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 |
|
A49471
|
A sermon preached before the King at White-Hall, March 18, 1665/6 by ... B. Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
|
Laney, Benjamin, 1591-1675.
|
1666
(1666)
|
Wing L349; ESTC R6221
|
15,643
|
38
|
Ecclesiastical to be two distinct Powers and though they may be both in one Person and were originally so yet by the Divine positive Laws both of Jews and Christians they were so distinguished that though one person were capable of both yet not without a lawful Title and Investiture to either I cannot therefore think That the King is an Ecclesiastical Person who was never Ordained or Consecrated to be so Therefore when some Learned in our Laws affirm That the KING is Supreme Ordinary and mixta persona it must be understood in some other sense and for some other purpose for we do not find that he attempts the doing any thing that is the proper act of an Ecclesiastical Person Yes they say he claims by his Title of Supremacy To govern all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil We acknowledge this to be his just Title but deny that he doth any thing by it which is not properly his own business and in Right of his Crown That he is the Fountain also of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction though it be not expresly in his Title we acknowledge to be in his Power But here I must crave leave to say something of the nature and notion of JURISDICTION though it shall tast somewhat of the race and harshness of the School yet much of the Case depends upon it and no little mistakes there are about it It is agreed generally That there is in the Church a Power of Orders and a Power of Jurisdiction distinct that is for the Power though not distinct in the object and matter of that power for that is â—he same in both As preaching Gods Word administring the Sacraments or the Censures of the Church are of the power of Orders And the putting all or any of these in execution is by a power of Jurisdiction The former as Divines distinguish is a power in â—abitu the other in actu So that Jurisdiction is nothing else but a power to do actually what was potentially or habitually receiv'd in Orders I do not here take Jurisdiction in the strict vulgar sense to be a power jus dicendi inâ—er partes litigantes only as the word imports but more largely as it reacheth to any act of Order without which it cannot lawfully be put in execution Now the Question here will be How a King can be the Fountain of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction us'd in his Dominions who neither gives Orders himself nor executes any that is hath neither power of Orders nor Power of Jurisdiction My Answer to this Question is That the Kings Power lies without both these and is that which gives Commission and Faculty to persons ordained to execute their Orders within his Dominions And the Reason Ground and Necessity of that is Because the Ecclesiastical Function cannot be put in execution but by such wayes and means as are absolutely and originally in the King and in Right of his Crown As first There must be some Subjects upon whom they may execute their Ecclesiastical Orders now all the Subjects within His Dominions are the Kings who must of necessity lose so much of the Right he had in them as any other assumes without Him From hence grows his Right to order and constitute Diocesses and Parishes and to set them their bounds and limits that is upon which of his Subjects and how far he will allow them respectively to execute their Orders for without those bounds it is not nor is us'd to be taken for any part of their business To the publique exercise of Religion the people must meet together And all assemblings of people together are absolutely in the Power of Princes all States in all times have ever been jealous of them and provided severe Laws against them for it is impossible be the pretences of Meeting never so fair to govern people and keep them quiet long if they may have liberty to flock together at their pleasures When they are met together there must be some to teach and instruct them How dangerous a thing is it promiscuously to suffer Harangues and Orations to be made to the people by such who possibly may be Trumpets of Sedition who by slandering the Government and speaking evil of Dignities may inflame people to Rebellion We have known such things done It is therefore necessary that none be allow'd that liberty to speak to Multitudes assembled together but such with whom a King may safely trust His people And this gives Him a Right and Capacity of Patronage and Nomination to Ecclesiastical Charges Least the Doctrine which they teach the people should be such as would amuse them with Novelties or occasion Altercations and foment Divisions or any way disturb the Peace of the Kingdom it is just and reasonable that the King should confine them within the compass of certain Articles and Doctrines of Religion which gives Him a Right to that which in other respects no doubt belongs to the care of the Church But besides the Articles of Peace we find that the King in His Laws declares what is Heresie That if any thing seems to be the proper work of the Ecclesiastical Power yet even in that he is not out at his own Civil business For seeing meer Ecclesiastical Censures are found not to be of sufficient force to suppress dangerous and Heretical Opinions without the use of the temporal Sword Out of the care the King hath of the Lives and Estates of His Subjects he will not let His Sword loose to the will of others who by declaring what they please to be Heresie may bring them in peril He therefore confines them to such cases only wherein He is content His Sword should be made use of This is all and is that which must be allowed to be the proper business of the King to assign how far and in what cases His Temporal Power and Sword shall be employ'd and can be no invading the Ecclesiastical But lastly Is not this the same wrong and illusion we charge the Pope with who in order to his Spiritual End Usurps the Temporal Power so the King in order to his Temporal Government invades the Ecclesiastical No the case is far different If the Pope did order temporals by spiritual means only i e. Ecclesiastice we had the less to say against him he is not out of the way of a Bishops power though he should abuse it But he for his spiritual end usurps temporal means and takes upon him to dispose of temporal Estates that is none of his business But the King in ordering Ecclesiastical things to His temporal end uses no Ecclesiastical means but temporal onely which are His proper business He doth not excommunicate the Pope out of the Church as the Pope would do him out of his temporal Dominions But the King if he see cause may banish him and his Emissaries out of his Kingdom That cannot be deny'd to be the proper business of a King to secure and free his Kingdom from any thing