Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	bishop_n	sir_n	william_n	20,427	5	8.7204	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25216	A reply to the Reverend Dean of St. Pauls's reflections on the Rector of Sutton, &c. wherein the principles and practices of the non-conformists are not only vindicated by Scripture, but by Dr. Stillingsfleet's Rational account, as well as his Irenicum : as also by the writings of the Lord Faulkland, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chillingworth, &c. / by the same hand ; to which is added, St. Paul's work promoted, or, Proper materials drawn from The true and only way of concord, and, Pleas for peace and other late writings of Mr. Richard Baxter ...	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.; Barret, John, 1631-1713.	1681 (1681)	Wing A2919; ESTC R6809	123,967	128

made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unl●ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith hav● su●h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any n●w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iam●s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King s●all command any thing dir●ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for th●ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and ab●ve Christ●● And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appli●d h●re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedien●iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resi●tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 qu●d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogni●●●on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Man●or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's

I cannot see what can hinder a mutual good Agreement Pag. 410. And seeing the good of the ●tare and Church depends absolutely upon the Union of the People in the Point of Religion one cannot there press an universal Union too much But it ought to be procured by good means An Vnion in Religion may be without Vniformity in Ceremonies You will not own it that you place Religion in these that they are any parts of Religion But the pressing of such unnecessary doubtful things upon Men about which many are and ever will be dissatisfied seems no good nor probable means to procure an Vniversal Vnion That Prudence and Charity which this Professor afterwards commends as necessary in this Work would in my simple Judgment direct to other Means and Methods Notes upon the Second Letter from Monsieur de L' Angle ADD P. 420. I have not met with such Writings said to be lately published to make Men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Or if I have seen any such they are quite out of my Mind As to the former of these do but allow them to distinguish as you do in your Rational Account and they will say They have communion with the Church of England so far as it is a Church and very many of them have ordinary Communion in the self-same Worship so far as it is God's Worship And what is redundant it is not necessary that they should have Communion in It is one thing to say Communion with the Church of England is simply unlawful unlawful in it self and so unto all Men and another to say that Communion in the Liturgies or Ceremonies is unlawful to them who cannot yet be satisfied that they are lawful But we are further supposed to believe that Communion with the Church of England is intolerable in what follows that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Here let every one so far as they are called to it speak for themselves For my part I have never made it any of my Work God and Men are Witnesses to warn others to take heed how they had Communion with the Church of England I have never told any living Soul that I should sin if I did not forbid their joyning with Parochial Congregations Rather it should be my Prayer I am sure it is my Hearts desire that sober Conformists and Non-conformists might once come to joyn each with other notwithstanding their lesser Differences But it seems it is not permitted to you to have Communion with such at Dr. O. and Mr. B. tho you may have Communion with others from whom you differ in greater Matters both as to your Judgments and Practices too while they do but conform then is there not some strange secret Virtue or Inchantment in this Chain of Conformity It can congregate the heterogeneous while it separates those who are more homogeneous But that this is not the Doctrine of the Non-conformists that they cannot permit private Persons to have Communion with you without sinning I am very apt to conclude because M. Le Moyne went to several of their private Assemblies while he was at London and could never hear any such thing from any of them Otherwise sure he that could remember the citing of Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times in one Sermon and tell us of it five years after tho I doubt his being so ●●sy in casting up such Accounts might be the cause he wa● not at all edified by the Sermon would not have failed to take notice of such a thing as that being more pertinent and material And for the same Reason with others I cannot believe what follows h●●e p. 423. That The Bugb●ar Words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist are continually beaten into the Peoples Ears If so M. Le Moyne had been as likely as any Person to have catched at them and then had we heard of them again But further some of us have the very same to say that this Learned Person says P. 420 421. That In frequenting your Assemblies and preaching too in ●ongregations that are under the Jurisdiction of the Church of England when we could enjoy the Priviledg which indeed ●●th been very rarely we have thus also shewn that we do not believe her 〈◊〉 to be unlawful Add P. 422. Schism is the most formid●ble ●vil tha● can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this 〈◊〉 ●Charity obliges all good Men to bear with then Breth●● 〈…〉 much less ●olerable than those of which the dispute is 〈…〉 the Eyes of those that have the most aversion fro● 〈◊〉 I thought it would appear that these ●minent learned Men did not rightly and fully understand our case So the former speaks as if we did excommunicate the Church of England without Mercy Wh●● alas we are rather under her Excommunication And this learne● Person speaks as if we had not so much Christian Charity as to bear with our Brethren in the use of a few Ceremonies but that is not the thing in Question Many of us at least could and do bear with you● Conformity and joyn with you notwithstanding But will it not follow from his own Words That Christian Charity obliges you to bear with ou● Non-conformity yet you will not bear with us I hope you would be counted good Men. Now he says Christian Charity obliges all good Men to bear with their Prethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the dis●●●● is The Apostle gives Timothy a very solemn Charge then are not Bishops concerned in it if Timothy was a Bishop 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by Partiality And one of these things he was to observe we find v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine Yet how many that have been ●alled to the work of the Ministry how many of your Brethren that would gladly labour in the work they have been called unto and you have been doing them what dishonour you can loading them with the charge of Schism and unreasonable Separation while you can bear with things much less tolerabl● in others Is this your Christian Charity Or doing nothing by Partiality Are there no Non-conformists that use to hear you when they have Opportunity I am apt to think there are And thus they bear with you as to matters in dispute farther than you are seen to bear with them But this must be noted It is one thing for us to bear with your Conformity and another thing by Word and Deed to declare our approbation of Conformity or to conform meerly because you do so and require us to do so tho we suspect it to be sinful As the Lord Faulkland I

Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government If this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright where he saith in plain Words by the Name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly And I find something like this in that small Tract called English Puritanism c. 6. § 6. They ●old that all Arch-Bishops Bish●ps Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without Sin remove these Offices out of the Church or 〈◊〉 these Offices are Jure divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy which indeed you must hold as to Bishops if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution Though I know the time when you was of another mind Rector of Sutton p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution And pag. 40. you believed that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be ●ound true that Ierome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Theodoret Theophylact were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and ●re●byters in the Primitive Church Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops as superiour to the rest of the Clergy to be only jure humano that they had Power to alter if they pleased and should require Assent to this their Determination and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church or disown its Constitution and should determine it to be Iure Divino vel Apostolico and to be owned of Men as such In such a Case whether must the former for the Churches Peace think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter Or to which of their Determinations must others submit For none but such as the Vicar of Bray could submit to both Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of What great Service they are like to do you let the Impartial Reader judg Instead of my third Conclusion I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority p. 171 c. Particularly pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience c. with what follows in that Page And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment And blessed are they that consider Conscience and load it not with needless Burdens but seek to relieve it in its Distresses You go on with me Preface p. 74 But he urges another Passage in the same Place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But will not this equally hold against our Church if it excommunicates those who cannot conform Now may not it be said here as Rational Account p. 336. beginning They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church and therefore are no Schismaticks but your Carriage and Practices were 〈…〉 them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And may not your own Words ibid. p. 356 be returned Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion And supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that Division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions c. Here it is to be noted that your own Words Irenic p. 123 124. objected against you Rector of Sutton pag. 30. are as follow This Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship I do not assert to be therefore lawful because some things are required which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account in which Case their Separation is necessary Whence I inferred that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in for not conforming in unlawful or suspected Practices it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case at least if there be need of their Ministry Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this That one would think either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists or that they were so very despicable in your Eye you thought them not worth taking notice of at all Now to your Answers 1. Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites Yet whatever you say here I doubt a Man though he hath his Child lawfully baptized is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed And though a Man would joyn in the Communion yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving And being once excommunicated I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer if the Rules of the Church be followed But you further say Preface p. 74 75. 2. The Case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of the Church In the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation