Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	church_n	power_n	2,820	5	5.0653	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43271	A treatise concerning schism and schismaticks wherein the chief grounds & principles of a late separation from the Church of England, are considered and answered / by Henry Hellier ...	Hellier, Henry, 1662?-1697.	1697 (1697)	Wing H1381; ESTC R20518	24,128	62

his Judgment And this would be such another Immorality as the Authors of these late Books of Schism talk of in paying Allegiance to one whom Men might mistake to be their King But they wave the question about the King's Title as I said before and insist on the invalidity of a Lay-deprivation the next thing to be considered by way of answer to the second Objection This Deprivation does not take away the Power conferr'd on them in Ordination but only of having such and such Dioceses or parts of the Kingdom to officiate in which why the Supreme Civil Power whether lodged in one or more Men should not be sufficient to do is altogether unintelligible The distribution or division of a Country into so many Dioceses is not Jure Divino but depends on the discretion and determination of the chief Governors of the Church i. e. in a Christian Country of the Supreme Legislative Power to the Preservation whereof it is necessary to have them well marked out and fixed and to the well-being of the Republick Bishops are Subjects and Kings may demand Allegiance of them and in case of refusal if they have the whole Legislative Power they may forbid them living in any part of their Dominions Such Power is necessarily annexed to or rather implied in the Imperial Dignity from which our blessed Saviour by his Gospel detracted nothing nor designed to uphold his Disciples or Apostles against it for his Kingdom was not of this World And though the Church did subsist at first without the assistance of Heathen Emperors yet Kings when they embraced the true Faith became Members of the Church as well as any other Believers and are therefore as much obliged to act according to the Station wherein they are placed As did the Jewish Kings notwithstanding that the Church in Egypt and Babylon did subsist without them and as did the first and best of Christian Emperors And among the rest of those Powers that of depriving Bishops hath been one And this Power hath been exercised here among us with the Approbation of the Church of England and consonantly to the Articles Homilies and Canons thereof And among the Reasons of Deprivation the not acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes was none of the least which yet is not so much as to deny his Civil Authority also which is the present * See the Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees c. Case Indeed if we consider the Supreme Power only as having so much Authority as is absolutely necessary to preserve the Civil Government and to secure the outward Peace of the Kingdom we must own that it can judge also what shall be reasonable Security of any Subjects being true to the Government and that Ecclesiastical Persons as well as others for want of such Security given may be deprived of places of trust or places where they may have considerable influence on the People least they should pervert them to disaffection Cujus rei facilis est probatio c. Grotius De Imperio Summar Tot. circa Sacra Cap. 10. § 33. Hence follows a Power of removing Bishops from their Sees upon such occasions which that it belongs to the Sovereign Grotius thinks is a very easy matter to prove For he that hath power to banish a Man out of all parts of the Country or Kingdom hath by * Hoc enim illi inest a● cujus totum est in Potestate ejus in Potestate pars non esse non potest Idem ibid. Consequence a Power of forbidding him to exercise there the Episcopal Office This he can do as the same Grotius observes not only by way of Punishment but also by way of Caution if he finds the People tumultuous on the account of any Pastor though without the Pastor's fault And such Deprivation may be made not only without but even against the Consent of a Synod of whom Kings are so far from being obliged to ask the question whether they shall have their Subjects Allegiance or no that they are rather obliged especially here in England not to ask or enquire of them because it is a Violation of of the Laws of the Land and an injury done to the proper Judges of Allegiance And although in Cases of Heresy or Schism when there are matters of difficulty to be decided it is very fit and proper and agreeable to the most ordinary and usual practice of the Church to call Synods Yet even in those Cases they are to be convened only at the Sovereign's * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Proaem lib. 5. Doce quis Imperator hane Synodum jusse●●… Congregari Hieron Apolog. adv Ru●●i●●● lib. 2. appointment and when they are come together they are all of them under the same Circumstances of Obedience to the Civil Power as they were singly before obliged to the same Duties and liable to the same Penalties upon refusal of them How then can this be a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognizance or how can it belong to them to determine it Examples of Emperors deposing Bishops without as well as with a Synod are many and that even in the Case of Heresy which doth most properly belong to the determination of a Synod and which they are best able to judge of not but that in plain Cases or Cases before sufficiently declared Heresy this may be done without them even as Kings in the Old-Testament brake down the Images destroyed the high Places and put down the Idolatrous Priests by their own Authority which Kings under the New-Testament having the entire Legislative Power do not come short of Thus Christian Emperors have deposed Hereticks and their Power to do so seems anciently to have been generally acknowledged on all hands All Parties seem to have been sensible thereof Sometimes the Emperor threatned to depose them and sometimes put it in Execution without any ones gain-saying To him Bishops brought their a Theodorit lib. 5. c. 23. Complaints against such other Bishops as they desired to have deposed Him they sometimes b Leo. 1. Ep. 99. praised for using this Power His Power they c Flavianus in Theodor. loco citato acknowledged though against themselves In his Sentence though sometimes unjust they acquiesced d Socrat. lib. 2. c. 12. And this is more than to depose them on the account of State-Crimes or for default of Allegiance Lastly As this is agreeable to Antient Practise so it is the constant and concurrent Sense of all the old Reformers and till of late it hath been denyed I think by none but Papists and some of the worst and maddest of Enthusiasts And thus Men may become guilty of Schism by contending for Power Whereby we may also discern how Persons in other Relations according as they happen to be concerned in some of these Circumstances may become guilty of the same fault 2. They may be Schismaticks by misimploying their Power and so cutting themselves off