Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A33222
|
Several captious queries concerning the English Reformation first proposed by Dean Manby (an Irish convert) in Latin, and afterwards by T.W. in English, briefly and fully answered by Dr. Clagett.
|
Clagett, William, 1646-1688.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing C4399; ESTC R27257
|
28,726
|
51
|
What mean they by these words As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes c. But that Protestants are sworn to yield to the King all manner of Obedience both Civil and Religious Are they not obliged therefore according to the Oath to become Catholicks with a Catholick King Calvinists with a Calvinist King Arians with an Arian I say according to this Oath because the Kings Majesty is the only Supreme Governor under Christ as well in all Spiritual as Temporal Causes which words confess in the King a Spiritual as well as Civil Jurisdiction But whence does his Spiritual Jurisdiction appear without the Power of the Keys Answ You have been as often told what we mean by these words As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes as you have asked the Question but you would never take notice of the Answer nor make any exception to it and yet 't is an even wager that the next set of Queries which you intend to astonish us with brings this over again But once more you are desired to take notice of the meaning of our Church where 't is most plainly expressed viz. in Artic. 37. Title Of Civil Magistrates The Kings Majesty hath the chief Power in the Realm of England and other his Dominions unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of the Realm whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all Causes doth appertain and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government by which Titles we understand the Minds of some standerous folks to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testisie but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God himself that is that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and Evil Doers You see then our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme Governor in all Causes and over all Persons Ecclesiastical viz. that no Quality in the Church nor cause of the Church exempts a Subject from the Secular Laws and the Sword of Justice which may be very true as it undoubtedly is and yet all manner of Obedience in Religious Matters shall not presently become due to the King. For when Sovereigns require their Subjects to do things contrary to true Religion if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws which goes with us under the name of Passive Obedience it saves at once their acknowledgment of the Sovereigns Supremacy over them and Gods Supremacy over All. So that we are not obliged by our Oath to become Calvinists with a Calvinist King nor Arians with an Arian King nor Roman Catholicks with such a King nor in a word to be of the Kings Religion but to submit to his Authority let his Religion be what it will. In short let the Persons or the Causes be what they will out Church acknowledgeth the King to be Supreme Governor in his Dominions he only having the Civil Sword. But now as for you that make the Pope the Head of the Catholick Church and Union to him necessary to your being a Member of it who laugh at us for that dependence which our Ecclesiasticks have upon the King and depend in effect for all the benefits of Christianity upon your Ecclesiastical Union to the Pope which is something more than the Article recognizes of our Sovereigns you I say would do well to tell us how you can avoid being Arians with a Pope Liberius or Monothelites with a Pope Honorius or No Image-Worshippers with a Pope Gregory I. or Image-Worshippers with a Pope Adrian I. Sect. 32 Quer. You will say the King is to be Obeyed so far as we may by the Laws of God and the Kingdom Be it so then it follows that the King is not Supreme Governor under Christ but the Laws of God and the Kingdom Answ To this silly Stuff I oppose a little plain Sense That the Laws of the Kingdom are not to be opposed to the Supremacy of the King whose Laws they are That the King is our Supreme Governor under God but that we know of no Supreme Governor that is to be Obeyed absolutely without any Limitation whatsoever but God himself Sect. 33 Quer. What if Controversies rise between the King and his Subjects about the True Sense of Scripture Who shall be Judge The Private Spirit or not Hence If am not mistaken came the Rise of our late Civil Wars Answ I dare say you are the first that ever found out the want of a Judge betwixt King and People to be the Rise of the late Civil Wars 'T is pity the Observation should be lost for 't is a notable one and would mend the History of those Times not a little But pray who should that Judge be to determine the True Sense of Scripture between the King and his Subjects The Pope without doubt And so we are gotten into the old Circle again For if they must take the Judgement of the Pope at a venture then any Man may be agreed upon to be the Judge and he will serve the turn as well as the Pope But if God has made the Pope Judge that indeed is another case But how shall we know it By the Scripture Who then must be Judge of the True Sense of Scripture with reference to the Question The Pope says 't is a plain case on his side But it may be neither the King says it nor his Subjects Who therefore must be the Judge between the King and the Pope or between his Subjects and the Pope Not the private Spirit for the World for thence come Wars So that the Pope must be Judge because the Scripture says so and the Scripture says so because the Pope must Judge Now if instead of Pope you put in Council you will find the Circle go as round with one as t'other Nor do I see how you can avoid it but by running out into the long line of a Judge upon a Judge without end which I gave you some warning of before To Conclude When you have tired yourselves with these frivolous Expedients for the Ending of Controversies do what you can you will find it best to come to that which you disgrace under the Name of a Private Spirit the Good use whereof is that which must do the business Men must be Honest and hearken to Instruction and love Truth and remember that the Day of Judgment is coming This you cannot deny to be the Duty of All. And if you and every Body else could be brought to it then about plain Things there would be no Controversie at all and those about Points that are indeed difficult might do
Body think himself Infallible when once they depended upon his Holiness no longer When you design a witty Query take care whilst you live that there be some Sence and a little Truth at the bottom and in one Word that it be not like this which is a meer Bubble and turns to nothing Sect. 27 Quer. By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Catharine His own or a Foreign If by his own why may not other Kings also put away their Wives at their pleasure If Mary his Daughter by Queen Catharine was Legimate Heiress of the Kingdom then Elizabeth was not because it was not lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once Answ I doubt not but Queen Catharine was a Vertuous Wife but under favour since you will needs be medling with these Matters you should have put your Question either with more honesty or with more skill and instead of asking By whose Authority he divorced his Virtuous Wife you should have asked by what Authority he divorced his Brothers Wife For there lay the point and here I must tell you that after that Question whether the Pope had Power to dispense with that Marriage had been debated and determined in the Negative by the most famous Universities of Europe for you an unskilful Querist to ask by what Authority the King did as he did shews that you have spent your time to little purpose and are to be admonished to bestow it better for the future As for your other difficulty how Mary and Elizabeth could be both Legitimate I Answer that the Legitimacy of Elizabeth is plain supposing the Marriage of Queen Catharine to King Henry to be void but yet Mary the Child of that Marriage was not Illegitimate because the Marriage was made without Fraud But if one or other of them must necessarily be Illegitimate pray look you to the consequence who I suppose apprehend some great Matter to depend upon this Dispute For my own part these kind of Queries seem to be very impertinent for if Queen Mary was Illegitimate our Religion is not one jot the truer for it and if she was Legitimate neither is it the worse But there is a time to answer Questions that are none of the wisest Sect. 28 Quer. If that Religion be Sacred that is established by Law why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholick Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament Answ It seems then that what you call the Catholick Religion may be destroyed And yet these Queries are publish'd with Allowance Your Superiors surely can instruct you that to destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing and to destroy the Religion is another But they saw that if you had expressed the former the Query had looked so ridiculously that it had been a shame to let it go For all the Sacredness that Human Law can give to a Religion is a legal Sacredness and no more or if you please a legal Establishment And so this is the English of your Quaere If that Religion has a legal Establishment that 's established by Law why did the Queen destroy the legal Establishment of the Catholick Religion which was of estalibshed by so many Laws In my opinion it had been much better to Query thus like a plain man If the Catholick Religion was established by so many Laws why did Queen Elizabeth unestablish it by Law again And now having brought your Query to this Form I Answer that yours is not the Catholick Religion and it was pity that it should have that Sacredness which the Law gave it because it had no Sacredness of its own to deserve it and therefore it was a very good Law that took away the other Sacredness from it If you think this Answer not to be full enough you may pick out somerhing more in Answ to Sect. 20. whither I refer you Sect. 29 Quer. Queen Elizabeth expelled fourteen Catholick Bishops from their Sees for refusing the Oath of Supremacy But how could they swear her to be Head or Supreme Governor of the Church when they could not swear she was Head of this Kingdom Answ I think truly Fourteen Bishops were deprived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and that for not taking the Oath of Supremacy But take this along with you too that most of these Bishops if not All had taken the very same Oath before and some of 'em assisted at the framing of it So that one would think that their refusing to take the same Oath under Elizabeth was as much as to deny her to be Head of the Kingdom as you say which all modest Men must grant to have been a sufficient cause for their Deprivation But yet as tender as Princes are of their Titles it is to be remembred to her immortal Credit that she did not serve them as her Predecessor did Cranmer Latimer Ridley and Hooper but used them in all other respects with great gentleness What their true reasons were for refusing the Oath of Supremacy I shall not go about to Divine But as for you who will needs have it to be this in part at least that they could not swear she was Head of the Kingdom Thus far you are to be commended that you have chosen a more modest expression of your Malice than that impudent Writer did who told us the other day that she was a known Bastard But in the Calumny I perceive you are both agreed And heark ye Gentlemen I do in behalf of the dead Queen and of that Age which universally acknowledge her Title defie you both to make good your teproach and fix the Title of Calumniators upon you both if you neither can justifie it nor will publickly retract it Sect. 30 Quer. Did not Cranmer and his Reforming Associates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary Answ Or rather did not you steal this Query from the Dissenters Sure I am that hitherto it has been theirs saving only the rudeness of the expression which you have added to it Go to them and they can furnish you with an abundant Answer to this terrible Objection But if something must be said here our Liturgy if it must be stolen looks as if it were stolen not out of your Roman but the Old Gallican Missal which once was ours and therefore it was not stolen but now every Body has his own again But if we had taken your Roman Missal Ritual and Breviary only and compiled our Liturgy out of them yet we took nothing of your peculiar Goods from them but only what every part of the Catholick Church has as much right to as your selves and as for that which is peculiarly and properly your own there we have left it entirely to you and much good may it do you Sect. 31 Quer. Are not Protestants bound by their Dath de Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal