Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	church_n	civil_a	ecclesiastical_a	2,893	5	8.1068	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61636	A vindication of Their Majesties authority to fill the sees of the deprived bishops in a letter out of the country occasioned by Dr. B---'s refusal of the bishoprick of Bath and Wells.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1691 (1691)	Wing S5679; ESTC R9468	8,641	36

Authority is to set up a Pope or a Presbytery or a National Synod above the Supream Power and we may as well say at this day that the Supream Power has no Authority to make a Bishop because by the ancient Canons and Practice of the Church a Bishop ought to be freely and canonically elected by the other Bishops of the Province or by the Clergy and People of the Diocess as that it cannot depose a Bishop from the exercise of his Episcopal Authority within their Dominions without a Synod or Council 3. When a Church is incorporated into the State an offence against the State is a just reason to depose a Bishop from the exercise of his Episcopal Authority in such a State Especially if such Bishop or Bishops wholly disown the Authority and Government of the State and refuse to submit to it The denial of the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes was thought a good Reason to depose Bishops and to deny their Civil Authority is somewhat more than that This is as certain and evident as that the Church is and must be Incorporated into the State for if Bishops who oppose and disown the Authority of the State must not be deposed from the Exercise of their Authority in such a State then the Church must be divided from the State and be independent on it such Men may be Bishops of the Church who are no Subjects of the State which is a contradiction to the very Notion of a Church incorporated with the State 4. And therefore we must distinguish between an Ecclesiastical and Canonical deposition of a Bishop for Heresie or other Ecclesiastical Crimes and a State deprivation The first concerns the Character and Ecclesiastical Communion it is the censure of the Church which concerns him as a Bishop and when it is ratified and confirmed not only by a Provincial or National Synod but by a General Council such a deposed Bishop is no longer a Bishop of the Catholick Church and no Christian must Communicate with him as a Bishop But a State-deprivation does not concern the Character such a Man may be a Bishop of the Catholick Church still if he do not fall under Church-Censures for Heresie or other Crimes but it only concerns the Exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Diocess within the Dominions of that State or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it And if we will not allow the Supreme Power of a Nation to judge who shall be Bishops in their Dominions and enjoy the Revenues of the Church which are the Gift of the State you leave the Supream Power no Authority or Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical Persons 5. And this makes a great difference between succeeding an Orthodox Bishop uncanonically deposed and succeeding an Orthodox Bishop deprived by an Act of State If a Bishop be deposed by an Heretical Synod upon false suggestions and publickly known to be false and malicious and be own'd and acquitted by a Council of Orthodox Bishops it is Usurpation to invade his See a breach of Catholick Communion and a Schism in the Catholick Church which was the Case of Athanasius and George of Cappadocia who succeeded him But if a Bishop otherwise Orthodox is guilty of such an Offence against the State that he is deprived of the Exercise of his Episcopal Office neither the Faith nor the Communion of the Church is concerned in it but only the Authority of the State which obliges both the Clergy and the Laity in such cases and when neither the Catholick Faith nor Catholick Communion are concern'd it can be no Ecclesiastical Offence to succeed in such a Bishoprick but a due submission and compliance with that Authority to which the Church in a Christian Nation ought to be subject The reason why these Matters are not so acurately distinguished by some Men is because they were not at first distinguished when the Empire became Christian and the Church was at first Incorporated into the State The Zeal of the Christian Emperors for the Service of the Church and that great Opinion which at that time they deservedly had of the Piety and Prudence of the Governours of the Church made them leave the Government of the Church in the same state they found it in when the Church was a distinct Society from the State and in consequence of this they reserved all Causes relating to Bishops to the Cognizance of their own Synods without distinguishing between Offences against the State which properly belong to a Civil Cognizance and those which were of a pure Ecclesiastical Nature This soon created great trouble to Princes and by degrees grew into the Omnipotent Power of the Bishop of Rome which domineered over Emperors themselves and set the Church above the State The Reformation of our Church began with the Reformation of this Abuse and Church-Usurpation and restored our Princes to that Supremacy which both the Laws of God and the reason and nature of Sovereign Power gives them over all Persons in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil And now an Offence against the State is as just a Reason for a State-Deprivation by the sole Authority of the State without the Authority of Synods or Councils as Heresie and Schism and other Crimes are of Ecclesiastical Censures This Authority as I observed before the Jewish Kings exercised even over their High-Priests as Solomon deposed Abiathar for following Adonijah to make him King and placed Zadock in his stead which was a pure State-Quarrel and done by his sole Authority without consulting the Sanhedrim in it Thus when Iudea was under the Government of the Romans they changed the High-priests every Year tho by the Institution of God it was for Life and this in our Saviour's Days who never reproved them for it nor separated himself or his Disciples from the Communion of such Schismatical Vsurping High-priests who succeeded in the places of their living Predecessors without a Canonical Deposition The Grand Signior at this Day makes and unmakes the Patriarch of Constantinople at pleasure and no Man blames the Patriarch who succeeds Dr. Sherlock in his Preface to the Case of Allegiance took notice of this as matter of Fact without enquiring into the Reasons His Answerer had nothing to return to it but by denying the legal Authority of this Government which is just nothing to the purpose For if a legal Government by their Authority and Supremacy can depose Bishops and promote New ones then all their Arguments against succeeding in the Sees of such Bishops as are not Canonically deposed by an Ecclesiastical Authority are utterly lost and besides that if this Answer be good no man ought to question these new Promotions who owns the Authority of the present Government The truth is the same Objections which are now made against the Promotion of these new Bishops are equally strong and as eagerly urg'd at this Day by the Papists against our first Reformers For they were promoted to Bishopricks while the former Popish Bishops

of embarking in a sinking Interest and fills them with new Jealousies of the lawfulness of it and what just offence this must give to the Government I need not say The truth is were I not better perswaded of the good Inclinations of their Majesties to the Church of England and the general Inclination of the Nation to support the Government I should dread what might be the fatal Consequence of such a miscarriage as this both to Church and State There are always too many who are glad of such an opportunity to reproach the Church and to possess their Majesties with an ill Opinion of the Clergy notwithstanding their Oaths of Allegiance and I confess this gives too great an Advantage to such Misrepresentations were not the Zeal and good Affection of wiser Men too well known to be suspected and then I hope a single Instance of Folly can do no great hurt for that is the softest Name I can give it on which side soever I view it This plainly proves that supposing it lawful to have taken the Bishoprick no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the refusal in our Circumstances and I know not how to suppose that Dr. B could think it unlawful He submitted to the Government and took the Oath of Allegiance as early as any Man and never that I heard had the least scruple about it and yet this was the time to have been Scrupulous if He would have been so for it seems a little of the latest when He is become a sworn Subject to King William and Queen Mary to question their Authority to make a Bishop And if the former Bishops were Deprived and New Bishops made by such an Authority as he can swear Allegiance to I cannot understand that it can be unlawful to accept a Bishoprick from the hands of those whom he owns by his swearing Allegiance to them to have Authority to give it for this is an Authority which belongs to the Imperial Crown of England Besides this Dr. B was one of those who by Commission from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury hath exercised Archi-Episcopal Authority during the Vacancy of the See by the deprivation of the A. B. as it is expressed in the Commission and I take this to be altogether as unlawful if either of them were unlawful to seise upon the Authority of the A. B. upon the account of his deprivation as to take the Character and exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop To receive the Consecration on of a Bishop I suppose is not the thing he accounts unlawful nor to exercise the Authority of a Bishop and then there is nothing he can think unlawful but to exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop and then it seems to me as unlawful for a Presbyter to do this as for a Bishop to do it unless a Presbyter may do it without the Revenues of the Bishoprick but a Bishop must not do it with them but this can be no Ecclesiastical scruple as so great a Canonist must needs know for if the Civil Power cannot dispose of such Temporal Matters it can do nothing But whatever he thought his refusing a Bishoprick upon great deliberation after an appearing forwardness to take it hath tempted people to think that he judges it unlawful and to let him see how inconsistent this is with his owning the present Government and his exercising the Archiepiscopal Authority I shall explain the meaning of it to him which I believe he never thought of If it be unlawful to succeed a deprived Bishop then he is the Bishop of the Diocess still and then the Law that deprives him is no Law and consequently the King and Parliament that made that Law no King nor Parliament and how can this be reconciled with the Oath of Allegiance unless the Doctor can swear Allegiance to him who is no King and hath no Authority to govern If the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop then the People and Clergy of his Diocess are bound to own him and no other then all Bishops who own the authority of a new Arch-bishop and live in Communion with him are Schismaticks and the Clergy who live in Communion with Schismatical Bishops are Schismaticks themselves and the whole Church of England now established by Law is Schismatical and Doctor B himself a Schismatick if he communicate with it And thus we have no Church or only a Schismatical Church as well as no King and all that Dr. B has got by refusing a Bishoprick is to prove himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion or to make a Schism if he separate from it Now will the Doctor say this or if he dare not say it will he dare to think it and yet if the deprived Bishops though they retain their Episcopal Character have no Authority or Jurisdiction in the Church of England then it must be lawful for other Bishops to exercise that Authority which they have lost and to succeed in the Government of such vacant Sees unless such Churches must be deprived of the Episcopal Authority while their deprived Bishops live And this brings me to consider the lawfulness of the thing it self which is so evident when set in a clear light that it will admit of no dispute with Men of Sense In a late Letter said to be sent to Doctor B and now printed on the Backside of a scandalous Rhyming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution he is threatned in Case he should accept the Bishoprick with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Vsurpers Gregory and George of Cappadocia who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there What effect this might have on Doctor B I know not but those who have used themselves to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons easily perceive a vast difference between these two Cases as will presently appear But to represent this matter plainly and easily I shall briefly State the Case and that I believe will satisfie understanding Men without disputing 1. First then in a Christian Nation and Government the Church is incorporated into the State and the Soveraign Power has a Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical Causes To deny this is either Popery or Fanaticism It is plain the Reformation of this Church was founded on this Principle and it is the constant Doctrine of our Articles Homilies and Canons and they are our Rule considered as Members of the Church of England 2. This Supremacy though it do not extend to the administration of Holy Offices or Church Censures yet it reaches the Persons and external Jurisdiction of Bishops and the other Clergy and the Regulating and Ordering the Externals of Religion As the making and deposing Bishops when there is just Cause for it belongs to the Supremacy which Authority was exercised by the Iewish Kings over the High Priest himself and to resolve all this into a meer Ecclesiastical