Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n authority_n king_n supreme_a 1,568 5 8.4275 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45426 Of schisme a defence of the Church of England against the exceptions of the Romanists / by H. Hammond ... Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660. 1653 (1653) Wing H562A; ESTC R40938 74,279 194

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

our Kings have the same authority in their Territories that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire § 19. The Reason of all supreme power of Kings And the reason of all this is clear not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes even those of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is as it were the common directer and ruler of the Church both in title and reality Demetrii Chomateni Resp ad Const Cab Jur. Graec Rom l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am King and Priest saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur and was not for this reprehended by the Pope see J. C. de lib. Eccl ap Goldast Monarch t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian of the Emperours in general after their receiving the faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affairs of the Church depended on them in Prooem l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatist● Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods and by Diotogenes in S●obaeus that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain and a Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Lawes this is one Sacrorum omniū potestas sub Regibus esto Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings and so in the practice Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat Ibid Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest High-priest and Tacitus makes it his observation Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse Annal l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the temple Hezekiah 2 Chron 29. 2 Kin 18. and Josiah 2 Kin 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar see G de Heimberg de usurp Pap so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Justinians i. e. the Emperours constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men and sacred offices And the Canons of Councels have mostly been set out and received their authority by the Emperours and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees Church as well as Civil as might be proved at large if here it were needful and cannot be reasonably so confined as not to belong to a matter of this nature but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted and expressely ordered Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces c and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil following the civil For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes where he please and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles and divisions of Provinces as Strabo saith Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Provinces are variously distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families but after another manner in relation to the cities where they set up their courts of Assizes and again it being most reasonable that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousnesse or depresses another so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature the other cease to be so and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be as the King and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church as in the State the Bishops and over them Metropolitanes and Primates having their judicatures and audiences which in all reason must be so disposed of as may be most for the convenience of administration that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility and to greatest advantage and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes the Conclusion is rational as well as evident just that it should be so as well as cleare that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he please and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith did at Canterbury the seate of his Kingdome Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25. conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure Had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this nation being in Constantines time under three Metropolitans the Arch-bishop of York and the Primacy belonging to that city as being then the Emperours seat where Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus died and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie the Arch-bishop of London and the Arch-bishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire either 1. there should be as there was an addition of two Provinces more Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury as also from Caerusk to S. David's as hath been said and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury § 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws c. resumable Now what is thus vested in the Regal power cannot be taken away by forein laws or by prescription be so alienated but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it sect 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred we finde delivered in the Councel of Carthage Can 71. according to Balsamon's division And though the Canon be not set down by Binius yet both he and Baronius acknowledge that what was contain'd in that particular Canon was the main occasion of the Synod And the Antiquity thereof is considerable those Canons being made say Baronius and Binius Anno 401. § 22. So likewise that a Law though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet
1. § 16. In this matter as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops that it was performed regularly according to the Antient Canons each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops hath been evidently set down out of the Records and vindicated by M r Mason in his Booke de Minist Anglic and may there be view'd at large if the Reader want satisfaction in that point § 17. The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time vindicated As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place it will receive answer by these degrees First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury falling neer upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to assigne a successor to that See then vacant Archbishop Parker 2 dly that those Bishops which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled and deprived and had survived that calamity were with all justice restored to their dignities 3 dly that the Bishops by her deprived and divested of their dignities were so dealt with for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII and in the first Parliament of this Queen revived and the statutes concerning it restored to full force before it was thus imposed on them So that for the justice of the cause of their deprivation it depends Immediatly upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magistrate to make laws to impose oathes for the securing his Government and to inflict the punishments prescribed by those laws on the disobedient but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops and Clergie and Vniversities in the reigne of Henry the VIII that no authority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Bishop of Rome more then to any other forein Bishop The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned and hath nothing peculiar to our pretensions which should suggest a vindication of it in this place And the second hath I suppose been sufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this discourse which have examined all the Bishop of Romes claims to this Supremacy And both these grounds being acknowledged or till they be invalidated or disproved supposed to have truth and force in them the conclusion will be sufficiently induced that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens which divested those Bishops which thus refused to secure her Government or to approve their fidelity to their lawful Soveraign § 18. Fourthly that those Bishops being thus deprived it was most Regular and Necessary and that against which no objection is imaginable that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared that other Bishops should be nominated and advanced to those vacant Sees and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular Synodical and valid beyond all exception in respect of the formality of it § 19. Fiftly that as by the Vniform and joynt consent of these Bishops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on and set out by Order of both Archbishops Metropolitans and the rest of the Bishops for the Vnity of doctrine to be taught and holden of all Parsons Vicars and Curates c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne So before this time there had not been as farre as appears any debate in any former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each side which came to nothing but all done by the Parliaments restoring what had been debated and concluded by former Synods in the reigns of King Henry the eight and Edward the sixt without any new deliberation in any present Synod By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy as also of the book of Common-prayer as it was in the time of Edward the sixt with few alterations which included the abolition of the Romish Missalls And so all this again as farre as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy with the concurrence and advise of Synods which hath been in the former part of this discourse I hope sufficiently vindicated § 20. And that being granted it cannot be here necessary or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church either as branches of the Reformation or under the name or title of it For our present enquirie being no farther extended then this whether the true Church of England as it stands by Laws established have in Reforming been guilty of Schisme as that signifies in the first place a recession and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours and this being cleared in the Negative by this one evidence that all was done by those to whom and to whom only the rightful power legally pertained viz the King and Bishops of this Nation supposing as now regularly we may having competently proved it and answered all the colours that have been offered against it that the Pope had no right to our obedience and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiours it is presently visible that all other matters will belong to some other heads of Discourse and consequently must be debated upon other principles All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should as I believe it will never be proved to be unjust falling under the head of Heresie not of schisme and for acts of sacrilege and the like impieties as certainly Henry the eighth and some others cannot be freed from such they are by us as freely charged upon the actors as by any Romanist they can be But yet sacrilege is no more schisme then it is adulterie and the Church on which one sin hath been committed cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other CHAP. VIII Of the Second sort of Schisme as that is an Offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined § 1. BUT beside that first species of schisme as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in the Church from the guilt of which I have hitherto indevoured to vindicate our Church another was taken notice of as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity and peace and charity which Christ left among his Disciples And to that I must now proceed as farre as the Accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence § 2. Three branches of the second sort of Schisme And for method's sake this branch of Schisme may be subdivided into three species The first is a breach in the doctrines or Traditions a departure from the