Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	christian_a	church_n	communion_n	1,593	5	9.3126	5	true

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

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 wh●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

his Jurisdiction Now this is a Knavish malicious Trick to compare our Actions to the Popes the Pope directly challengeth a Supremacy over Kings indeed over all Men we only lay claim to a Christian Liberty not to comply with Sin and Wickedness though the Magistrate command it and a Power not to desert our Station wherein Christ hath fixed us for every humoursom or unjust Prohibition of the State but at our Peril and without Resistance and what Agreement hath this with the Popes Actions But if his Civil Magistrate may not any ways be controuled but must be complied with in all things then I leave any indifferent Persons to judge whether these two things be not the direct Consequences of his Arguments First This makes the Proceedings of the Apostles and all the Primitive Christians in propagating the Gospel for about Three hundered Years to be altogether unjustifyable For they were actually prohibited first by the Jews after by the Emperours so that if his Doctrine had taken place Christianity had never entered into the World Secondly This shuts out the Doctrine of the Cross not only as Foolishness but as Wickedness and Disobedience and puts it in the Power of the Civil Magistrate at his Pleasure to extirpate Christianity out of the World for if prohibited they must cease and comply because to do otherwise Were in their way to take up Arms against him and controul his Jurisdiction And thus if the Grand Signior should Silence all the Christian Ministers in his Dominions they must hold their Peace and no more speak in the Name of Jesus for if they do our Author will tell them they are Rebels I perceive this Author makes use of his Religion only for his Convenience and will put no more on than he can at any time put off again he is here a sort of a Christian and at Japan would be a Hollander But to make good his Argument he accuseth me of Ignorance as to the Primitive Times and instanceth in Eustathius of Antioch Athanasius of Alexandria and Paulus of Constantinople put out by the Imperial Power and this he says Was never questioned by the Orthodox though they complained of the Injustice of it c. Now I confess that I have not had those Advantages which some have been happy in and am content to be accounted Ignorant provided he will suffer me to be Honest But yet as Ignorant as I am I think no Man that had consulted his Cause or his own Reputation would have produced this instance in this case For it will either justifie our Proceedings or force him to condemn these Persons and in so good Company we shall the less value hard Censures For were they thrust out of their Diocesses What great difference is here Are not our Livelihoods and Cures taken from us Are not our Bishops Deprived of their Profits and the exercise of their Jurisdictions This we suffer and do not so much as compare the Power then and now whether lawful or unlawful If the Civil Authority wrongfully spoil us of our Goods and restrain our Persons we know no Resistance any more then those good Men did But did they forbear to exercise their Office and Ministry where they had opp●tunity No such thing Was there no Schism upon this account It is plain That the Orthodox refused to Communicate with the Bishops put over them the whole Christian World was concerned on one side or other in the Case of Athanasius at Constantinople the People were so troublesome that the Emperor was forced to recal Paulus though he was after again Banished and upon the Expulsion of Eustathius from Antioch the suspected Bishops set over them were disgusted by many and Theodoret says That plurimi Studiosi pietatis cùm Sacerdotes tùm Plebs desertis Ecclesiasticis caetibus privatim Conveniebant lib. 1. cap. 21. And this they continued to do though all the Churches were taken away from the Adherents to Eustathius in order to force them to Communion with those put in his place as may appear from that request of Athanasius to the Emperor for one Church to be granted to the Orthodox at Antioch when he desired the like of Athanasius for the Arrians at Alexandria Theod. lib. 2. cap. 12. I think a Man so Skilful in Antiquity might have made choise of some more lucky instance but that he may not be at too much trouble if he can have a little Patience it shall not be long ere I furnish him Next in order to an Answer to his Second Question he supposeth the Clergy-man not bound by the Deprivation but then saith he What is this to a Separation For is he so obliged that rather then not officiate he may and ought to break of from Communion with the Church If you will make that supposal which in our particular Case is a great Truth you of all Men were most unfit to put these Questions For when you joyn with those who make this unjust Deprivation when you take our Churches our Flocks our Livelyhoods and suffer us not to exercise our Ministry where you have the Profit of it unless we will do it to the dissatisfaction of our Consciences Do you complain that we do not maintain Communion with you If we were in fault in this Case yet Modesty if any be left you and the ill Usage we have from your Party might make you hold your Peace I freely grant That we ought to continue in the Communion of the Church we are of as long as we can and that Separation is like a Divorce which is the last Extremity c. But then I say That we still are of the same Church we were of for the Schism goes along with the Cause and there it is you not we are the Schismaticks the Separation I grant to be Unhappy and Mischievous but let them look to that who made the Divorce by justifying unlawful Proceedings and setting up sinful Terms of Communion as I have already proved and therefore will say no more of it here And this is sufficient for an Answer to that Slander as if we proceeded upon the same Grounds with the Dissenters which is manifestly false only I am bold to tell him That they have now put a Plea into the Mouth of the Dissenters which will justifie their Separation from them and were it not that they cannot justifie their Separation from us your Perfidiousness and other ill Acts had given up the Cause to them When he thought he had lost my Second Argument with multitudes of Questions he attacks that which he calls the Third And he says I argue from the Subjection the People and Clergy owe to the Bishops and the Bishops owe to their Metropolitan and I grant That I do so and the Argument must be good unless he can Dispute away all the Government and Orders of the Christian Church But to this he returns with all imaginable Scorn Our Author that undertakes to give us an account of the