Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	according_a	bishop_n	law_n	2,981	5	4.4057	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25619	An Answer to the rector's libel, or, The Bishop's case truly stated shewing, I. that the rector has stated the case disingeniously [sic], II. that the rubrick and canons which he quotes ... do manifestly turn to his own condemnation, III. that the three queries ... upon which he builds the whole resolution, are (modestly speaking) impertinently put, and falsly, or impertinently resolv'd.		1694 (1694)	Wing A3440; ESTC R41255	13,459	26

which was so much their Duty before can be no unreasonable or unjust Imposition But if it be unreasonable and unjust then all the Bishops in England and Ireland are so too and so is the Law that seems to enjoyn it Cook 's Inst Part 4th fol. 324. And the Rector by charging the said Oath with Popery is as severe a Slanderer of our Church in this point as the most Rigid Fanatick whereof himself is a Chip patri simillima proles But of all things I cannot tell how the Rector can Answer his declaring the uncertainty of his ever taking the said Oath though thrice benefic'd and so consequently as often oblig'd by Law to have taken it Now if he did not take it then he imposed on the Age and Easiness of the Venerable Old Prelate Bishop D. who Entituled him to his Rectory and who either did or should have put this Clause into his Institution praestito primitus juramento Canonicae Obedientiae and if this be left out 't was certainly through the Rector's own Craft who was permitted to direct the Draught of his Institution and upon a Principle as it would now seem of denying and with a design of refusing any such Obedience to any Bishop But says the Rector If any such Obedience be due it must be in licitis honestis very true and who doubts after what has been said but that 't is lawful and very fit for a Bishop Administring the Sacrament in his Cathedral to Order the Rector his Assistant to give the Cup to two worthy Communicants in the Esteem of all Men but the froward Rector And I think 't is scarce a Query whether the Rector refusing that just Command was not forsworn in case he took the Oath of Canonical Obedience and whether he be not something like it in case he by a Trick avoided that Oath which de jure he ought to have taken And whether he is not liable to the 13th Canon Con. Aurel. 2 Clerici qui officium suum ad implere despiciunt c. Loci sui dignitate priventur At least to that of the Canonist Clericus nolens Administrare Eucharistiam ubi quibus obligatur Arbitraria paena est puniendus Aug. Bar. Cap. 17. n. 43. That is if a Clergy-Man refuse to Administer the Sacrament where and to whom he ought he is to be Punished according to Discretion But Oh this Word Command is a Terrible Despotic Word 't is another Rag of Popery pag. 21.22 Now since to Command in the Bishops and to Obey in the Clergy are both Rags of Popery there must be a Reformation to produce such a Church wherein no body must Command and no body must Obey and by my Consent the Rector shall have the Glory of this rare Invention But to conclude the matter seriously I bid the Rector Defiance to give one instance in any Age where ever any Presbyter Assisting a Bishop in the Administration of the Lords Supper in his own Cathedral or elsewhere did Assume the confidence to repel any Communicant invito Episcopo Or did in contradiction to the Bishops Order with-hold the Cup from any person upon any pretence whatsoever But seeing our Rector did these ill and irregular things and many more that were iniurious both to the Bishop and his Servants therefore according to his own Rule pag. 11. He is under Obligation by the Laws of God and Man to Acknowledg Revoke and make satisfaction for the aforesaid Wrongs as far as he may and to court the forgiveness of the injured Parties As he is a most profligate Reviler of a Bishop Ancient Canons require he should beg Pardon or be irrevocably degraded Con. Carth. 4. Cap. 57. Clericus Maledicus maxime in Sacerdotibus cogatur ad postulandum veniam si noluerit degradetur nec unquam ad Officium sine satisfactione revocetur And as he is a litigious Clergy-Man his Testimony ought not to be Receiv'd Cap. 58. of the aforesaid Canon Clericus qui frequenter litigat ad causandum facilis est Testimonium nemo absque grandi examine recipiat And indeed whoever considers the Rector as he has here been truly set forth will never much regard what he says against any Man much less against his Bishop who bears so great and clear a Reputation Whose Learning Charity and Hospitality render him a worthy Prelate and whose Birth and Education have made him an Accomplish'd Gentleman PAX VOBIS The Printer's Advertisement THis Answer had been Printed three Weeks sooner had not the Press been very much engag'd in Business that requir'd Expedition however 't is not doubted but it comes soon enough for the Rector who will find it no easie Task to clear himself of what is laid to his Charge and fully to Answer a Book so well written

of preventing Scandalous Communicants And therefore let the Bishop Answer for admitting the Rector for as the matter appears to me upon the whole from the good Character the two Gentlemen bear in their Country and the ill one the Rector has and from his Rude and Passionate Deportment towards the Bishop himself and his Servants before at and since that Holy Sacrament the Rector is the only unqualify'd person who discover'd his Malice in the very Celebration of those Mysteries which are a Contradiction to every thing that is not real Love and Charity What more is worthy our Observation upon this Query may be comprehended in these three Things I. That the Rector pag. 21 savs Episcopacy is not a distinct Order from Presbytery but only the superaddition of a New Office to it II. That the Power of Bishops is only fraternal to Admonish but not to Command at most they had but a Negative Voice before the Popish Vsurpation III. That the Oath of Canonical Obedience is also a Relick of Popery and that the imposition of it is Vnjust and the Rectors taking of it uncertain pag. 18. 1. That Episcopacy is not a distinct Ordeo from Presbytery c. It cannot be expected I should here enter into this Controversie and shew you all the Authorities from Scripture Antiquity and the consent of all Christian Churches for 1500 years but āll that I shall urge ad hominem is to shew how the Rector has by this Position expos'd his own baseness Know then he has twice at his Ordinations subscrib'd to the 4th Canon which maintains the three Orders of Bishops Priests and Deacons and three or four times more subscrib'd it at his admission to Benefices and has as often subscrib'd the 39 Articles whereof the 36th maintains the said Orders and has declar'd the same I believe ten times in reading his Assent and Consent to all things contain'd in the Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and the manner of making Ordaining and Consecrating Bishops Priests and Deacons and has in his late very Pamphlet own'd and declar'd the Rubrick of the said Book to have the strongest Authority that Statute Law can give it Yet this Rubrick before the form of Ordination runs thus It is evident unto all Men diligently reading the Holy Scriptures and Ancient Fathers that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Now that any Man professing himself a Minister of the Church of England for at least 20 years and still from time to time declaring subscribing and owning the three Orders should give the contrary under his Hand and Print it to Eternize his Villany and to render himself obnoxious to the Penalties of the Laws both Canon and Statute is a demonstration that he is Mad and fit for Bedlam Let him not think to come off with his owning Episcopacy to be a Superiour Office for the Rubrick calls them expresly three Orders and the Canon and Articles must accordingly be so understood and that Power of Ordination appropriated to Bishops shows it to be an Order since it is the Power that makes the Order and manifests it unto us 2. The Rector says That the Power of Bishops is only Fraternal to Admonish but not to Command at most they had but a Negative Voice before the Popish Vsurpation 'T is true Bishops and Priests are Brethren and should treat one another as such and not be Tyrannical but between these two there is a Medium and an allow'd Power in Bishops over Presbyters and all this before the Popish Usurpation So Dr. Cave prim Christ par 1. Cap. 8. says It was not the business of the Bishops barely to preside in the Assemblies of the Clergy but to call them to Account and Suspend them if they deserv'd it And if Baronius may be allow'd to speak he tell us ad annum 57 319 That the Judiciary Power of Bishops over Clergy and Laity was Instituted of God Exercis'd by the Holy Fathers and confirm'd by the Emperors And indeed Eusebius in the Life of Constantine hints the same Cap. 27. which Valesius refers to a Law of Constantius extant in the close of the Theodosian Code But methinks the Rectors own Negative instance from Ignatius That nothing be done without the Bishop implies an Affirmative That every thing be done by his Direction and Command And so doth the Apos Can. 40. Praesbyteri Diaconi praeter Episcopum nihil pertentent And sometimes in some Cases the Clergy are expresly said to be under the Bishops Command For instance Con. Laod. Can. 42. No Minister of Gods Altar nor any Clergy-Man must take a Journey but per jussionem by the Command of his Bishop Nor must they disrespecting the Bishop make Conventicles apart or set up Altars upon pain if Deposition Apos Can. 32. and so Con. Gang. Can. 6. It were endless to quote Authorities of Authentick Canons and Fathers to the same purpose As for us our own Canons particularly the 71st sufficiently impowers the Bishop to Suspend Deprive or Depose the Inferiour Clergy upon just Causes and so does the Statute in England 1 Eliz. Cap. 2. make every Spiritual person Dignitary or Parson Visitable by the Bishop or Ordinary who thereby is Authoriz'd to enquire into and punish their Faults by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation 3. The Rector says That the Oath of Canonical Obedience is also a Relick of Popery and that the Imposition of it is Vnjust and the Rector's taking of it uncertain To these things I say First That Obedience is due and has been always from Presbyters to Bishops as the quotations in the former Paragraph do prove For Command and Obey being Relatives whatever proves the one proves the other also But beside the 18th Can. of the Con. Arl. 1. held ten or twelve years before the Nic. says The Deacons must not take upon them on their own Accounts but let Honour be reserv'd to the Presbyters and that Presbyters likewise do nothing but conscientio Episcopi by the Privity and Consent of the Bishop in which is sufficiently imply'd the great Deference Submission and Obedience which the Inferiour Orders owe to their respective Superiours And the Counsel of Calc Can. 8. first setting forth the Bishops Authority over the Clergy in their Parishes c. does then enjoyn their Submission and Obedience At si noluerint subjacere in case they refuse so to Obey let them be Punish'd Canonically And Con. Agath Cap. 1. Let the contumacious Clergy be Corrected and Punish'd by their Bishops which plainly proves the Power of the one and the Obedience of the other The like saith Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians and so say many more Now Reason it self must tell us That when there is a Superiour Power in the one to Command there must be an Obedience to answer in the other Party And therefore an Oath obliging Men to that Obedience