and the Presbiters have it by delegation from them The Presbiters have the Power to Consecrate in actu signato upon the score of their Ordination which they had from the Bishop and likewise they have the exercise of this Power from the Bishop by Vertue of their Institution whereby a certain Congregation is given them to Administer to But surely when a Bishop impowers another he does not divest himself No this he cannot do if he would this Power being Inherent to his Office by Divine Institution Nay in the first Ages of the Church e're Presbyters had their appropriated Parishes we find that the Presbyters could not Consecrate without the Bishop's Licence tho he were absent So St Ignatius who lived anno 101. says in his Epistle to the Smyrnaans Let no Man do any thing of what belongs to the Church without the Bishops leave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Neither Baptise nor offer Sacrifice but let that Eucharist be look'd upon as firm and good which is either offer'd by the Bishop or by him whom the Bishop shall permit And even after Congregations were Assign'd as proper Cures to Presbyters and the Bishops had given them an ordinary Licence once for all to Consecrate yet notwithstanding when the Bishop was personally present they did not Administer without a new leave so St. Leo in 86th Epistle to the Bishops of Germany and France Sed neque coram Episcopo licet Presbyteris introire Baptisterium c. Nec eo presente nisi jubente Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis Christi conficere i. e. It is not lawful for Presbyters to enter into the Baptistery c. nor to Consecrate the Sacrament of Christs Body and Blood if the Bishop be present without his Command And so says Con. Carth. 2. Can. 9. Quisquis Praesbiter presente inconsulto Episcopo agenda in quolibet loco voluerit celebrare itse honori suo contrarius existit If any Presbyter without leave of the Bishop he being present shall Celebrate the Sacrament be the place what it will Cathedral or Parish Church is an Enemy to the Bishops Dignity And Con. Sen. seems to explain the matter both as to time and place Episcopi in suis Diaecessibus c. in Festivitatibus Solemnibus per se in Ecclesiis suis celebrent i. e. Bishops in their Diocesses shall in their own Persons not by their Prebendaries celebrate the Sacrament upon the solemn Festivals in their Churches To which the 24th English Canon almost literally agrees And 't is no doubt the Bishop's Authority extends through his whose Diocess and to every Church therein the Charge and Care whereof is committed to him which he can never free himself from and though he has committed part of it to others because he cannot be present every where yet where he is present the Rector or Vicar being but his Substitute are if he please to officiate pro tunc superseded In proesentia majoris cessat potentia minoris But however this be 't is certain that of the Cathedral as Rebuff says Episcopus est propriè immediatè Parochus the Bishop is the proper and immediate Minster And so the 24th English Canon chiefly intitles him to the Right of Administring there though not exclusive of the Dignitaries And thus 't is practised and allow'd all over England no body I believe in that whole Nation ever knowing that it was refus'd to the Bishop or thought an Usurpation in him to Administer the Sacrament in his Cathedral Again the Rector Abuses the Rubrick 't is true it says That the Minister not mentioning what Order shall first Receive the Communion in both kinds himself and then proceed to deliver the same to the Bishops Priests and Deacons in like manner if any be present and after that to the People The true meaning whereof must be this that he who Administers the Sacrament shall observe this Order in the distribution of the Elements First to Administer to the Clergy according to their Order as first to Bishops Whether of other Diocesses that may happen to be present on that occasion or the Bishop of the Diocess who in ease to his Age or Indisposition may admit the Priest to perform the Office Next them to Priests then to the Deacons and after to the Laity And that neither this Order nor my sense of it are New I refer you for some thing much like this to the great Council of Nice Can. 14. Pervenit ad Sanctum Concilium quod in locis quibus dam Civitatibus Praesbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant hoc neque regula neque consuetudo tradidit ut hi qui offerende Sacrificii non habeat potestatem his qui offerant Corpus Christi porrigant sed illud immotuit quod quidam Diaconi etiam aute Episcopum Sacramentà sumunt haec ergo omnia amputentur accipiant secundum Ordinem post Presbyteros ab Episcopo vel a Praesbytero Sacram Communionem Which implies That the Bishop may Administer and that the Clergy ought to Receive according to their Order Again 't is to be consider'd in the present Case that the two Suspended persons as the Rector calls them were the Bishops chief Domesticks Now surely no Rector is presumable to know his Parishioners Qualifications better than a Bishop may be allow'd to know the fitness or unfitness of his Servants it being one Qualification of a Bishop that he know well and govern well his own House 1 Tim. 3.5 Oh but says the Rector Those Servants were my Parishioners and therefore I had the Right to Administer to them and not the Bishop This is a hard Case That Bishops must neither Administer in Cathedrals nor Parish Churches to the Inhabitants of the Diocess at large nor even to those of his own Family But let this be the Bishop's Comfort whatever the Rector says others know that Bishops may Administer to any or all the aforesaid and so particularly says Aug. Bar. pag. 308. n. 12. Quem libet posse otium invito Parocho Episcopum adire pro Sacramento suscipiendo cum illi principaliter commissa sit Cura omnium animarum suae Diocesios i. e. any Man may whether his Minister will or no repair to the Bishop to Receive the Sacrament because chiefly to him is committed the Care of all the Souls in his Diocess From the whole then I think 't is plain the Bishop had sufficient Authority and Good Reason to Administer the Blessed Sacrament especially in his own Cathedral and chiefly to his own Servants of whose fitness he was assur'd and therefore had no Cause to proceed against them according to the Canon as against Notorious Scandalous Obstinate Sinners Thirdly The Third Query is Whether in such Case the Bishop may regularly command the Rector and such Commands are obliging Most of what the Rector says on this Query no body needs disprove as that great Care ought to be taken of reclaiming Sinners and fitting persons for the Holy Sacrament and
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
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
AN ANSWER TO THE RECTOR'S LIBEL OR THE BISHOP'S CASE TRULY STATED SHEWING I. That the Rector has Stated the CASE disingeniously II. That the Rubrick and Canons which he quotes in his Justification do manisestly turn to his own Condemnation III. That the Three Queries 1. Whether a Rector hath Power to Suspend any of the Parishioners committed to his Charge from a Temporary Reception of the Sacrament And in what Cases he may exercise that Power 2. What is the Bishops Office in such a Case And whether he may restore such Persons so Suspended without a Judicial Cognizance of the Crime objected 3. Whether in such a Case the Bishop may regularly command the Rector and whether such commands are obliging Upon which he builds the whole Resolution are modestly speaking impertinently put and falsly or impertinently Resolv'd Revilest thou Gods High Priest Act. 23.40 Siquis Clericus Episcopum contumelia affecerit deponitor Apos Can. 54. DUBLIN Printed by Richard Wilde in Skinner-Row and are to be Sold at his Shop in Cork Change 1694. AN ANSWER TO THE RECTOR'S LIBEL c. SIR THE other day I met with and read a Pamphlet Intituled The Rectors Case concerning the Power of Suspension from the Sacrament c. which sent me in Indignation against so false and scandalous a Libel to my Study where in a very little time the Rectors Weakness rather than my own Skill enabled me to give the following Answer which shews I. That the Rector has stated the Case disingeniously II. That the Rubrick and Canons which he quotes in his Justification 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 I. That the Rector has Stated the Case disingeniously will in part appear from the plain matter of Fact here impartially related In the year 1693. April 14. being Good Friday The Rector sent a Letter to Mr. M. S. Steward to the Bishop and another Letter to the same purpose to Mr. T. N. the Bishops Gentleman wherein the Rector said He thought himself by Conscience as well as Law Obliged to Admonish the aforesaid Gentlemen being his Parishioners not to approach the Holy Table the Sunday following for that they were Vnqualify'd to receive the Holy Sacrament Because as he was told by some naming no body That they were concerned in a Conspiracy against his Life Upon these Letters the two Gentlemen tho' wholly innocent and declaring their Charity with the Rector and all the World did in submission forbear the Sacrament at that time lest the Rector might by publickly and it may be indecently repelling them give occasion of Scandal But a year clapsing and the Rector during all that time neither by Word nor Writing before the Solemnities of Whitsuntide or Christmas nor any other time again Admonishing the said Gentlemen nor Prosecuting or Proving the heavy Charge of their being concerned in a Conspiracy against his Life therefore the said Centlemen on Easter Sunday 1694. came up Reverently to the Rails and were not brought in by the Bishop vi armis as the Rector maliciously and falsly suggests Pag. 13. there to receive with other Communicants in the Cathedral Church of the Diocess where the Bishop in Person Administered and the Rector Assisted But just as the Bishop was about to begin the Service at the Altar the Rector step'd to the two Gentlemen and forbad them the Sacrament the Bishop observing the same spake to the Rector not to trouble himself or words to that purpose and after when the Elements came to be distributed the Bishop Administered the Bread to his two Servants as he did to the other Communicants but the Rector giving the Cup to the rest willfully omitted the aforesaid Gentlemen and passing them by placed the Chalice upon the Table which the Bishop observing commanded the Rector to give them the Cup but the Rector reply'd positively and passionately that he would not adding these Words Let it be between me and God upon which the Bishop without a word more or shewing any concern gave them the Cup. Now observe that in the Rector's State of the case there is 1. No Notice taken of the Bishop's Administering the Sacrament in his own Cathedral 2. The Rector is there said actually to have Suspended the two Gentlemen whereas his own Letters to them say only he thought himself obliged to Admonish them but not a word of actually Suspending them 3. The Reason he gives is their Notorious Malitious Contrivances and practices against himself for as 't is worded in one of his own Letters against his Life whereas in the same Letter he owns it was but a hear-say without mention of any Proof or Author 4. He says he acquainted the Bishop herewith 'T is true he wrote a most impudent and scandalous Letter to the Bishop falsly charging both him and his Servants with Hainous things but all General without descending to particulars then or ever offering to prove any since 5. He says the Bishop interpos'd passionately for his Servants than which nothing can be more false 6. He modestly says He declin'd giving them the Cup whereas he flatly and passionately refused it and like Christ's Crucifiers imprecated the Guilt thereof upon himself I come now to shew II. That the Rubrick and Canons which the Rector quotes in his Justification do manifestly turn to his own Condemnation 1. The Rubrick the first Paragraph whereof says That they who intend to partake should signifie their Names at least some time the day before which as the Rector truly urges Pag. 20. was no doubt so Ordained That the Rector might know who intended to Communicate and that accordingly he might Instruct Comfort Counsel Reprove or Absolve as there was Cause as 't is said or imply'd in the latter end of the first Exhortation to the Communion But did the said Rector ever in his Life use the Parish to or acquaint the people with this Rubrick and Intent thereof Or did he as by the 19th Canon he was obliged give Warning the Afternoon before by tolling of a Bell or any other way for scrupulous persons to repair to him for Comfort Or did he pursuant to his Admonition to the two Gentlemen either come to them or send for them to Examine them seriously as to their pretended Crimes and their obstinacy in them or sorrow for them or innocency of them Did he any time in the year following thus acquit himself Surely this was his Duty and far more Decent and less Offensive than to surprize them at the Rails a year after his first and only Admonition which he seemed to give them in a heat As to the second Paragraph of the Rubrick so far were the Gentlemen from being obnoxious to it that they bear infinitely a better Character for their Lives and peaceable Behaviour in the whole Countrey than the Rector himself which I am sorry for but yet so sure
have been wilful Scandalous Sinners otherwise the Rector had no Right to repel them And indeed that every person so to be repell'd must be an open and Notorious ill-Liver or an open Contender who gives Offence to the Congregation and consequently whose unqualifiedness appears to others as well as to the Rector himself both the Rubricks and Canons affirm And so do the Ancient Canonists Reccatoribus notoriis Eucharistia non est Administranda but then is added what Notoriety is required Notorium Peccatorem dici qui manifestus est vel per sententiam vel per confessionem factam in judicio out per evidentiam rei quae nulia tergiversatione celari potest Aug. Bar. Cap. 20 n. 20.21 So that it must not be the surmise of the Rector himself or a bare hear-say but such an immorality as is notorions by a sentence or Legal Confession or Evidence of Fact so commonly known as cannot be conceal'd otherwise neither the Rector nor Bishop ought to repel Now let the Rector prove the two Gentlemen thus Notorious if he can Oh but says the Rector Pag. 7. 'T is left to my own discretive judgment whom to Suspend 'T is true the Ruorick seems to make him Judge for fourteen days but not for the whole year as it was in our Case Now either the Rector did not legally inform the Bishop within the fourteen days and then himself Transgressed the Rubrick or if he did then not the Rector but the Bishop after such Information given is become the Judge and may Punish or Pardon as he sees Cause And further observe as the Rector himself well Objects and could not Answer that the Rector Suspended them for Malice and Injuries and Contrivances against himself and therefore ought not to be a Judge in his own Cause to which I add That first non constat no such Malice in the two Gentlemen is prov'd Et quilibet presumitur bonus donec probatur in contrarium Next That tho' in the Case of Malice or Contention between two Parishioners the Minister is presum'd an allowable Judge yet not so where himself is a party And lastly whereas the Rector Answers that this must be allow'd in this case because there is no third person to intervene I say This is a mistake for the Bishop is a proper person to intervene in the aforesaid Case The 9th Can. Con. Case makes the Bishop the proper Judge of Clergy-Men and our Rubrick makes him proper Judge over the people to censure them according to the Canon And indeed he being the common Pastor of his whole Diocess Nam ipsi commissus est Dei populus pro animabus eorum ipse redditurus est rationem Apos Can. 40. And seeing the Rectors in their Parishes are but his substitutes over the people none can so properly mediate in a difference between his substitute and people as the common Ruler who has equally an Authority and Care over both 2 All that is material under his Second Query is that the Bishop was negligent of his Duty in not censuring the Suspended persons but instead thereof admitting them to the Sacrament Pag. 12. And Secondly That the Bishop had not the Right of Administering the Sacrament there As to the first I say 'T is true that upon Information given to a Bishop by the Rector who Suspends a Notorious Offender from the Sacrament the Bishop is to proceed against such Notorious Person according to the Canon but 't is with this Proviso that such notorious person persist obstinately in his Fault not otherwise for so the Rector owns Pag. 8.9.10 If more gentle means prove effectual to reclaim such Sinners if friendly Admonition do the Work then severity is not requisite and the Bishop may accept of their present Sorrow and Promises of future Amendment And all this for ought the Rector knew might have been done in the present Case Oh but says the Rector When the Offence is an Injustice and an Injury to a Neighbour there Restitution and when a Scandal is given to the Congregation there Publick Satisfaction is required at least the Offender must be made to declare himself ready so to satisfie All this is granted but then there is nothing of this in the present Case for the Gentlemen were never known to be Men of either Scandalous or Malicious Principles or Practices but as has been said Of a far better Reputation than the Rector That They Conspired against his Life is an Allegation founded upon a hear-say as in the aforementioned Letters under his Hand himself does own And no body living of tolerable Credit will say or believe they are such persons as he has represented them or if they were why did not the Rector make it appear before the Bishop being bound to justifie what he did and to prosecute them for what he laid to their Charge Or Why did he not proceed against them at Common-Law in case he thought the Bishop would be too favourable But he letting near a whole year pass without any such Animadversion or even a second Admonition and they on their part having Solemnly declared to the Bishop and to others of the Clergy of the best Dignity in the Diocess that they had no personal prejudice to the Rector more than a dislike to him upon the score of his being an Ill and Disaffected Man and that they were in Charity with him and all the World and upon this stock of Innocency and Charity desiring the benefit of the Sacrament Let any Man judg whether the Bishop had most reason to regard these Solemn Asseverations of his two Servants whom he personally knew to be Men of Integrity or to regard the unwarrantable heat and Malicious and groundless Allegation of the Rector who is known by all to be an Obstinate self-will'd and ill-natur'd Man But Secondly says the Rector The Bishop had no Authority to Administer the Sacrament there and therefore it was an Invasion of my Right To this First That the Bishop has Power to Administer the Sacrament in Vertue of his Order whether it be the same with that of Priest or a Superiour I suppose the Rector is not so utterly beside himself as to deny But Frustra est potentia quae non reducitur in actum Therefore this Power must be Executed somewhere and if the Bishop may Adminster any where it must be either in Cathedral and Collegiate or in Parish Churches No says the Rector in neither For though the 24th English Canon seems to allow the Bishop sometimes in Cathedrals where there are no Parochial Cures to Administer yet our Rubrick which is a far better Authority gives the Right of Consecration in Cathedrals to the Prebendaries and in Parish Churches to the Rector or Vicar and this exclusive of the Bishop because 't is only reserv'd for him to pronounce the Absolution and give the Blessing Pag. 13. Never was there such a Mess of Ignorance and Arrogance For Bishops have the Original Power of Consecration