Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A29881
|
Some reflections on a late pamphlet entituled, A vindication of Their Majesties authority to fill the sees of the deprived bishops, &c in a letter from the city to a friend in the country.
|
Browne, Thomas, 1654?-1741.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing B5179; ESTC R2122
|
15,967
|
23
|
Sense He tells us That in a late Letter said to be sent to Dr. B and now printed on the Back side of a scandalous Rhiming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution he is threatned in case he should accept the Bishoprick with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Usurpers Gregory and George of Cappadocia who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there The Answer to this takes up the rest of his Book in which he takes a great deal of Pains perhaps to little purpose and makes many Flourishes pretending to be very accurate like a Man of Sense in distinguishing and assigning the Difference between the Case of Athanasius and that of our deprived Bishops in which he spends 13 or 14 Pages But all that he says may be answer'd in a very few Words And granting him if it will do him any good because I do not love to wrangle where there is no need what he says in his three first Paragraphs Pag. 18 19 20 21. where he pretends so clearly and accurately to state the Case touching the Incorporation of the Church into the State in a Christian Nation and Government and the Supremacy of the Sovereign Power in all Ecclesiastical Causes and the Extent of that Supremacy Granting him I say what he says in this excepting only in his Instance of deposing Bishops who were never anciently deposed in any Regular Orthodox Christian State without consulting a Synod of Bishops unless in Cases of capital Crimes for which the criminal Bishop has forfeited his Estate and Life and the Sovereign Power may proceed to a Decollation which is a Deposition with a Witness and that without consulting a Synod or Council I shall only take notice of his Distinction in his fourth Paragraph Pag. 21. We must distinguish says he between an Ecclesiastical and Canonical Deposition of a Bishop for Heresy or other Ecclesiastical Crimes and a State Deprivation The first he says concerns the Character and Ecclesiastical Communion it is the Censure of the Church which concerns him as a Bishop and when it is ratified and confirmed not only by a Provincial or National Synod but by a General Council such a deposed Bishop is no longer a Bishop of the Catholick Church and no Christian must communicate with him as a Bishop But a State Deprivation does not concern the Character such a Man may be a Bishop of the Catholick Church still if he do not fâ—ll under Church Censures for Heresy or other Crimes but it only concerns the Exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Diocese within the Dominions of that State or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it Under the first Branch of this Distinction our Author ranks the Case of St. Athanasius and the Case of our deprived Bishâ—ps under the second I am sorry that our Author who it seems has used himself to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons should be so grosly out in his History For 't is notoriâ—â—s that Athanasius was not condemn'd or depos'd for Heresy â—r other Ecclesiastical Crimes the Charge against him was not of that Nature But the Arian Faction being inveterate Haters of Athanasius for his resolute and constant adhering to the Catholick and Orthodox Faith and vehemently and effectually opposing and baffling their Heteredox and Pernitious Opinions and Heretical Doctrines and Positions and particularly at the Council of Nice where he gave a mighty Blow to the growing Heresy and wounded even to Death their great Goliah Arius which was not forgot when he was advanc'd to the Episcopal Throne contriv'd his Ruin and to that end they accuse him to the Emperor who they knew was sensible that Athanasius was Orthodox and therefore that 't was in vain to charge him with Heresy for being a turbulent mutinous factious Man and a Disturber of the Peace and other Immoralities The Emperor out of a just Veneration and Deference for his Character the Crimes laid to his Charge not being Capital which if they had there would have been another sort of Procedure against him witness the Emperor's Directions to * Vid. Life of St. Athanasius in Cave's Lives of the Fathers Vol. 2. p. 77. Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch to proceed against him upon a Charge of Murther who accordingly gave him Notice to provide for his Tryal but before the Day came the Emperor was satisfied that the Person whom he was accus'd by the Arians to have murther'd was alive conven'd a Synod to which he referr'd the Examination of Athanasius's Case in which his implacable Enemies whose Malice and Revenge was whetted and heightned to the highest degree being both a Vid Proceedings in the Synod at Tyre Id. p. 87. his Accusers and Judges they soon pronounc'd him guilty of the Crimes which he was most b The Proceedings against Athanasius appear before the Câ—uncil of Sardâ—ca to be nothing but a Train of Malice and Villany Id. p. 115. unjustly charged with and so depos'd him not from the Episcâ—pal Character but Jurisdiction and the Revenues of his See Upon which the Emperor banish'd him So that such a Block-head as I am cannot whatever this Gentleman with his Linceus Eâ—es who has used himself so much to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons can so easily perceive such a vast Difference between these two Cases Were our deprived Bishops charged with or condemn'd for Heresy So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Character So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops accus'd of and depriv'd for an Offence against the State So was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Revenues of their Sees So was St. Athanasius Are our deprived Bishops thrust out and succeeded by Ecclesiastical Schismatical c Such the Sardican Council esteem'd the Anti Bishops that were possâ—ss'd of St. Athanasius's See at Alexandria Gregory is branded with this Mark of Infamy and Detestation p. 116. but especially in passing Sentence against Gregory the Arrian Intâ—â—dâ—r at Alexandria they shew'd a particular Detestation pronouncing him not only to have been no Bishop but not worthy the Name of a Christian nulling all Ordinations made by him and forbidding any to bear that Character that had receiv'd Orders from him George the Cappadocian Monster as Nazienzen calls him who succeeded Gregory was disown'd and discountenanc'd by all the Orthodox Suffragan Bishops and Clergy belonging to the Metropolitical See of Alexandria was install'd by a military Guard being indeed a Man of Blood had a bloody Entrance a bloody Continuance and a bloody Exit Id. p. 142 143. and p. 174 175. Intruders and Usurpers So was St. Athanasius So that it does not appear that there is so vast a Difference between these two Cases i. e. in respect of the Matter and Nature of the Deposition or Deprivation notwithstanding our Author 's accurate Distinction Indeed there is this Difference which he may call a
to give the Church her due as well as Cesar his by making good this following Principle or Hypothesis viz. That the Power of inflicting Censures upon Offenders in Ibid. sect 3. a Christian Church is a Fundamental Right resulting from the Constitution of the Church as a Society by Jesus Christ and that the Seat of this Power is in those Officers of the Church who have derived their Power originally from the Founder of this Society and act by virtue of the Laws of it In pursuance and for the better Explanation of which Principle he asserts and endeavours to demonstrate First That the Church is a peculiar Society in its own Nature Ibid. p. 423. sect 10. distinct from the Common-wealth and that by reason of its Divine Institution distinct Officers different Rights and Ends and peculiar Offences Secondly That the Power of the Church over its Members in Ibid. p. 431. sect 17. case of Offences doth not arise meerly from Confederation and Consent though it doth suppose it Which Power says he may be consider'd two ways either First as it implies the Right in some of inflicting Censures as Excommunication Suspension Deposition or Deprivation of Ecclesiastical * For the Laity to suspend or depose the Clergy is as preposterous as for the Sheep to disciplin the Shepherd Even Nature teaches us that if the Shepherd offends he must be censur'd by his Fellow Shepherds and not by the Sheep Even King James himself as great a Violator of Liberty and Property and the Privileges of Society as he was vogu'd to be did not think it proper to refer the Censure i. e. the Suspension or Deprivation of Ecclesiasticks to the Civil Magistrate or the Representatives of the People but left it to Ecclesiastical Commissioners consisting of Bishops c. who were fittest to censure their Brethren They say It is a Diamond that must cut a Diamond Officers when there is just cause for it Which are Acts of the Church as such and peculiarly relating to Church-Power and not Acts of the State For the Exercise and Administration of this Power belongs not to the Body of the Society consider'd complexly but to the special Officers and Governors of the Church who like the Eyes to the Body are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Overseers of it none else being capable of exercising this Power of the Church as such but they on whom it is settled by the Founder of the Church it self Or Secondly as it implies in others the Duty of submitting to Censures inflicted So that the Right of inflicting Censures Pag. 437. sect 19 doth not result meerly ex confederatâ discipliná the Power being settled upon the Church by Divine Institution Thirdly That this Power of the Church doth extend to the Exclusion of Offenders from the Privileges of it Fourthly That the Fundamental Rights of the Church do not Ibid. p 423. and 446. escheat to the Common-wealth upon its being united or incorporated into a Christian State Which Union or Incorporation he says Pag. 446. is only accidental as to the Constitution of a Church but the Power remains formally in the Church Which Power he says Pag. 422. sect 9. is not only a kind of Widows Estate which belonged to it only during its Separation from the Civil Power but the Church is absolutely infeâ—ffed of it as its perpetual Right belonging to it in all Conditions whatsoever it should be in as appears by the Tenure of it and the Grounds on which it is conveyed which being perpetual and universal it from thence appears that no Accession to the Church can invalidate its former Title And then that Reverend Author concludes with this remarkable Passage That though the Magistrate hath the main Pag. 447. Care of ordering Things in the Church that is in respect of the Right of Supreme Management of this Power in an external Pag. 446. way of which he gives four particular Instances yet the Magistrate's Power in the Church being cumulative and not privative the Church and her Officers retain the Fundamental Right of inflicting Censures on Offenders What has been already said is enough to answer what our Author does further urge Pag. 27. touching the Authority which the Jewish Kings exercised over their High Priests concerning whom 't is very probable and nothing appears to the contrary that they consulted the Sanhedrim and particularly Solomon's deposing Abiathar and placing Zadock in his stead Let it be consider'd what Abiathar's Crime was which as appears by the Words he recites was no less than High Treason in following Adonijah to make him King for which Solomon instead of taking away his Place might have taken off his Head he having forfeited both his Estate and Life As to what he says Pag. 27. about the changing the High-Priest every Year though by the Institution of God it was for Life when Judea was under the Government of the Romans I conceive is nothing to the purpose the Jewish Polity and Government being dissolv'd and that according to the Will of God in pursuance of the ancient Prediction Gen 49. 10. and therefore no wonder that our Saviour was not concern'd at it nor found fault with their Change either of their High-Priests or Kings And as impertinent is his Instance Pag 28. of the Grand Signior's making and unmaking the Patriarch of Constantinople at pleasure to which he may add Oliver's deposing of Bishops and depriving the Divines of the Church of England if he pleases and so joyn a Mahometan and an Usurper notwithstanding what Dr. Sherlock says who he tells us in his Case of Allegiance took Notice of this as matter of Fact without enquiring into the Reasons whose Authority is of as little Esteem with me as his own Principles are with himself There remains but one Thing more which I shall take notice of and that is what our Author says Pag. 29. The Truth is says he the same Objections which are now made against the Promotion of these new Bishops are equally strong and as eagerly urg'd at this Day by the Papists against our first Reformers For they were promoted to Bishopricks while the former Popish Bishops were living and not canonically deposed by any Act of the Church but only by the Authority of the State To this I answer That the Popish Bishops in the Beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth to which I presume he refers Vid. Fox Book of Martyrs Vol. 3. were summon'd by the Queen to meet in an Assembly of Divines conven'd at Westminster to dispute and debate about Matters of Religion in order to the Settlement of the Church But the Popish Bishops were contumacious and mutinous in the Assembly and Disturbers of the Peace and would not pay Obedience to the Queens Orders and Directions about the Method of the said Disputation and Debate So that the Assembly was forc'd to break up without prosecuting or promoting the pious Ends for which they met For which contumacy and Disobedience they fell under the Queens Displeasure and were committed to Prison but were not depos'd or depriv'd of their Bishopricks by any Act of the State Sometime after a Parliament was call'd and Matters of Religion and the Government of the Church settled and the Romish Worship abolished But the Popish Bishops would not qualifie themselves to hold their Bishopricks but utterly refus'd to subscribe to or comply with the Constitution of the Church of England as by Law established Which is far wide from the Case of our deyrived Bishops What Contumacy or mutinous Behaviour or Disobedience were they guilty of Were they not sufficiently qualified to hold their Bishopricks according to the Constitution of the Church of England Were they Oppugners of the Doctrine Discipline or Government of it On the contrary Have they not been and are they not still zealous and constant Assertors and Maintainers of it For which they suffer and for which in time they will have their Reward if not in this World yet in that to come when their Adversaries without Repentance will receive the Reward of their Apostacy Our Author concludes with desiring his Friend to persuade Dr. B to repent and puclickly to own his Mistake Perhaps the Doctor has prevented him and has repented another way and does not think fit now to repent of his Repentance which 't is only to be wish'd he would make as publick as his Error which may not be too late to do himself good being the only Recompence he can now make Thus Sir begging your Pardon for the Trouble of this Paper which may serve a little to divert you in the Country instead of better Entertainment I rest SIR Your humble Servant Lond. June 10. 1691. FINIS