Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A43271
|
A treatise concerning schism and schismaticks wherein the chief grounds & principles of a late separation from the Church of England, are considered and answered / by Henry Hellier ...
|
Hellier, Henry, 1662?-1697.
|
1697
(1697)
|
Wing H1381; ESTC R20518
|
24,128
|
62
|
contending with one another For the Contention of Civil Governors considered only as such i. e. about their own Rights and Titles will not constitute a Schism nor give a just occasion for a Separation although some have lately as it seems taken occasion to make a Schism on the account thereof whose Principles are partly considered in that which went before and will be farther in that which follows according as they shall be found under their proper Heads 1. It may be committed by Civil Governors invading the Power and Authority of the Ecclesiastical For although it be true that every one of the Clergy is subject to the Civil Governors I mean to that one or more Persons in whom the Supreme Power is lodged Yet there are some parts of their Office which no King or Prince can assume to himself as The Power of the Keys the Power of Ordination of administring the Sacraments of officiating as Priests in the Publick Worship of God and other such like which if they undertake without being lawfully called thereunto of God they are guilty among other sins of the sin of Schism and we may say unto them as the Priests did to Vzziah when he went to burn Incense upon the Altar It appertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn Incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn incense 2 Cor. 26.18 II. There is a Schism made when Ecclesiastical Governors deny the Authority of the Supreme Civil Powers for they have the care of the Church also being Custodes utriusque Tabulae and appointed to be nursing Fathers of the Church Our Obligation to every Human Law is derived from the Divine and seeing Religion is the support of all Government and the foundation of all Justice * Quod in Religionem Divinam committitur in omnium fertur injuriam l. 4. â— de Hereticis and Peace it cannot but belong to their care They therefore that shall deny them that Power which is annexed to their Imperial Dignity To reform Abuses in the Worship of God and in the Clergy to constitute Bishops and Pastors on occasion to depose or deprive them to call together and to preside in Councils to dispense with their Canons to rescind or alter them as they see a just occasion All which things Christian Kings have done and that upon good grounds If these are indeed the Powers of the Sovereign as it may be proved †You may see all this very well proved in Grotius de imperio Summarum Potestatum circa Sacra And good part of it is owned by the Author of Christian Communion p. 26 27.29 and elsewhere they are then they who deny them these Powers and assume the same to themselves are Schismaticks Such are therefore the Papists who by virtue of their Ordination pretend to be gotten out of the power of Princes and independent on them yea to be above them and to govern them in temporalibus in ordine ad spirituale bonum ‖ Bellarminus de Rom. Pont lib. 5. cap. 6. Papa potest mutare regna uni auferre atque alteri conferre tanquam summus Princeps spiritualis si id necessarium sit ad animarum salutem ibid. by which Claim they shew the unreasonableness of all the rest in effect confessing that to the right management of the Spiritual there is a necessity of an over-ruling Temporal Power which they would therefore get unto themselves III. Ecclesiastical Governors become Schismaticks by contending for Power among themselves As for Example When one Bishop lays claim to the Diocese of another setting up himself or suffering others to set him up an Anti-Bishop erecting Altar against Altar according to the ancient Phrase And in some Elections indeed it hath been difficult to know who was the Anti Bishop and the Emperor upon such an occasion hath caused †The Case of Bonifacius and Enâ—â—lius Baron Ann. 419. §. 15. both of the Contenders to depart out of the City yea after having called a Synod * Henricus Secundus in italiam cum magno exercitu veniens habitâ Synedo cum Benedictum nonum Sylvestrum tertium Gregorium sextum tanquam tria teterrima menstra abdicare se inagistratu coegisset Syndegerum Bambergensem-Episcopum cui Clementi secundo appellatio fuit Pontificem creat Platina de vitis Pontif. 155. Pont. Clemens Secundus Syndegerus antea vocatus Bambergensis Episcopus in Synodo Pontifex creatur annuente Henrico Secundo vel impoâ—ante coâ—â—nâ—e potius â—â—â—m 156. Pont. he hath deposed at one time three that have pretended a Right to the Papacy and created a fourth instead of them to preserve the Peace of the Church But there is not always the same difficulty to know who is the true Bishop As for instance If a Bishop resigns or gives up his Diocese and after the vacancy thereof another be put in his room he cannot afterwards come back and lay claim to a Diocese so given up any more than to one that he never presided over at all And therefore in that case it is plain enough that he is the Schismatick or the Anti-Bishop that comes to put in any such claim And a Bishop is under the same Circumstances who is put out of his Diocese by sufficient Authority and is under the same guilt of Schism if he comes to make a second claim to the same Diocese For it is very clear that if he be deprived by a sufficient Power he is in the same condition as if he never had been their Bishop Such an one therefore who has been so deprived if he shall return and say to the People I am your true Pastor still you ought to obey not this Man that hath succeeded but me He is justly to be esteemed a Schismatick and so are consequently all they that do defend him and adhere to him I know there have been two things urged and are chiefly insisted upon in defense of a Separation of this nature 1. * This is the Summ of what is objected in the first Part of Christian Communion That Bishops though deprived to Temporalities are not divested of their Spiritual Power that it is their Duty express'd by their Titles of Watchmen Messengers Shepherds c. in holy Scripture to make use of that their Power in order to the Extirpation of Immoralities which according to the Opinion of those who hold the present King to be only King de facto and the other to be King de jure whom they suppose to be the major part must necessarily as they say follow by praying for the King de facto the unjust Possessor as they understand it against the King de jure the rightful King in the publick Prayers especially on the more solemn days of Fasting Thanksgiving c. 2. They having * Christian Communion pag. 8. professedly waved the Question about the King's Title do urge that the Deprivation of Temporalities merely by a
his Judgment And this would be such another Immorality as the Authors of these late Books of Schism talk of in paying Allegiance to one whom Men might mistake to be their King But they wave the question about the King's Title as I said before and insist on the invalidity of a Lay-deprivation the next thing to be considered by way of answer to the second Objection This Deprivation does not take away the Power conferr'd on them in Ordination but only of having such and such Dioceses or parts of the Kingdom to officiate in which why the Supreme Civil Power whether lodged in one or more Men should not be sufficient to do is altogether unintelligible The distribution or division of a Country into so many Dioceses is not Jure Divino but depends on the discretion and determination of the chief Governors of the Church i. e. in a Christian Country of the Supreme Legislative Power to the Preservation whereof it is necessary to have them well marked out and fixed and to the well-being of the Republick Bishops are Subjects and Kings may demand Allegiance of them and in case of refusal if they have the whole Legislative Power they may forbid them living in any part of their Dominions Such Power is necessarily annexed to or rather implied in the Imperial Dignity from which our blessed Saviour by his Gospel detracted nothing nor designed to uphold his Disciples or Apostles against it for his Kingdom was not of this World And though the Church did subsist at first without the assistance of Heathen Emperors yet Kings when they embraced the true Faith became Members of the Church as well as any other Believers and are therefore as much obliged to act according to the Station wherein they are placed As did the Jewish Kings notwithstanding that the Church in Egypt and Babylon did subsist without them and as did the first and best of Christian Emperors And among the rest of those Powers that of depriving Bishops hath been one And this Power hath been exercised here among us with the Approbation of the Church of England and consonantly to the Articles Homilies and Canons thereof And among the Reasons of Deprivation the not acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes was none of the least which yet is not so much as to deny his Civil Authority also which is the present * See the Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees c. Case Indeed if we consider the Supreme Power only as having so much Authority as is absolutely necessary to preserve the Civil Government and to secure the outward Peace of the Kingdom we must own that it can judge also what shall be reasonable Security of any Subjects being true to the Government and that Ecclesiastical Persons as well as others for want of such Security given may be deprived of places of trust or places where they may have considerable influence on the People least they should pervert them to disaffection Cujus rei facilis est probatio c. Grotius De Imperio Summar Tot. circa Sacra Cap. 10. § 33. Hence follows a Power of removing Bishops from their Sees upon such occasions which that it belongs to the Sovereign Grotius thinks is a very easy matter to prove For he that hath power to banish a Man out of all parts of the Country or Kingdom hath by * Hoc enim illi inest aâ— cujus totum est in Potestate ejus in Potestate pars non esse non potest Idem ibid. Consequence a Power of forbidding him to exercise there the Episcopal Office This he can do as the same Grotius observes not only by way of Punishment but also by way of Caution if he finds the People tumultuous on the account of any Pastor though without the Pastor's fault And such Deprivation may be made not only without but even against the Consent of a Synod of whom Kings are so far from being obliged to ask the question whether they shall have their Subjects Allegiance or no that they are rather obliged especially here in England not to ask or enquire of them because it is a Violation of of the Laws of the Land and an injury done to the proper Judges of Allegiance And although in Cases of Heresy or Schism when there are matters of difficulty to be decided it is very fit and proper and agreeable to the most ordinary and usual practice of the Church to call Synods Yet even in those Cases they are to be convened only at the Sovereign's * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Proaem lib. 5. Doce quis Imperator hane Synodum jusseâ—â—… Congregari Hieron Apolog. adv Ruâ—â—iâ—â—â— lib. 2. appointment and when they are come together they are all of them under the same Circumstances of Obedience to the Civil Power as they were singly before obliged to the same Duties and liable to the same Penalties upon refusal of them How then can this be a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognizance or how can it belong to them to determine it Examples of Emperors deposing Bishops without as well as with a Synod are many and that even in the Case of Heresy which doth most properly belong to the determination of a Synod and which they are best able to judge of not but that in plain Cases or Cases before sufficiently declared Heresy this may be done without them even as Kings in the Old-Testament brake down the Images destroyed the high Places and put down the Idolatrous Priests by their own Authority which Kings under the New-Testament having the entire Legislative Power do not come short of Thus Christian Emperors have deposed Hereticks and their Power to do so seems anciently to have been generally acknowledged on all hands All Parties seem to have been sensible thereof Sometimes the Emperor threatned to depose them and sometimes put it in Execution without any ones gain-saying To him Bishops brought their a Theodorit lib. 5. c. 23. Complaints against such other Bishops as they desired to have deposed Him they sometimes b Leo. 1. Ep. 99. praised for using this Power His Power they c Flavianus in Theodor. loco citato acknowledged though against themselves In his Sentence though sometimes unjust they acquiesced d Socrat. lib. 2. c. 12. And this is more than to depose them on the account of State-Crimes or for default of Allegiance Lastly As this is agreeable to Antient Practise so it is the constant and concurrent Sense of all the old Reformers and till of late it hath been denyed I think by none but Papists and some of the worst and maddest of Enthusiasts And thus Men may become guilty of Schism by contending for Power Whereby we may also discern how Persons in other Relations according as they happen to be concerned in some of these Circumstances may become guilty of the same fault 2. They may be Schismaticks by misimploying their Power and so cutting themselves off