Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	church_n	doctrine_n	popery_n	4,964	5	10.7046	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61636	A vindication of Their Majesties authority to fill the sees of the deprived bishops in a letter out of the country occasioned by Dr. B---'s refusal of the bishoprick of Bath and Wells.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1691 (1691)	Wing S5679; ESTC R9468	8,641	36

of embarking in a sinking Interest and fills them with new Jealousies of the lawfulness of it and what just offence this must give to the Government I need not say The truth is were I not better perswaded of the good Inclinations of their Majesties to the Church of England and the general Inclination of the Nation to support the Government I should dread what might be the fatal Consequence of such a miscarriage as this both to Church and State There are always too many who are glad of such an opportunity to reproach the Church and to possess their Majesties with an ill Opinion of the Clergy notwithstanding their Oaths of Allegiance and I confess this gives too great an Advantage to such Misrepresentations were not the Zeal and good Affection of wiser Men too well known to be suspected and then I hope a single Instance of Folly can do no great hurt for that is the softest Name I can give it on which side soever I view it This plainly proves that supposing it lawful to have taken the Bishoprick no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the refusal in our Circumstances and I know not how to suppose that Dr. B could think it unlawful He submitted to the Government and took the Oath of Allegiance as early as any Man and never that I heard had the least scruple about it and yet 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 King William and Queen Mary to question their Authority to make a Bishop And if the former Bishops were Deprived and New Bishops made by such an Authority as he can swear Allegiance to I cannot understand that it can be unlawful to accept a Bishoprick from the hands of those whom he owns by his swearing Allegiance to them to have Authority to give it for this is an Authority which belongs to the Imperial Crown of England Besides this Dr. B was one of those who by Commission from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury hath exercised Archi-Episcopal Authority during the Vacancy of the See by the deprivation of the A. B. as it is expressed in the Commission and I take this 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 To receive the Consecration on of a Bishop I suppose is not the thing he accounts unlawful nor to exercise the Authority of a Bishop and then there is nothing he can think unlawful but to exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop and then it seems to me as unlawful for a Presbyter to do this as for a Bishop to do it unless a Presbyter may do it without the Revenues of the Bishoprick but a Bishop must not do it with them but this can be no Ecclesiastical scruple as so great a Canonist must needs know for if the Civil Power cannot dispose of such Temporal Matters it can do nothing But whatever he thought his refusing a Bishoprick upon great deliberation after an appearing forwardness to take it hath tempted people to think that he judges it unlawful and to let him see how inconsistent this is with his owning the present Government and his exercising the Archiepiscopal Authority I shall explain the meaning of it to him which I believe he never thought of If it be unlawful to succeed a deprived Bishop then he is the Bishop of the Diocess 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 and how can this be reconciled with the Oath of Allegiance unless the Doctor can swear Allegiance to him who is no King and hath no Authority to govern If the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop then the People and Clergy of his Diocess are bound to own him and no other then all 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 Law is Schismatical and Doctor 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 it Now will the Doctor say this or if he dare not say it will he dare to think it and yet if the deprived Bishops though they retain their Episcopal Character have no Authority or Jurisdiction in the Church of England then it must be lawful for other Bishops to exercise that Authority which they have lost and to succeed in the Government of such vacant Sees unless such Churches must be deprived of the Episcopal Authority while their deprived Bishops live And this brings me to consider the lawfulness of the thing it self which is so evident when set in a clear light that it will admit of no dispute with Men of Sense In a late Letter said to be sent to Doctor B and now printed on the Backside of a scandalous Rhyming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution he is threatned in Case he should accept the Bishoprick with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Vsurpers Gregory and George of Cappadocia who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there What effect this might have on Doctor B I know not but those who have used themselves to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons easily perceive a vast difference between these two Cases as will presently appear But to represent this matter plainly and easily I shall briefly State the Case and that I believe will satisfie understanding Men without disputing 1. First then in a Christian Nation and Government the Church is incorporated into the State and the Soveraign Power has a Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical Causes To deny this is either Popery or Fanaticism It is plain the Reformation of this Church was founded on this Principle and it is the constant Doctrine of our Articles Homilies and Canons and they are our Rule considered as Members of the Church of England 2. This Supremacy though it do not extend to the administration of Holy Offices or Church Censures yet it reaches the Persons and external Jurisdiction of Bishops and the other Clergy and the Regulating and Ordering the Externals of Religion As the making and deposing Bishops when there is just Cause for it belongs to the Supremacy which Authority was exercised by the Iewish Kings over the High Priest himself and to resolve all this into a meer Ecclesiastical