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 |
|
A33926
|
The legality of the court held by His Majesties ecclesiastical commissioners defended their proceedings no argument against the taking off penal laws & tests.
|
Care, Henry, 1646-1688.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing C527; ESTC R23058
|
12,362
|
42
|
present Commissioners for what they have done against the Bishop of London and Magdalen Colledge they do condemn themselves for exercising the greatest Severities against the Puritans contrary as now they themselves will have it unto all Law For from what has been already said it is apparent That the same Power His Majesty's Predeceffors exercis'd belongs unto His Majesty and that gives Strength to each Horn of the Dilemma In a word then our Church-men must confess they have been guilty of a very great errour in turning the Royal Thunder against the Old Puritans in Q. Elizabeths and K. James the First 's days Or that they acted very Righteously in what they have done against them If the Former why do they not publish so much to the World Why do they not confess that their Forefathers have sinned and gone astray and that the Puritans were most Unjustly persecuted by their beloved Mother If the Latter if the Church of England in those days did but what was Just seeing many Hundred of the Puritans were spoiled of their Benefices by the Royal Power the KING may as Righteously proceed on the same bottom Fourthly The Fourth thing to be done is this viz. That His MAJESTY may exercise His Prerogative in Matters Ecclesiastical in a more ample manner than yet He has done The Author of the Letter affirms That the Power of making Canons for the Government of the Church was no otherwise in the CROWN than the Power of making Temporal Laws But the mistake in this place is as great as some others he is faln into about Appeals and Investitures the first of which notwithstanding what he saith to the contrary is to the KING without a Parliament and decided by his Delegates or Commissioners of Review the Last by the KING solely who by the delivery of the Staff and Ring did usually invest as our Histories abundantly confirm In like manner touching Laws about Rites and Ceremonies it lies in the KING's Power without a Parliament to make ' em So saith Dr. Zouch and Dr. Cosin and there is an Act of Parliament Rex possit novas Leges condere circa ceremonias ritus cum confilio Metropolitani vel Commissariorum in Causis Ecclesiasticis Zouch Descrip Jur. Eccles Par. 1. Sect. 3. Cos T. 6. expresly recognizing this Power to be in the KING the Words of which are If there shall happen any Contempt or Irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church the Queen's Majesty with the Advice of Her Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical or Metropolitan may Ordain and Institute such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the Advancement of GOD's Glory the Edifying of His Church and due Reverence of Christ's Holy Mysteries and Sacraments 1 Eliz. c. 2. And as the KING with His Ecclesiastical Commissioners may make New Laws about Ceremonies so without a Parliament He may make Orders or Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and deprive the Disobedient Thus much is affirm'd by those Protestant Divines who have Written in Defence of the KING's Supremacy particularly by Dr. Harris in Answer to Becanus the Jesuit where he is express in assuring us That the Right and Power by Regal Authority to make Church-Laws as that GOD should not be Blasphemed that GOD should be pacified in a Fast and Honoured in a Festival-day and all such as we read to have been made in the Code Authenticks and Capitulars by Constantine Theodosius Justinian and Carolus Magnus belongs to our Kings Moreover to Delegate such as should judge of the Laws so made Touching Persons To administer Justice to all of all sorts To deprive the High-Priest if he do deserve of his Priesthood These by Divine Right are the Rights of Regal Primacy viz. whereby the KING may 1. Be called the Supreme Head of the Church 2. Call Councils and preside in them 3. Make Laws Ecclesiastical 4. Constitute and Depose the High-Priest 5. Bind His Subjects by Oath to Keep the Laws by Him made To conclude Hereby may the Adversaries see that Regal Primacy is founded on the Scriptures and propagated from the First Religious Kings under the Old to the First Religious Emperors and Kings and so to Our Sovereign Lord K. JAMES under the New Testament and in that long distance of time nothing impaired or diminished So far Dr. Harris But before many Noble-men Archbishops and Bishops and the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer it was agreed That the KING without a Parliament may make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and that such a Deprivation Ex Officio without a Libel is good Besides it must be further observ'd That as it was held both by the Church-of England-Divines and Lawyers Noyes Reports Fol. 100. to be in the Power of the KING to make Constitutions for the Government of the Clergy and Deprive the Disobedient In like manner our KINGS acted accordingly and impos'd a Subscription to the Three following Articles I. That the KING's Majesty under GOD is the Only Supreme Governour of this Realm and of all other His Highnesses Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal and that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within His Majesties said Realms Dominions and Countries II. That the Book of common-Common-Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of GOD and that it may Lawfully be used and That He Himself will use the Form in the said Book prescribed in publick Prayer and none others III. That He alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden in London in the Year of our Lord God 1562. And that He acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained being in number Nine and Thirty besides the Ratification to be agreeable to the Word of GOD. To these three Articles all Persons received into the Ministry were bound to Subscribe in these Words I N. N. do willingly and ex animo Subscribe to these Three Articles above-mention'd and to all things that are contained in them This Subscription was imposed by the Regal Authority without a Parliament and many Hundreds who could not Subscribe were to the Ruin of them and their Families actually deprived And although this Subscription was exacted during the whole Reign of James I. and Charles I. yet until the Restauration of Charles the 2d it had never a Parliamentary Establishment Seeing then it 's past doubt That His MAJESTY's Supremacy is as ample as that of any of His Royal Predecessors what Q. Elizabeth and K. James the First have done that His present MAJESTY may now do and without a Parliament Command a Subscription to other New Articles and Deprive the Disobedient To instance in one
Article His MAJESTY may Command all the Clergy throughout this Kingdom to give in their Assent and Consent to every thing contained in His late Gracious Declaration of Indulgence and Deprive all that Disobey The power of Making new Articles and requiring Subscription His MAJESTIES Royal Predecessors have exercis'd and the same His MAJESTY may as well now do For the Matter of His Majesties Declaration has greater Countenance from Scripture than the Ceremonies can pretend to Ay the very Dispensing Power it self is no more than what many of our Clergy have for many Years together preached up for Sound Doctrin Thus you see how the KING may stretch His Prerogative to an higher Peg than yet he has done but Would there not then be a Brave Work among our Clergy who on such an occasion would be obliged to give in Assent and Consent to Liberty of Conscience or submit to a Deprivation I will say it again If His MAJESTY by His Regal Authority should impose a Subscription to His late Gracious Declaration He might most Righteously according to Church-of England-Law Deprive all that refuse to Obey I know that of late some have very confidently said That Deprivation is no Ecclesiastical Penalty for the Benefices of which they are Deprived is a Property and by Magna Charta no one can be disseized of it without a Tryal by a Jury of his Peers I will therefore in short give you the Resolution of our Judges in this matter and leave it to the impartial Reader to judge as he shall see cause Robert Cawdrey the Parson of the Rectory of North-Luffenham in the County of Rutland was by the Queens Ecclesiastical Commissioners deprived of his said Benefice for preaching against the Book of Common Prayer as also for that he refused to Celebrate Divine Service according to the said Book which said Sentence of Deprivation was given by the Bishop of London cum assensu A. B. C. D. c. collegarum suorum But whether the Deprivation was void in Law was solemnly and oft-times debated at Bar by Council and at the Bench by the Judges and after great and long deliberation and consultation had with the rest of the Judges the Case was in the Term of St. Hilary in the 37 Year of the Queen adjudged It was argued by Cawdrey's Counsel That the Deprivation was void for his Offence was against the First of Elizabeth and therefore ought to be punished according to the moderation of that Act which was not for the First Offence an ipso facto Deprivation but only the Loss of the profits of his Ecclesiastical Livings for One year and Six months Imprisonment But Deprivation was for a Second Offence committed after he had been judicially convicted of Record by Verdict of Twelve men or by Confusion or notorious evidence of the Fact. But although this was the method prescribed by the Statute of 1 Elizabeth yet because there was a Proviso in the said Act That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction should have full Power and Authority by vertue of that Act as well to enquire in their Visitation c. of all and every the things above-mentioned done and committed or perpetrated within the limits of their Iurisdiction and Authority and punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like Form as heretofore had been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws It was adjudged That the Ecclesiastical Judges might Deprive such Person Vicar c. as shall deprave or not observe the said Book as well for the First Offence as he might have done by the Censures of the Church and the Ecclesiastick Laws as if no form of punishment had been inflicted by that Act and are not bound to pursue the Form prescribed by the said Act which is to punish the Offender according to the Temporal Law. Thus the Judges have Resolv'd it That Deprivation is one sort of Ecclesiastical punishment and may be inflicted without an Observing the Form prescribed by the Temporal Laws Which is enough to silence the Clamours of those Church-men who now cry up Benefices to be such a Property that the punishment by Deprivation cannot be justly inflicted unless the process be in like Form as is used by the Temporal Laws Furthermore as His Majesty may exercise this ample Power and not recede the least from Church-of England Law even so his Doing it would not interfere with his Promise And if we may judge of things by the Sentiments our Church-men have heretofore had of Deprivations no hurt is hereby done unto their Church For when the old Puritans in Q. Elizabeths and James the First 's days and the Nonconformists in Charles the Second's Reign were Deprived these Deprivations were esteemed by the Governing Clergy no Damage but a great Advantage to the Church for by them She was delivered from all those that differ'd from Her in a Ceremony On the other hand therefore if His Majesty should impose Subscription to the Late Declaration though many be thereupon Deprived yet no more harm can be done the Church of England now than by the former Deprivations And if the Opinion of a very Learned and Moderate Church-man may be of any value the Difference between these and the Old Deprivations must be only this By the Old the most Pious Learned and Peaceable that scrupled the Ceremonies were turn'd out to the prejudice of Religion But by this New one none but the Debauched and Persecuting part of the Clergy to whom we may impute all our Late Miseries will be laid aside to the advancing the Nations Peace If then the KING may exercise his Prerogative and go so far as is here said without doing any hurt to the Church What ground is there for the present Noise His MAJESTY's Commissioners have indeed suspended One Bishop for his Disobedience towards whom they have exercised the greatest patience in not proceeding to a Deprivation And what have they done more than amove the Fellows of one Colledge for their insolent oppugning His Majesties Supremacy and a making 'em uncapable of compassing their bad designs Where then is the least Colour for the Jealousies these men endeavour to beget in the minds of His Majesties Subjects On the whole Whoever will consider how much according to Church-of England-Law the KING may do and yet notwithstanding the many Provocations some Hot-Church-men have given Him How little He has done I say whoever will carefully observe thus much will see cause enough to conclude That His Majesty's Clemency in the Exercise of His Supremacy bears proportion to His Greatness It 's amazing to observe how industriously some of our Clergy and their Creatures struggle how strenuously they labour to misrepresent His Majesty's most Glorious Designs how many Seditious Pamphlets they do daily emit and at what charges they are to propagate ' em