Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41815
|
A reply to A vindication of a discourse concerning the unreasonableness of a new separation &c.
|
Grascome, Samuel, 1641-1708?
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing G1576; ESTC R31730
|
40,185
|
31
|
A REPLY TO A Vindication OF A DISCOURSE Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation c. LONDON Printed in the Year M DC XCI AMONG all the Reformed Churches none departed from Rome with greater Advantage than the Church of England The certain Succession of Authority as well as purity of Doctrine and both maintained by Men as famous for the Integrity of their Lives as Profoundness of their Learning made her for a long time the Glory of the Resormation and both the Envy and Terror of her Adversaries For this Reason she became the principal Mark at which all Firebrands were darted and no Arts were neglected which might by any means raise up Enemies against her till in the former Rebellion overwhelmed with the Multitude Malice and Wickedness of her Foes either her Preists with others were barbarously murdered or shut out from the Temples and debarr'd from the daily Sacrifice And Jerusalem it self was made an heap of Stones But though this did eclipse her Beauty and as some thought well nigh defac'd her yet such was the Sincerity of her Members that those bloody Persecutions did indeed raise her Reputation and made many who admired their Constancy enquire into those Principles from whence sprang such wonderful Effects whereby she gained no few Proselytes And as when the Heathens accounting all sure erected Statues to Dicclesian with this Inscription Superstitione Christi ubique deleta the Christian Church soon after broke forth with greater Splendor than ever so when our Enemies thought they had raked up that long afflicted Church in Ashes on a sudden and beyond hopes she rose with such a Lustre as struck Envy dumb and her Enemies with Admiration as seeing the Finger of God in it And thus it might have long continued had there not been a falling away and her own Members renounced her Principles But alas now her Condition is worse and more desperate than ever unless God be her Helper Rome hugs herself and laughs to see the Members of that Church debauched and that effected by some few Vipers bred in her Bowels which all their Craft and Industry could never bring to pass The Dissenters smile and insult to see the worst of their Principles taken up and pretended to have been always Principles of the Church of England And as for those few whom no Plagues or Penalties can force to abdicate their Mother and with Rancour vomit up that Divine Food they suckt from her Breasts whilst even their Enemies commiserate them those who call themselves their Brethren prosecute them with the utmost Malice as if nothing would serve them but Root and Branch and they were fully resolved to destroy that poor distressed Church both Name and Thing And unless God of his Infinite Mercy prevent their implacable Designs to the eye of Sense it scarce seems avoydable Experience may have sufficiently taught us That Schism not only breeds ill Blood but worse Actions and not only causeth Heats and Animosities but often raiseth Men to that Madness of Zeal that they think they do God good Service by the most unjustisiable Deeds and barbarous Immanities and I pray God that these times may not too much feel the Effects of it Upon this account every good Man will not only Mourn over the Divisions of Reuben but by all honest Means endeavour to allay them And if I could be convinced That the Guilt of the present Schism lay at our Door I should think it ought to be my first Work to Repent of it And thô the Author I have to do with writes at that rate as if he intended not to convince any Man but reproach all who are not of his Party yet I will pass that by and do him the Justice to examine whatever may seem in the least material thorough his whole Discourse and so leave the Judgment to the Impartial Reader For a taste at first what awkard doings we must expect all along he answers my little Piece backwards and begins at the end And because I said I was unwilling to judge severely of my Brethren he thinks he hath no small advantage in picking up three or four harsh Phrases which dropt from my Pen As if a Man could have no kindness for others who sometimes speaks in sharp Language when bitter Truth enforceth him to it and the Nature of the Thing will not be otherwise expressed But this Complaint very ill becomes him who at every turn on set purpose calls me by all the scornful despicable Names a malicious Wit can invent and sometimes gives me such ill-favoured Titles with Threatning to boot as if he had a mind to deal by me as the Heathens with the Primitive Christians who when they would expose them to be torn in pieces drest them in the Skins of Bears or other Savage Beasts But this I can neglect For though it may recommend his Book to some kind of Wits yet it will certainly disparage it with all Men of Sense My Answer contained only two Sheets so that it could be neither difficult nor tedious to have answered it as it lay But as if he were lost in a Wood or had to do with some Voluminous Author he reduceth it to Heads but as there I followed another Man's Steps so here to prevent all Complaints of foul play seeing our Author will not allow me my own Method I will follow his But first I cannot forbear to tell him That I do not think that he hath done like an ingenuous Man in these things 1. That he hath quite omitted several Reasons of mine which were material as to the Matter in Controversy 2. That when he mentions Topicks or hints at any of my Arguments he never repeats those Words wherein the strength of the Argument lay 3. That he rarely makes any direct Answer but shifts and turns it off to another Matter like some crafty Huntsmen who being desirous to save the life of an old chac'd Hare and yet to gull those who follow the Sport and think the same Game is still on foot start and lay the Dogs into a fresh one And in these three things consists both the Artifice and Strength if it have any of his whole Book The first Topick he makes to be of Church-Communion and Schisme and here the first Offer he makes is a Side-blow in stiling us the New Separatists p. 3. Now Schisme certainly goes along with the Cause and those properly are the Schismaticks who are the Criminals Now let Matters be first adjusted and the Cause examined and let those be the new Separatists who shall be found Guilty upon Tryal and if his new Titles of Honour be not found of Right to belong to himself and his Party I will confess that I have been wofully mistaken That we do not fall but are forced into this Division I had alledged This he saith he will answer in due place and I must wait his Leisure But when he calls it a Spiteful Return when I desire that Author
Words which would have cleared my Meaning and others wherein the Strength of my Argument lay Next he Sums up my Argument falsly and not in my Sense And after this he gives no direct Answer to it but raiseth three Questions and those too for the sake of some Answers he had found in Archdeacon Mason and those Answers come not up to the Case Such mighty pains are some Men at to say nothing to the purpose But however we must wait his Motions My Argument he Sums up thus That being they i. e. the Clergy receive their Authority from God no Civil Power can disable them from the Exercise of their Duty And if it doth they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled Now I was so far from simply asserting That the Civil Power cannot disable them from exercising their Function that I there instanced in Cases where they lawfully might But as he has worded it he confutes himself For if they exercise only as he calls it their Duty it is certain no Civil Power lawfully can disable them from the Exercise of it And if he grant it their Duty in that Case he justifies them For no Man ought to be hindred from discharging his Duty Nor did I say That they are bound to quit the Communion of the Church where so disabled For the Church might own them when the State disallowed them I said in such Case of unjust Deprivation they might exercise their Office at their Peril which either might be done in the Church or in Separation from that particular Church according as the Doctrines there taught and the Terms of Communion in it stood The Argument being thus falsly represented he answers it with Questions The method I suppose is new and he a Man in fashion The first is this Whether a Bishop duly Consecrated or a Minister duly Ordained may not be lawfully Suspended and Deprived from the Execution of his Office by the Secular Power whâ—re there is sufficient Reason for it Now this Question plainly answers it self For I think any thing may be done for which there is a sufficient Reason and he is a very hard hearted Man who will not allow him this But then there are other Questions to be asked viz. What is in such Case a sufficient Reason Whether there be sufficient Reason in this particular Case And lastly if he please Whether no Authority in the Deprivers and no Crime as to them in the Deprived be a sufficient Reason for Suspension or Deprivation It is an odd way of answering a Man in a particular Case to float in generals and keep as far from the Question as may be but perhaps he will mend that anon at present we must attend to the Solution of his Question which in his Singular way he performs by reciting two Objections and as many Answers to them from Mr. Mason And to make short work I will grant him all that Mason says where there is as our Author calls it a sufficient Reason for so doing and I hope he would not have it done without or against Reason And so passing by the Act of Parliament which he hath left me to peruse at leisure till I have more spare time I will directly come to his second Question and try whether he hath any better Fortune there He is not agreed with himself how he shall word his second Question and therefore I will set down that where he expresseth himself most at large and maintains the afirmative Whether it may not be lawful for the Secular Power to deprive Persons in Orders for Crimes committed against the State and particularly upon Refusal to give Security to the Government for their Peaceable Behaviour and Allegiance by Oath This he affirms and he says I expresly deny which is expresly false as may appear from those very Words of mine which he hath cited to prove his Assertion For there I did allow a Deprivation by the Secular Power where either the just Censure of the Church had passed on any or they did merit Deposition and that I think they may do though a Censure be not actually passed upon them But if you will have the Deprivation valid even to their acquiescence where the Secular Power or that which calls it self a Secular Power says that a Crime is committed against it you must not only justifie Queen Mary in Depriving Edward the Sixth's Bishops but you must condemn those deprived Bishops for making a Schism and not joyning in Communion as Laymen i. e. that they did not turn Papists But let us examine his Defence I answer saith he with Mason Where was the Act of the Church in the Deposition of Ablathar And where was the Ecclesiastical Crime he was charged with Did Mason then use thus to answer with Questions But your Questions shall have Answers however And First I think it not very clear whether the Jewish Church did afford so sufficient an Ecclesiastical Remedy against their Criminal High Priest as the Christian Church doth against Criminal Bishops and if so then it was altogether necessary both for Church and State that their King who was of God's own appointment and something more than a mere Secular Person should interpose his Authority without any deference to Ecclesiastical Censure Secondly You may enquire but I am apt to believe that neither you nor I can certainly tell whether Abiathar was Censured by the Sanhedrim or not for if it be not Recorded that he was so neither is it that he was not Thirdly Though it be very convenient in it self agreeable to the Rules of the Church and makes much for the Peace both of Church and State That Christian Kings in Punishing Ecclesiasticks would take the Censures of the Church along with them which would make the Condemnation of such Persons more terrible and notorious yet if the Clergy should refuse as it would be their Fault so it doth not hinder the Secular Power to punish Offenders according to Justice But all this is nothing to the purpose and will do him no service because there are Cases wherein Ecclesiasticks Deprived by even a lawful Secular Power may yet remain obliged to execute their Commission from Christ though at their Peril or else the Apostles and Primitive Bishops must be Condemned and if so it is much more Lawful when for adhering to right they are deprived only by a pretended Power But I suppose this Virtuoso will say That Jehojada had been bound to leave of all care of discharging his Duty of High Priest if Athaliah had Deprived him As to his Second Question Where was the Ecclesiastical Crime Abiathar was charged with I answer That though I spake of Ecclesiastical Censures yet I did never limit the matter to pure Ecclesiastical Crimes nor have I that I can remember so much as used that Phrase for the Church may censure whatsoever is Contra bonos more 's though at the same time the Secular Power punish it as an