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	soul_n	spiritual_a	1,721	5	6.6792	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91392	The true grounds of ecclesiasticall regiment set forth in a briefe dissertation. Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the pretended independencie of the prelates, &c. Together, vvith some passages touching the ecclesiasticall power of parliaments, the use of synods, and the power of excommunication.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1641 (1641)	Wing P428; Thomason E176_18; ESTC R212682	61,943	101

from these Tenets but because many of them especially Clergimen do not wholly dissent from all the grounds of these Tenets therefore they also doe partake in some errours and absurdities of the like nature One Scotist says That Mountague and our learnedest Protestant Divines nay even Rainolds himselfe though otherwise a Puritan yet they all hold that there is due to the King no spirituall but only a temporall rule over persons and causes Ecclesiasticall and that also by accident for the common peace sake Hee sayes also that in his presence at a Cambridge Commencement the chiefe Bishop was called Maximus Pater and that it was maintained that the care of spirituall things did appertain to the chiefe Bishop and of temporall to the King and whereas it was at last concluded that all was to be governed by the King yet he sayes questionless the intent was civilitèr not spiritualitèr And if wee look back to the primitives we shal find that in good times before Popery had any considerable growth Kings for penance were enjoyned to kneele to Priests and were not admitted to have seats in the Chancell neere the Altar no not amongst the Deacons but were sometimes subjected to heavie and sharp censures of Bishops and sometimes strucke with the thunderbolt of Excommunication it self And we shall find that the Name Church was applyed in common speech to Churchmen only and the Name Spiritualitie was taken in the same sense as if all other persons had beene strangers to the Church and had beene of a meere Temporall and Secular condition and by the name Clergie it was intimated to the World that the Sacerdotall function was the only lot and patrimony of God and these usages were ab antiquo And wee shall finde that the holiest and learnedest Fathers of the Church did seeme to preferre the Mitre before the Diademe and to dream of a Spirituall Empire belonging to Priests more worthy and sacred then that of Emperours And therefore Gregory of Nazianzen in a Sermon before the Emperour says thus to him The Law of Christ hath committed you to my Charge and to my Pulpit for we rule also and ours is a more excellent and perfect regiment And comparing further the rule of Priests with the rule of Princes Hee cals the one spirituall the other fleshly and concludes that the spirit ought not to give place to the flesh nor heavenly things to earthly What hee meant here by giving place whether hee meant it of externall submission or internall awe I cannot tell but he left it uncertain To the same purpose that of Ambrose tends also Thinke not O Emperour that thou hast any right over divine things for the Palace is for the Emperour but Churches for Priests And that also of Athanasius It s neither lawfull for us to hold a Kingdome upon earth nor hast thou O Emperour power over sacred things Wee see they speake of their Ministery and Ecclesiasticall vocation as of a sovereigntie and rule and that more sacred then that of Princes of which Princes were not worthy or capable And to passe by the blinde times of Popery wherein upon these grounds the Roman Bishops inthralled a great part of Christendome with temporall bondage wee shall finde also that since the abjuration of Romish servitude yet Protestant Ministers themselves have assumed a sanctitie more then is due The Kings Supremacie or Headship over the Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall State Hee being accounted but meerly temporall in comparison of Priests is as ill wished by many Calvinists as by Papists their word is of Secular Princes Istis non competit iste Primatus And as Sir Thomas More suffered death in testimony of his dislike so Calvin himselfe condemnes this Realme of Blasphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of the Church here under Christ And not only the Name but the power it selfe which wee give to Civill Magistrates he protesteth against as that which had wounded him deeply Princes being made thereby too spirituall hee complaineth that this fault did raigne throughout Germany and in some parts of France to the taking away of Spirituall Regiment whilst Princes were made chiefe Judges as well in matters of doctrine as discipline Hence it is that all which follow Calvin which is almost the generality of Protestants besides Papists hold Princes incompetent for spirituall Regencie accounting the intermedling of Princes therein as an abolition or prophanation of the same And hence it is that our contrary faction of Hierarchists also deny the Kings Supremacie in Spiritualibus though not in Ecclesiasticis and our Prelats Style is providentia divina not gratiâ Regis and as they issue Writs in their own Names so they use their owne armes in their Seales and not the Kings And wee know it was my Lord of Canterburies industry of late to procure a Commission about five yeeres since that all Bishops Courts might proceed without any subordination or dependency to any other of the Kings Courts So that though they complaine of the Presbyterian Discipline and the doctrine of Calvin as injurious to Princes yet they themselves seeme to be of the same confederacie But that I may not seem to misreport or misinterpret any I will cite only two Divines of prime note both defenders of Supremacie Hooker speaking of that dutifull subjection which is due from all Christians to the Pastors of their souls in respect of their sacred Order affirmes that the same is as due from Kings and Princes as from their meanest vassals Reverence due to the Word and Sacraments and to Gods Ordinances is not here meant for that is as due from Priests themselves also as from any other it is meant of reverence due to the persons of Priests this he cals subjection and challenges as due in respect of their sacred Order And so Bilson descanting upon the words of Nazianzen after a comparative manner as Hooker did inferres thereupon that Priests have a greater and perfecter regiment then Princes For sayes he Priests governe the souls of men and dispense the mysteries of God whereas Princes are set to rule the bodies of men and to dispose the things of this life c. Hee does not compare the offices but the Regiments of Priests and Princes and hee averres as confidently that Priests governe the souls and exercise dominion over the spirits of Christians as that Princes have no power at all but over the bodies and temporalities of their Subjects And for these causes the Crosier is generally preferred in Honour and Sanctitie before the Scepter to detect therefore the errour of Divines herein I will now truly produce and throughly poize those arguments which they most rely upon The first argument runs thus Spirituall things are not to be managed and treated but only by spirituall persons but Princes are not spirituall Ergo Wee must first understand here what is meant by spirituall things and spirituall persons If by spirituall things here such things are meant as appertain to

and Titus committed to them by vertue of their Episcopall Order What more sacred what more spirituall offices could they performe in the Church What could Gods children suck from their brests other then milke then sincere spirituall milke Saint Augustine agrees to this when hee says that Kings as Kings serve God so as none but Kings can doe and when he confesses that Christ came not to the detriment of sovereigntie And the Church in Tertullians words ascribing worship to their Heathen Emperours as being second immediatly to God and inferiour to none but God says as much as words can expresse In regard of internall sanctitie Peter may be more excellent then Caesar and so may Lazarus perhaps then Peter but in regard of that civill sanctitie which is visible to mans eye Caesar is to be worshipped more then Peter Caesar is to be looked upon as next in place here to God betwixt whom and God no other can have any superiour place Wisdome and goodnesse are blessed graces in the sight of GOD but these are more private and Power is an excellence more perfect and publike and visible to man then either if Ministers do sometimes in wisdome and goodnesse excell Princes yet in Power they doe not and therefore though wisdome and goodnesse may make them more amiable somtimes to God yet Power shall make Princes more Honourable amongst men There is in heaven no need of Power in the glorified creatures and yet the glorified creatures are there differenced by Power it is hard to say that one Angell or Saint differs from another in wisdome or in holinesse yet that they differ in power and glory we all know The twelve Patriarchs and the twelve Apostles sit in heaven upon higher Thrones then many Saints which perhaps here in this life might be endued with a greater portion of wisdome and holinesse then they were and by this it may seeme that there is a species of externall sanctitie of power dispensed according to the free power of God even in Heaven also and that that sanctity is superiour to the other more private sanctity of other graces and excellences And if power in heavenly creatures where it is of no necessity has such a supereminent glory appertaining to it with what veneration ought wee to entertain it on earth where our common felicitie and safetie does so much depend upon it Goodnesse here wee see is a narrow excellence without wisdome and power and wisdome in men that have neither power nor goodnesse scarce profits at all but power in infants in women in Ideots hands is of publike use in as much as the wisdome and goodnesse of other men are ready to be commanded by it and its more naturall that they should be obsequious and officious in serving power then that the transcendent incommunicable indivisible Royalty of power should condiscend to bee at their devotion And for this reason when Princes are said to be solo Deo minores and Deo secundi this is spoken in regard of power and this being spoken in regard of power we must conceive it spoken of the most perfect excellence and dignity and sanctitie that can be imagined amongst men on earth And for the same reason when Princes are said to serve God as Princes and so to serve him as none other can we must conceive this spoken also with respect to their power in as much as wisdome and goodnesse in other men cannot promote the glory of God and the common good of man so much as power may in them But Stapleton takes foure exceptions to those times whereby if it bee granted that the Jewish Kings had supreame Ecclesiasticall authority yet hee sayes it does not follow that our Kings now ought to have the same Hee sayes first That the Iewish Religion was of farre lesse dignitie and perfection then ours is ours being that truth of which theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance Our answere here is that the Religion of the Jews as to the essence of it was not different from ours either in dignitie or perfection The same God was then worshipped as a Creatour Redeemer Sanctifier and that worship did consist in the same kinde of love feare hope and beliefe and the same charitie and justice amongst men The Law of Ceremonies and externall Rites in the bodily worship of God did differ from our discipline that being more pompous and laborious but the two great Commandements which were the effects and contents of all heavenly spirituall indispensible worship and service whereby a love towards God above that of our selves and a love towards man equall with that of our selves was enjoyned these two great Commandements were then as forcible and honourable as they are now Sacrifice was but as the garment of Religion obedience was the life the perfection the dignity of Religion and the life perfection and dignitie of that obedience consisted then in those weighty matters of the Law Piety and mercie as it now does but if the Jewish Religion was lesse excellent and more clogged with shadows and ceremonies in its outward habit what argument is this for the Supremacie of Regall rather then Sacerdotall power The more abstruse and dark the forme of that worship was and the more rigorous sanctity God had stamped upon the places and instruments and formalities of his worship and the more frequent and intricate questions might arise thereabout me thinks the more use there was of Sacerdotall honour and prerogative and the lesse of Regall in matters of the Lord I see not why this should make Princes more spirituall then their Order would beare but Priests rather His second reason is That all parts of the Jewish Religion Laws Sacrifices Rites Ceremonies being fully set down in writing needing nothing but execution their Kings might well have highest authoritie to see that done Whereas with us there are numbers of mysteries even in beliefe which were not so generally for them as for us necessary to be with some expresse acknowledgment understood many things belonging to externall government and our service not being set down by particular ordinances or written for which cause the State of the Church doth now require that the spirituall authoritie of Ecclesiasticall persons be large absolute and independent This reason is every way faulty for as to matters of Discipline and externall worship our Church is lesse incumbred with multiplicity of Rites such as Saint Paul cals carnall and beggerly rudiments and in this respect there is the lesse use of Ecclesiasticall authoritie amongst us and if popish Bishops doe purposely increase Ceremonies that they may inlarge their own power they ought not to take advantage of their own fraud And as for matters of faith and doctrinall mysteries we say according to Gods ancient promise knowledg doth now abound by an extraordinary effusion of Gods Spirit upon these latter dayes wee are so farre from being more perplexed with shadows and mysticall formalities or with weighty disputes that we are and

ought to be a great deal lesse and we doe the rather suspect all popish traditions and additions in Religion because wee see they make use of them for the augmenting of the power and regiment of Prelates And yet if knowledge did not abound if our Religion were more cloudie and if the Scriptures Councils Fathers and all learning were now more imperfect to us then they are I cānot imagin how an uncōfined absolute dominion of Churchmen shold be more necessary thē of Princes For if absolutenes of power be of necessary use in intricate perplexed mysteries cōtroversies yet why must that absolute power be more effectuall in Priests then Princes is not the counsel of Prelats the same and of the same vigor to solve doubts and determine controversies whether their power be subordinate or not doth meer power ad to the knowledg of Priests or is the power of Priests more virtuous for the promoting of truth then the power of Magistrates how comes this vast irreconcilable difference betwixt the government of the Church and State In matters of Law in matters of policy in matters of war unlimited power in such as are most knowing and expert does not conduce to the safety of the Common-wealth subordinate Counsells are held as available for the discerning of truth and far more available for the conserving of peace and order And who can then assigne any particular sufficient reason why matters of religion should not as well be determined in the consistory by dependent Prelates as matters of Law are by the Judges and Justices in their tribunals where they sit as meere servants to the King His third exception is That God having armed the Jewish Religion with a temporall sword and the Christian with that of spirituall punishment only the one with power to imprison scourge put to death the other with bare authoritie to censure and excommunicate there is no reason why our Church which hath no visible sword should in regiment be subject unto any other power then only to that which bindeth and looseth This reason taketh it for granted that amongst the Jewes the Church and State was the same had the same body the same head the same sword and that head was temporall and that sword was materiall This we freely accept of but in the next place without any reason at all given it as freely assumes that Christians now have only a spirituall sword in the Church as that Jews had only a temporall one A diametricall opposition is here put betwizt Jews and Christians in Church Regiment and yet no cause shewed or account given of that opposition We have very good colour to argue that without some strong reason shewed of opposition Christians ought not to bee so contrary to that excellent discipline of the Jewes which God himself ordered and to introduce I know not what spirituall rule in prejudice of temporall rule but how will Stapleton prove that amongst Christians the Church and State are two divided bodies so as they may admit of two severall heads and severall swords the one temporall the other spirituall the one yielding precedence as temporall the other predominating as spirituall This wee desire to see fortified with better proofs Hooker in his eighth booke not yet publisht has a learned cleere discourse to shew the fallacie and injustice of this blind presumption Hee allows that a Church is one way and a Commonwealth another way defined and that they are both in nature distinguisht but not in substance perpetually severed Since there is no man sayes hee of the Church of England but the same is a member of the Common-wealth nor any of the Common-wealth but the same is of the Church therefore as in a figure triangle the base differs from the sides and yet one and the self-same line is both a base and a side a side simply a base if it chance to be the bottome and to underlie the rest So though properties and actions of one doe cause the name of a Common-wealth qualities and functions of another sort give the name of a Church to a multitude yet one and the same multiude may be both Thus in England there 's none of one Corporation but hee is of the other also and so it was amongst the Jews Two things cause this errour First because professours of the true Religion somtimes live in subjection under the false so the Jews did in Babylon so the Christians in Rome under Nero in such cases true professors doe civilly only communicate with the State but in matters of their Religion they have a communion amongst themselves This now is not our case and therefore these instances are not proper amongst us Secondly In all States there is a distinction between spirituall and temporall affaires and persons but this proveth no perpetuall necessity of personall separation for the Heathens always had their spiritual Laws and persons and causes severed from their temporall yet this did not make two independent States among them much lesse doth God by revealing true Religion to any Nation distract it thereby into severall independent communities his end is only to institute severall functions of one and the same community Thus farre Hooker most judiciously and profoundly Wee must not here expect any satisfaction from our Adversaries why there should be lesse division betweene Church and State amongst the Jews and lesse use of two severall swords then is amongst us 't is sufficient that they have said it There 's no crime so scandalous amongst our Church-men or wherein they claime so much spirituall interest of jurisdiction as adultery yet amongst the Iews that crime was carnall not spirituall and its punishment was death inflicted by the Civill Judge not damnation denounced by the Priest Now if adultery in these days were better purged away and lesse countenanced in our Christian Courts then it was amongst the Jews there might something be alleaged to preferre our moderne inventions before Gods owne Statutes but when Ecclesiastiall persons shall therefore incroach upon Civill that by I know not what pecuniary corruptions and commutations vice and scandall may abound we doe strangly dote to suffer it For his last reason he says That albeit whilst the Church was restrained into one people it seemed not incommodious to grant their Kings generall chiefty of power yet now the Church having spread it self over all Nations great inconvenience must thereby grow if every Christian King in his severall Territorie should have the like power By this reason it s presumed that all the Universe ought to have but one head on earth and that Rome must be its Court and that it must be indued with Oraculous infallibilitie and so to remayne till the Worlds end and this must bee admitted out of some obscure generall Metaphors in Scripture or else God has not sufficiently provided for the wise government of his Catholike Church Man can scarce imagine any thing more mischievous or impossible then that which these goodly

contrary and we will acknowledge the Function of Ministers to bee more venerable than any amongst men besides that which beares the sword the Embleme of Gods imperiall Majestie But to such as are Gods sword-bearers upon Earth we conceive Ministers ought to give place and pay subjection as humbly as any others The preminence of Kings we hold to be three ways manifest in order in measure and in kind In the very sanctity of the Priest-hood it selfe we conceive the ministration of Priests to be subordinate to Princes inasmuch as to superintend in the most religious affaires is due to Princes and to officiate only to Priests and to superintend is more than to officiate Secondly In measure we conceive Princes excell also in asmuch as in religious affaires such Priests have the charge of such flockes and such Bishops of such Priests but all both Bishops Priests and flockes are under the Kings charge And not only in religious affaires but in civill also the authority of Princes is both intensive and extensive many wayes where Priests may not at all intermeddle And though to governe Christians as Christians be the most transcendent honour of Kings yet to governe men as men and not only to governe but to governe well is a thing of divine impression Thirdly in kinde the regiment of Princes is far excelling for the regiment of Kings is a true proper regiment assisted with reall power decored with externall honour founded in the generall consent of men and blessed by the gratious influence of God but the rule of Priests is but ethicall or metaphoricall only its utmost vigor is but perswasive and is not at all coercive either inwardly or outwardly and that subjection which it challengeth is not to it selfe but to the Word and Sacraments whereto it selfe rendreth as much as it requireth from others This generall answer might suffice but to each particular Title we will briefly reply further Ministers they are GODS viz. to such as are under their cure but then as they are GODS to others so Princes are GODS to them Thus Moses was a God to Aaron though Aaron was a God to his inferiors Ministers are Stars but not in magnitude equall to the Sun neither is their light and influence so independent as the Suns Ministers are Angels viz. upon earth and their internall piety is like a shining rayment to them amongst men but they serve under Gods on Earth whose robes of Majesty are every way resplendent as well externally as internally Ministers are Embassadors but all Embassadors persons are not of the like honour nor all their Embassages of the like moment nor all their Commissions of the like extent and in all these respects Preachers are inferior to Princes being joyned to them as Aaron was to Moses for a spokesman or an Interpreter only Ministers are Rulers viz. quoad vim directivam but not quoad vim coactivam Ministers are Fathers viz. such as have been Gods instruments to regenerate us and so as Saint Ierome sayes they are the Fathers of our soules and perhaps as Chrysostome sayes in this respect they are more to be honoured than our naturall parents But Ministers alwayes and onely are not so our Parents and they that are so our Parents are not so physicall and selfe efficacious causes as our naturall Parents are but if they may challenge more honour than our fleshly Parents yet this advances them not above Kings who are both politicall and Spirituall Fathers also Fabius the Consull though he was to pay Honour and reverence to his naturall Father yet he was to demand a greater measure of the same from him being his politicall son and it did not mis-beseeme him to prefer the civill right before the physicall Yet Fabius here was a meere Magistrate and in that farre lesse glorious than our Christian Magistrates are Ministers are Stewards but not the highest in the house of God for Princes are Stewards also and only accountable to God but they are accountable to Princes themselves And as Stewards doe provide food for those by whom themselves are fed and manage only but one part of their Lords affaires so it is with Ministers under Princess Ministers are Pastors Leaders Teachers their Doctrine is their food wherewith they comfort the people their perswasion is the light wherewith they secure them from falling they feede by their exhortations and guide by their dehortations but all these are offices of a servant rather than priviledges of a Master and even in these offices they are subordinate also So the Pilot at Sea may have the safety of his Prince committed to his direction charge and rule So the Commander in Warre gives order for all affaires of the battaile assigning to the King Himselfe a fit station So the Iudge in matters of Law by his just decree bindes the right of his owne Master So the Physition limits and prescribes rules of diet and sets downe Lawes of exercise to his Soveraigne Lord In all these cases there is a kinde of Obedience due from Kings and that obedience implyes some kind of inferiority and yet this obedience of the King doth not drowne the higher and greater obedience of the Subject nor doth this inferiority contradict that which is of a farre other quality and degree In the selfe same manner also the Priest officiates in the Church perhaps before the King perhaps before his owne Metropolitan at this time in this place and in this office there is honour reverence and obedience due to him from the King and Metropolitan yet this doth not exempt him from that stronger and holyer tye of subjection awe and subordination by which he is alwayes bound to those which governe him in other things when Ambrose therefore sayes Honor sublimitas Episcopalis nullis poterit comparationibus adaequari and againe Nihil potest esse in hoc seculo excellentius Sacerdotibus nihil sublimius Episcopis reperiri wee answer if he here include Princes as having Episcopall power and a jurisdiction both over Priests and Bishops we agree hereunto but if he exclude Princes we exclude this from our beliefe And againe when he sayes if you compare Episcopall sublimity to the brightnesse of Kings or Diadems of Princes that of Kings and Princes will be more inferior than leade compared with gold we answer if he here intend the meere secular authority of Princes in things meerly temporall we suppose some mild construction may bee allowed but if he speake of the intire Soveraignty and Prerogative of Princes and put that as lead in comparison of the golden Miter we reject him as erroneous That which Chrysostome sayes that more awe is due to Priests than to Kings and Princes we admit also in this sense viz. to the Embassages of God in their mouthes not to their persons and those Embassages also and instructions we oppose to the meere civill Ordinances of Kings not to religious injunctions wherein Princes are sent with larger Commission than they are