Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n body_n power_n soul_n 2,506 5 5.3976 4 true
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
A47974 A letter from a clergy-man in the country to the clergy-man in the city, author of a late letter to his friend in the country shewing the insufficiency of his reasons therein contained for not reading the declaration / by a Minister of the Church of England. Minister of the Church of England. 1688 (1688) Wing L1369A; ESTC R26839 46,996 46

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

the same in Matters of Religion as well while that of our Princes and their Subjects was Pagan as afterwards when it became Christian Let us see then the Transition from the one Religion to the other in the Reigns of Lucius the First British and Ethelbert the First Christian King of the Saxons We find that in both our Kings acted without any controul of Laws as well in the relinquishing the long-established Pagan as in the reception of the Christian Religion And as our Kings were free so they kept their Subjects free from the Coaction of Laws in that Matter Particularly Venerable Beda relates of Ethelbert That having embraced the Christian Religion he could not but cast some more benign Aspect on such as were Converts with himself Yet so Bed. Histor Eccles ex Versione Abrahami Wheelock Vt nullum cogeret ad Christianisimum That there should be no Force upon the Consciences of his Subjects Didicerat enim à doctoribus auctoribusque suae salutis servitium Christi voluntarium non coactitium debere esse For that he had been taught of those who were the Authors of his Salvation That the Service of Christ ought to be voluntary and not of compulsion The Antient Jurisdiction of this Crown you may see by this was at that time free and whatever Laws were before established in favour of the Pagan Superstition and Persecution of Christians these Princes dispensed with them of their own Supreme Power next and immediately under God and so became Instruments of introducing the Blessed Means of Salvation and transmitting them to us their Posterity Which otherwise perhaps had not been so easily effected by a National or Parliamentary Concurrence at present But this Subject has been laboured by many great and learned in the Laws of this Realm to whom it especially belongs and to whom I refer those who desire further satisfaction This Antient Jurisdiction of the Crown the Second Canon measures by that which was claimed and exercised of the godly Kings of Judah and Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church How uncontrouled of any they exercised that Power who were Kings of Judah let their History in the Holy Scriptures teach you As for the Ancient Christian Emperors that they issued out Laws Ecclesisiastical by their Imperial Edicts and made Revocation of those Edicts as they pleased I think no Body will deny I know there was all the way of the Primitive Christianity another Spiritual Jurisdiction over Souls and even over the Emperors themselves as they were Sons of the Church for their Edification but no way intrenching on the Temporal Power even in Causes Ecclesiastical proper to such a Power When ever it made any attempt that way it was always checked by Christian Princes And is it to be believed that this Canon which was made with all the singular Laws and Statutes there mentioned for the abolishing all Foreign Power repugnant to the same would not have been as sharp upon any upstart Power at Home and of His Majesties own Subjects repugnant to the same if they had been aware of any the least tendency then to such an Insolence Take an Instance in one of the most famous and first Emperor of the Christian Church Constantine the Great and let us see what kind of Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical the Canons of our Church give to our Kings in parallel to what was exercised by the Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church Thrice I think according to some Historians twice I am sure according to Valesius in the Appendix to his Latin Version of Eusebius his Ecclesiastical History Constantine did dispense with the Imperial Laws by Indulgence and Toleration of the Donatists in Africa And for that purpose caused his Declaration of Indulgence to be published directed Vniversis Episcopis per Africam to all the Bishops throughout Africa as it is found extant among the Writings of Optatus and almost in the like words and for the like Reasons on which His Majesty issued out this His present Declaration of Liberty Some part of it I will therefore repeat Quod fides debuit quantum prudentia valuit prout puritas potuit tentasse me per omnia optimè scitis ut juxta Magisteria Legis nostrae Pax stabilita per omnem concordiam teneret● Sed quia vim illam scel●ris infusi intentionis nostrae ratio non potuit edo●nare expectandum nobis est dum totum hoc Omnipotentis Dei misericordia witigetur Verum dum Coelestis Medicina procedat hactenus sunt cencilia nostra Moderanda ut patientiam percolamus quidquid insolentia ilierum pro consuetudine intemperantiae tentat aut facit id omne tranquillitatis virtute toleremus nihil ex reciproco reponatur injuriae This Declaration of Indulgence had likewise the ill fortune of His present Majesties to be regrated by some of the Churchmen and the severity of the established Laws against the Donatists som what unwillingly restrained and Constantine by some of them particularly by Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage solicited to revoke his Letters of Indulgence whereupon says the Historian in the year 321. The Bishops on the part of Donatus put up their Petition also to the Emperor Poscentes ut libere ipsos agere sineret nec invitos adCommunionem Caeciliani cogere vellet Adding further that they never should either by Promises or Threats be induced to it and that they would rather dye a thousand deaths than to hold Communion with that Knave as they rudely styled the Bishop against their Consciences And here as the Historian goes on did most of all appear the Clemency of the Emperor that when he ought to have punished this impudence and insolence of the Donatists in calling their Archbishop Knave whose Innocency was well known and approved by Constantine himself Nihilominus ipsis quaecunque poscebant solita benignitate indulsit Nevertheless of his wonted Benignity he Granted what Indulgence they desired issuing out to Verinus his Vicarius Vicar-General in Africa a Rescript signifying his pleasure that the Donatists should be recalled from Banishment Monensque ut proprio eos d●mittat arbitrio ac furorem eorum Deo vindici reservet c. All this Constantine did by the Virtue of that Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical which the Godly Kings had among the Jews and the Christian Emperors of the Primitive Church and which says the Canon further is the Regal Supremacy of this Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established Now if the Church of England be the same it was then you see by what measures we are to Govern ourselves in the present Affair Dr. Taylor late Bishop of Downe and Connor I think was a Man who understood how far a Church of England Loyalty ought to extend as any Man this day of it He says plainly in his Ductor Dubitantium Vol. 2. lib. 3. p. 148. That the Supreme Power is above the Laws that he can dispense with Laws he can interpret them and he can
as Matters then stood But to shew that His present Majesties Religion which has been as severe towards Dissenters as ours may nevertheless for that be as sincere as we can be in the Inclinations he hints the Dissenters may hope from us when time serves I like your Commendations of the Church of England every where well enough and believe their well meaning but not as you make use of it slily to insinuate a distrust a snare and to create a suspicion in the Dissenters of His Majesties Veracity and Honour and by this base Suggestion tempt them to desert Him in this Juncture and adhere rather to those who oppose Him I believe as much as you that they are so wise and considering as to be sensible of a snare and as likely of your setting for them as of His Majesties And that they will think it more wise and safe to confide in His Word than in yours and to take the Opportunity which now presents than to stay and starve while your Grass grows But lest your Promises should not prevail you attempt also by Threatnings to deter them from strengthning His Majesties Party and Design Should they take it in this way you tell them they will find it the dearest Liberty that ever was granted I do not deny but Gold may be bought too dear let us see what we have by the Bargain of parting with our Test and Penal Laws If all the Discourse of your Letter had been against those only who are for delivering up our Laws into the Hand of another Religion without any effectual security for our own I should have agreed with you that we cannot Consent but must Suffer in this way and it is plain His Majesty is of that mind too His whole Declaration being a Proposal of Terms and Compremise of Peace among His Subjects of whatever different Persuasions that none may hinder one another of the Free Exercise of their Religion and full and quiet enjoyment of their Property and if you are so suspicious of Sinister dealing from His Majesty he offers to make our selves by our Representatives in Parliament Umpire in the business So that your Insinuation is very Ungenteel and Rude towards His Majesty and savors more of a piquing ill-natur'd jealousie than any just fear that we should find the Liberty now offered the dearest that ever was Granted These are the Reasons on which you ground your Magisterial Supposition That no Minister of the Church of England can Consent to the Declaration and therefore cannot read it how weak and insufficient they are to establish such an Hypothesis and that therefore all you have built upon it must come down with it let the world judge so that nevertheless for your Arguments a Minister of the Church of England can Consent to the Declaration and then I think that he may Read it no body will deny Nay and that he ought in omnibus licitis honestis to pay an active Obedience To answer the Command by a Passive Obedience To suffer all that can be suffered in this World as you somewhere say to be subject only and not resist will not serve the turn here The giving our Body to be burnt in this Cause will not make us Martyrs There is an Active Obedience due to all the King 's Honest and Lawful Commands by the Fundamental Laws of this Kingdom though the matter of the Command have not yet entred by a Parliamentary Law for that is but accidental we owe him 〈◊〉 much upon the account of our natural Allegiance founded in that Relation between King and Subject If it be a Matter in which he is necessitated to use his Prerogative all that we are bound to satisfie our selves in is this Is it a Moral Command Is it not against the Laws of God over which he has no Power of Dispensing though it were to save His own and the Lives of all His Subjects If not we are bound to it by our Natural Allegiance by our Loyalty or Legality which is not to be understood so ad Legem as it is not due for Conscience-sake save only in such Instances where it is pass'd into a Parliamentary Law. For Allegiance reaches to Law in a further Extent and Latitude than so even to that Law which Nature and right Reason teach is founded in such a Relation as King and Subject and Political Father and Sons Not only confined to that Law which defends the Right the Liberty and Property of the Subject which is for the most part written because it passes by Grant and stands on Record from the King But to that Prerogative Law also which is natural and unwritten and cannot be granted away because it defends the Rights of the Crown and defends the Majesty Authority and Dignity of the Prince and the Capacity whereby he may perform all the Offices of a Father to his People Do not we swear a Canonical Obedience to our Bishops In omnibus Licitis Honestis By what Law of the Land is this required By no Parliamentary Law but as I said by the Law of Nature rooted in that Relation he bears toward us of our Spiritual Father But here is no place for a Discourse so large and copious as it should be on this Subject All I mean by it here is this That if the Matter of the Declaration be Moral Honest and Lawful so far as Lawful takes in the Law of the King's Prerogative as well as the Peoples Laws We must pay an Active Obedience to this Command of His Majesty on the account of our Natural Allegiance A Suffering for it rather and not resisting only will not justifie us to God by whom Kings Reign and whose Power is Ordained of God. This I take to have been all along the Doctrine of the Church of England But after all this it is possible some of the Ministers of the Church of England cannot consent Some will not take the pains perhaps and some have not the parts to think deep enough Some like Tr●●● stand their Ground where they were first set rooted by Education and some as much by Prejudice Some have their Reason over-poured by their Fears and some by their Interests What then May they not read the Declaration Must the grand and important Affairs of State be all at a stand till such Persons can be satisfied Must their Wills be the Law in the mean time and their Judgment the Standard of the King and Council and the whole Nation Must their Declaration in this Matter be published in all their Churches and Chapels and His Majesty's never suffered to come in at the Church-door Why may not both Tales be told and both Sides heard This is not just nor civil dealing with His Majesty Again What if you cannot give an internal Consent or a Consent of Approbation Can you not read it with a Consent of Acquiescence and Submission That is all which need to be in a Subject to Matters of this kind