Reading than if he had confined himself to the Precedents of more decisive times But withal it obliges Us if we follow him in all his Instances to write larger Books than we can ever hope to get printed in the Difficulties of the Press on our side We cannot hope to satisfy him by answering some of his Instances if we do not all And why must we be obliged to follow a way of his prescribing which we cannot hope to go through when we can reduce the whole Dispute to narrower and yet more conclusive bounds He gives us small encouragement to gratify him in this Case when he tells us that he will not be concluded by what we can say upon it though we should prove the Practice of these later Ages from which he will not be restrained otherwise than he pretends it was And why must we take so much pains to no purpose Why should he desi●e it of us it his design had been to satisfy Conscience either his own or ours § XXVIII We decline his Topick of Facts rather because it is undecisive than because we think it disadvantageous to Us. Considering the difficulties of our Case how hard it is even to get small Discourses printed it concerns Us to endeavor all prudent Arts of contracting the Question into as narrow a compass as we can and by no means to suffer our selves to be distracted to impertinent Arguments till what we have to say on pertinent ones be first satisfied This will be sufficient perhaps more than so to fill up what can be allowed whilst the Intruders have the power of the Press We shall not envy the Doctor the pleasure of seeing his Challenges and Gantlets refus'd if he will not be pleas'd to confine them to more useful Subjects He has already seen a Specimen of what might have been answer'd to all the Facts he has or can produce in what the Vindicator has said to the Facts insisted on in his Baroccian M. S. The Ages he deals in were very degenerous from the Piety and Skill of their Primitive Ancestors to whose Judgments we appeal Yet I do not think any of them so far debased as that they either did or would have insisted on the Doctor 's Plea that Lay Deprivations were sufficient to discharge them from their Duty to their Spiritual Superiors He that is so forward to make Challenges would do well to shew us one single Instance wherein this Doctrine was directly defended I do not say by the Ecclesiasticks only whom I take for the most competent Judges of Ecclesiastical Doctrines but even by the Parasites of the Lay Power For my part I remember not one single one The Emperors themselves who acted so precipitantly as to deprive without Synods did however after use their uttermost endeavours to get a Synodical ratification of what they had done before by violence and indirect artifices So far even they were sensible how little what they did of that kind would be regarded in relation to Conscience This is sufficient to let the Doctor see that our declining this Topick is not for want of sufficient advantage against him in it if the Press had been as free for Us as it is for him but because it is impertinent and unsatisfactory § XXIX For want of some other Subject relating to the Vindication we here pitch on the Case of Abiathar This I thought sufficient to shew how little the Vindicator is obliged to return any Reply to the Doctor 's pretended Answer till the Doctor can be prevailed on to try his skill on the former and principal part of the Vindication But this is so particular to the Doctor 's Personal management of the Cause that I could not think this alone worthy the Reader 's trouble in perusal of it without some other Subject of more importance to the Cause it self This therefore made me think of selecting something of the Doctor 's Book which though it cannot be taken for an Answer to the Vindication which had said nothing concerning it yet might give an occasion for clearing a particular Prejudice against us insisted on by many more besides him abstracting from the Principal Topick of his Book concerning Facts in general Of his kind I take the Case to be of Solomon's deposing Abiathar which may even on the Doctor 's account deserve a more particular consideration because he seems to have taken the greatest pains in amassing the several Hypotheses relating to it of any one particular in his Book Here they find a High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon and another that is Zadoc put in his room yet without the least scruple concerning the Validity and Acceptableness of Zadok's Ministry with relation to God and Conscience This they think exactly parallel to our present Case § XXX This Fact is not commended in the Scripture as a Precedent But Fist This Fact is barely related in the Scripture without any Censure

degenerous Ages And what has the Doctor attempted to the contrary Nothing but that he has added some New Facts to those enumerated by his Baroccian Author and that he has endeavoured to defend some of the old Facts that they were such as he pretended them But neither of these things can pass for Answers whilst that Part of the Vindication remains unanswer'd For how can he secure his New Facts when all of their kind have been prov'd unconclusive And to what purpose does he endeavour to prove those few he has meddled with of his Authors Facts to have been for his purpose when the former Part of the Vindication has already evidenced that tho' they were so that would not be sufficient for carrying his Cause § XXIII The Doctor himself is unwilling to stand by the Consequences of such like Facts as himself produces So far he has been from Answering that himself confirms the Vindicator's sence upon this Argument He professes beforehand his own unwillingness to be concluded by such Instances as himself has produced though they should appear to be against him Why so if there had been any reason that he should have been concluded by them Why so if he did not thereby own that the Reasons given by the Vindicator against the Argumentativeness of such Facts were Solid and concluding And how then can he find in his heart to insist principally in his following Book on that very kind of Facts which he has acknowledged so unsafe to be relyed on in his Preface He cannot pretend to argue ad Hominem when the Vindicator had so expresly enter'd his Exceptions against that whole Argument He cannot do it in his own Person when he professes himself unwilling to stand by the consequen ces of it And how can he have the confidence to obtrude that upon Us which he does not believe himself In what sense can he take this whole reasoning for Argumentative when it does not proceed ex concessis when it proceeds on one Premiss at least not granted by either of the Parties cancern'd in the Dispute neither by Us nor even by himself How can he possibly mistake a Book which proceeds principally on such Reasoning as this for a Solid and satisfying Answer § XXIV The Doctors remark against the Reasoning of the First Parts of the Vindication concerning the Possession of Cornelius turned against himself Thus it appears that the Principal Answer of the Vindicator to the Doctors Book remains still in its full strength untouched and unconcerned in all the Doctor has said in his new Book What is it therefore that he can pretend to have Answer'd in it What is it that either makes his Book need or his Brethren so clamorous for a Reply Has he Answer'd the Vindicators Argument for Us from Facts more justifiable more agreeable to Principles and to Principles more certain and indisputable in the times of greatest Ecclesiastical Authority in the earliest and purest and unanimous Ages On this he has bestowed one single Paragraph in which he has offered nothing that can affect the principal Lines of the Vindicators Reasoning and Hypothesis All that he pretends is to observe one single disparity between the Case of the Primative Christian Bishops and OURS Yet so unhappily that even that disparity upon a closer examination is likely to prove none at all He tells Us that Cornelious was in Poffession when Novatian was set up against him Very true But how can he deny that our Fathers were in as true a Possession with regard to Conscience when their Rivals Usurp'd their Thrones as Cornelius was He can pretend no Possession of which our Fathers were deprived but such as depended on the pleasure of the pretended Secular Magistrate The Secular Act could not pretend to deprive them of any thing but what was Secular their Baronies their Revenues the Priviledges annext to their Function by the fovour of the Secular Powers And can he pretend that Cornelius was possessed of any thing of which the Magistrate could deprive him As for Spiritual Rights I cannot see the least disparity but that OUR Fathers were as properly possessed of them as HE was as properly as any can be in a State of Persecution and independence on the Civil Magestrate OUR Bishops were Consecrated and Installed with all the Solemnities requisite for a compleat Possession before the contrary encroachments were thought of That Possession was acknowledged and ratified by all the Acts of intercourse and Spiritual Correspondence by which any Spiritual possession can be acknowledged by our Natinal Church of England This Possession of Spirituals has not been touched by any Spiritual Authority that can be pretended a proper Judge of Spirituals that might discontinue this Possession as to Spirituals and with regard to Conscience All this OUR H. Fathers can truly plead for their Possession as to Spirituals at the time of the Schismatical Consecrations And what can the Doctor say more for the Possession of Cornelius against Novation His District and Jurisdiction as to Spirituals were manifestly not own'd by Cornelius for favours of the Magistrate This being so we need not depend on a SAYING the Vindicator prov'd it independently on St. Cyprian's saying it that SECOND BISHOPS are NO BISHOPS for proving his Intruders to be NONE The Doctor himself confesses that a Second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Intruder into a See already filled and possessed is no Bishop is confessed to be St. Cyprian ' s Doctrine And this has now appeared to be their Case for whom he is here concerned § XXV The Doctor 's Book offorded no Subject for a Reply but what would be Personal Besides these great neglects and omissions of the Doctor were so separable from an accurate management of the Cause and so peculiar to his Person that I knew not how to secure my Answer from meddling with his Person with whom I had no mind to deal in any other way than that of Civility and Respect In reference to the Principal Argument relating to Conscience he has brought so little New as would hardly afford Subject for a useful Answer Yet the shewing that he did so which was requisite to be done if an Answer were made at all methought looked like a design of exposing his Person which I was willing to be excused from I have always liked those Defences best which had the least mixture of Personal considerations not only as more Christian but also as more useful to those who are disengaged This made me think it more advisable to wait till either the Doctor himself or some other able Author would be pleas'd to attacque the principal strength of the Vindication § XXVI The Doctor 's turning the Dispute to later Facts draws it from a short and decisive to a tedious and litigious Issue But the principal discouragement of all from Answering was that the Doctor seemed to me to draw the whole management of this Cause from a shorter and decisive to