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 |
|
A44094
|
Some thoughts on a convocation and the notion of its divine right with some occasional reflections on the defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops.
|
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing H2346; ESTC R37493
|
30,786
|
42
|
in this kind they should not be able when need is to do as Vertuous Kings have done As Iosia and Hezekiah in the Old Testament did when they Assembled the Priests and Levites to renew the House of the Lord and to Celebrate the Passover The like before them did David and Solomon for removing the Ark and Dedicating the Temple Such Authority as the Iewish Kings Exercised over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons the like we claim to belong to our Kings and those that deny them the same Authority are to be Excommunicated according to the Doctrine of the Church of England But since there is an Argument now again insisted upon from the New Testament to prove the Right which belongs to the Clergy to Assemble and make Ecclesiastical Laws without the leave of the Supream Authority which in Mr. Hooker's Time was brought for an Objection against such a Supremacy in the King I shall take the freedom to set it down in his Words with his Answer to it It will be says that Excellent Author perhaps alledged That a part of the Unity of Christian Religion is to hold the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws a thing appropriated unto the Clergy in their Synods and whatsoever is by their only Voices agreed upon it needeth no farther Appropriation to give unto it the strength of a Law as may plainly appear by the Canons of that first most venerable Assembly Where those things the Apostles and Iames had concluded were afterwards published and imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles abroad as Laws the Records threof remaining still in the Book of God for a Testimony that the Power of making Ecclesiastical Laws belongeth to the Successors of the Apostles the Bishops and Prelates of the Church of God To this we Answer That the Council of Ierusalem is no Argument for the Power of the Clergy to make Laws For first There has not been since any Council of like Authority to that in Ierusalem Secondly The Cause why that was of such Authority came by a special Accident Thirdly The Reason why other Councils being not like unto that in Nature the Clergy in them should have no Power to make Laws by themselves alone is in Truth so forcible that except some Commandment of God to the contrary can be shewed it ought notwithstanding the aforesaid Example to prevail The Decrees of the Council of Ierusalem were not as the Canons of other Ecclesiastical-Assemblies Humane but very Divine Ordinances For which Cause the Churches were far and wide commanded every where to see them kept no otherwise than if Christ himself had personally on Earth been the Author of them The Cause why that Council was of so great Authority and Credit above all others which have been since is expressed in those Words of principal Observation Vnto the Holy Ghost and to us it hath seemed good Which form of Speech though other Councils have likewise used yet neither could they themselves-mean nor may we so understand them as if both were in equal sort assisted with the Power of the Holy Ghost Wherefore in as much as the Council of Ierusalem did consist of Men so enlightned it had Authority greater than were meet for any other Council besides to challenge wherein such kind of Persons are as now the State of the Church doth stand Kings being not then that which now they are and the Clergy not now that which then they were Till it be proved that some special Law of Christ hath for ever annexed unto the Clergy alone the Power to make Ecclesiastical Laws we are to hold it a thing most Consonant with Equity and Reason that no Ecclesiastical Laws be made in a Christian Common-wealth without consent as well of the Laity as of the Clergy but least of all without consent of the highest Power The Opinion of the Learned Grotius being more short and decisive in our present Case upon that forementioned place of the Acts I shall also give an account of it The Original of Synods says he is usually taken from that History in the 15th Chap. of the Acts. But whether that Assembly may be properly termed a Synod as we now understand that Word may very well be questioned There arose a Controversie between Paul and Barnabas and certain Iews of Antioch concerning the Obligations of the Mosaick Law Paul and Barnabas are sent with some of Antioch to know the Opinion of the Pastors but were they those of all Asia Syria Cilicia and Judea Assembled together in one place that were to give their Iudgment No certainly but of the Apostles and Elders of Jerusalem the Company of the Apostles was a College not a Synod and the Elders of one City could not certainly be called a Synod One Church therefore alone is consulted or more truly and properly speaking the Apostles only are consulted and they alone give Iudgment to whose Authority the Elders and Brethren of Jerusalem yield their Consent and Approbation Thus I think there can't be the least shadow of an Argument brought from Scripture for a Divine Institution of Synods But to return once more to Mr. Hooker Were it so adds that judicious Author that the Clergy alone might give Laws unto all the rest is it not easie to see how injurious this might prove to Men of other Conditions Peace and Justice are maintained by preserving unto every Order their Right and by keeping all Estates as it were in even ballance which thing is no way better done than if the King their Common Parent whose Care is presumed to extend most indifferently over all do bear the chiefest sway in making Laws which all must be ordered by wherefore of them which attribute most to the Clergy I would demand what Evidence there is whereby it may clearly be shewed that in ancient Kingdoms Christian any Canon devised alone by the Clergy in their Synods whether Provincial National or General hath by meer force of their agreement taken place as a Law making all Men constrainable to be Obedient thereunto without any other approbation from the King before or afterwards required in that behalf This was the Sense of that Great-Man and the very same Opinion and Notions they are and no other as far I can judge which are maintained by them who at present defend the King's Authority in calling Convocations and in other Ecclesiastical Affairs And I can't yet apprehend how those who so warmly and furiously oppose them can reconcile their Notions with the Doctrines which have been always received in the Church of England But it may probably be urged That though the Clergy's Right to Assemble themselves and make Laws for the Government of the Church by their own Power could not be proved by Revelation yet in Reason it ought to be allowed to them because the security of Religion depends upon it For if the Clergy alone may not make any new Orders which may seem wanting nor pass a general Censure upon any false
against some of the Rules of his own Profession 't would be more proper for the College of Physicians to judge of the Nature and Manner of it But where the Crime has no Relation to the Profession there is required no Skill in Physick to judge of it If a Person be convicted of Heresie 't is just he should be tried by the spiritual Power and according to what has been judged by them so to be But if his Offence be against the King or the Publick if he refuse Allegiance to his Majesty or Obedience to his Laws be he a spiritual Person or not there is no doubt but his Majesty has a Right to forbid him the Exercise of any Office or Function within his Territories The King does not judge herein of his Qualifications as a Divine but of his Duty as a Subject And as such has a Right to command his Obedience and to punish him as he thinks fit for his Disloyalty But if what the Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops urges is of any Force as That the Church and State tho' Christian are two distinct Societies and that spiritual Persons tho' defended and preserved by the Sovereign Power have yet as such no Dependence upon it and are not subject to its Authority How advantageous soever this may prove to the Church it will be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State For if the Prince has no just Power over spiritual Persons as such it must follow That in several Cases he can have no Authority over them as temporal As suppose any of that Body should be guilty of a Crime which requires such a Punishment as can't be inflicted without depriving him of his Ecclesiastical as well as his Civil Rights 't is plain according to that Author's way of arguing That in such a Case the State can have no Authority to punish And if the Clergy will not pass Sentence against him he must go unpunished For how guilty soever he may be the King can pretend no Authority either to imprison or banish him Because according to this Author the supream Power has no Right upon any Account whatsoever to prohibit him the Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Function which he must do if he punishes him either of the fore-mentioned ways The same Reasons will I think also forbid the Civil Authority from having any Right of sentencing an Ecclesiastical Person to Death as well as to perpetual Imprisonment be his Offence of what Nature soever The Consequences of such Notions are more than sufficient Confutations of them The great Grotius who could have no Interest or Prejudice to mis-guide his Judgment in Relation to this Controversie is of Opinion That the Right of removing a Pastor from the Cure of any certain Place ought always to remain in the highest Power So Solomon deposed Abiathar from being Priest The Vindicator of the deprived Bishops has been at some pains to prove that Abiathar was not high Priest Which whether true or no is little to his Purpose for if he was a Priest and deprived by a Lay Power it is sufficient So the Bishops of Rome were more than once deposed by the Imperial Authority as is owned by Bellarmine himself And to prove this says Grotius is not difficult For if the supream Authority hath a Right to forbid any one the City or Province he must of Necessity have a Right to prohibit him the Ministry of that City or Province For this is included in the other For he who has a Power over the whole must have the same no doubt over the part And he adds That if the Sovereign Power had not this Right the State could not be able to provide for its own Security But what seems to me most absurd in the Management of this Controversie by the Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops is this That he condemns all those of Schism who go upon different Principles or that conform with these who fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops For by this means he not only involves the Christians of several Centuries in the same Guilt even from Constantine's time till Papal Usurpations were introduced who submitted to Bishops put into the Places of others deprived by the Emperors as has been learnedly shewn in a great many Instances beyond all Possibility of a Reply But he also condemns and contradicts himself For I believe his Practice has been contrary to his present Opinion Since if I mistake not he held Communion with the Church of England till the late Revolution And I believe this Doctrin of the Prince's Authority over spiritual Persons was the same then as now If not what can those Words signifie That the King is over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Mr. Hooker tells us That the Prince has by this the same Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as the Pope had usurped before the Reformation And indeed if these Words do not imply That Ecclesiastical Persons as such are subject to the King's Authority they signifie nothing And if they carry such a Sense with them they must also denote the Sufficiency of the King's Authority for depriving Bishops of their Sees upon a just Cause And tho' it be granted there were no Instances of this Nature in the late Reigns yet the Case is much the same if such a Doctrin was then held and maintained by the Church And if 't is a Sin to communicate with the Bishops who are put into the Sees of them who were deprived by the Supream Power 't is a Sin also not to separate from that Church which requires all its Members to acknowledge and believe such a Right to belong to that Power For the Nature of the Church is the same whether the King exercises that Authority or not if it be owned and allowed by the Church to belong to him But this Author pretends that he has the Church and the Laws on his side since Queen Elizabeth's Time and that he will agree to the Supremacy as then stated by her and as it is expressed in the 37th Article If he will put the Cause upon this Issue we must also submit to be determined by it For we cannot desire to carry the Supremacy farther than it was in that Queen's Time and as 't is specified in that Article But then we demand That the Words may be explained according to the most easie and natural Sense of them and not understood only as this Author would interpret them The Queen lays claim to the same Authority over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons that was Exercised by all Godly Princes in Scripture and which at all times belonged to the Imperial Crown of England And this must include the Power which was given to her Predecessors Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th The 37th Article allows the King all that Power which we contend for and asserts his Supremacy over all sorts of Persons as well