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 |
|
A44094
|
Some thoughts on a convocation and the notion of its divine right with some occasional reflections on the defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops.
|
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing H2346; ESTC R37493
|
30,786
|
42
|
against some of the Rules of his own Profession 't would be more proper for the College of Physicians to judge of the Nature and Manner of it But where the Crime has no Relation to the Profession there is required no Skill in Physick to judge of it If a Person be convicted of Heresie 't is just he should be tried by the spiritual Power and according to what has been judged by them so to be But if his Offence be against the King or the Publick if he refuse Allegiance to his Majesty or Obedience to his Laws be he a spiritual Person or not there is no doubt but his Majesty has a Right to forbid him the Exercise of any Office or Function within his Territories The King does not judge herein of his Qualifications as a Divine but of his Duty as a Subject And as such has a Right to command his Obedience and to punish him as he thinks fit for his Disloyalty But if what the Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops urges is of any Force as That the Church and State tho' Christian are two distinct Societies and that spiritual Persons tho' defended and preserved by the Sovereign Power have yet as such no Dependence upon it and are not subject to its Authority How advantageous soever this may prove to the Church it will be very inconvenient and dangerous to the State For if the Prince has no just Power over spiritual Persons as such it must follow That in several Cases he can have no Authority over them as temporal As suppose any of that Body should be guilty of a Crime which requires such a Punishment as can't be inflicted without depriving him of his Ecclesiastical as well as his Civil Rights 't is plain according to that Author's way of arguing That in such a Case the State can have no Authority to punish And if the Clergy will not pass Sentence against him he must go unpunished For how guilty soever he may be the King can pretend no Authority either to imprison or banish him Because according to this Author the supream Power has no Right upon any Account whatsoever to prohibit him the Exercise of his Ecclesiastical Function which he must do if he punishes him either of the fore-mentioned ways The same Reasons will I think also forbid the Civil Authority from having any Right of sentencing an Ecclesiastical Person to Death as well as to perpetual Imprisonment be his Offence of what Nature soever The Consequences of such Notions are more than sufficient Confutations of them The great Grotius who could have no Interest or Prejudice to mis-guide his Judgment in Relation to this Controversie is of Opinion That the Right of removing a Pastor from the Cure of any certain Place ought always to remain in the highest Power So Solomon deposed Abiathar from being Priest The Vindicator of the deprived Bishops has been at some pains to prove that Abiathar was not high Priest Which whether true or no is little to his Purpose for if he was a Priest and deprived by a Lay Power it is sufficient So the Bishops of Rome were more than once deposed by the Imperial Authority as is owned by Bellarmine himself And to prove this says Grotius is not difficult For if the supream Authority hath a Right to forbid any one the City or Province he must of Necessity have a Right to prohibit him the Ministry of that City or Province For this is included in the other For he who has a Power over the whole must have the same no doubt over the part And he adds That if the Sovereign Power had not this Right the State could not be able to provide for its own Security But what seems to me most absurd in the Management of this Controversie by the Vindicator of the depriv'd Bishops is this That he condemns all those of Schism who go upon different Principles or that conform with these who fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops For by this means he not only involves the Christians of several Centuries in the same Guilt even from Constantine's time till Papal Usurpations were introduced who submitted to Bishops put into the Places of others deprived by the Emperors as has been learnedly shewn in a great many Instances beyond all Possibility of a Reply But he also condemns and contradicts himself For I believe his Practice has been contrary to his present Opinion Since if I mistake not he held Communion with the Church of England till the late Revolution And I believe this Doctrin of the Prince's Authority over spiritual Persons was the same then as now If not what can those Words signifie That the King is over all Persons and in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil Supream Mr. Hooker tells us That the Prince has by this the same Power over Ecclesiastical Persons as the Pope had usurped before the Reformation And indeed if these Words do not imply That Ecclesiastical Persons as such are subject to the King's Authority they signifie nothing And if they carry such a Sense with them they must also denote the Sufficiency of the King's Authority for depriving Bishops of their Sees upon a just Cause And tho' it be granted there were no Instances of this Nature in the late Reigns yet the Case is much the same if such a Doctrin was then held and maintained by the Church And if 't is a Sin to communicate with the Bishops who are put into the Sees of them who were deprived by the Supream Power 't is a Sin also not to separate from that Church which requires all its Members to acknowledge and believe such a Right to belong to that Power For the Nature of the Church is the same whether the King exercises that Authority or not if it be owned and allowed by the Church to belong to him But this Author pretends that he has the Church and the Laws on his side since Queen Elizabeth's Time and that he will agree to the Supremacy as then stated by her and as it is expressed in the 37th Article If he will put the Cause upon this Issue we must also submit to be determined by it For we cannot desire to carry the Supremacy farther than it was in that Queen's Time and as 't is specified in that Article But then we demand That the Words may be explained according to the most easie and natural Sense of them and not understood only as this Author would interpret them The Queen lays claim to the same Authority over Ecclesiastical Affairs and Persons that was Exercised by all Godly Princes in Scripture and which at all times belonged to the Imperial Crown of England And this must include the Power which was given to her Predecessors Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th The 37th Article allows the King all that Power which we contend for and asserts his Supremacy over all sorts of Persons as well
Spiritual as Temporal in all Causes And all the Limitations that either the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth or that Article hath set to the Regal Power is That Kings have not or do not pretend to have any Authority to minister Divine Service in the Church which we are not Disputing for But if this Author will be concluded by Queen Elizabeth's Notion of the Supremacy he must carry it I am afraid something farther than he is aware of For she thought her Supremacy extended to the giving Commissions to Lay-Persons to proceed by Ecclesiastical Censures And accordingly the Earls of Shrewsbury Derby and others were made Visitors of Ecclesiastical Matters and acted as such This then we may be positive in asserting That the Supremacy as it was confirmed and settled in Queen Elizabeth's Reign is a sufficient Vindication of our Principles and directly opposite to his Upon the whole that Author's Censures are either too far stretcht or too much confin'd Every Man I think ought to be very tender in fixing the Charge of Schism upon a whole Church especially where it has the practice of all Antiquity on its side Charity certainly would rather oblige a Man to distrust the strength of his own Arguments where he has neither the Authority of Scripture and the ancient Church to support them than pass so severe a Censure from the bare result of his own Thoughts and Opinions If we are in the wrong we err with the whole Catholick Church for some Ages together and I believe I may add with the Scriptures themselves I am sure not against them and we have moreover our Canons and Articles for us the Judgment of some of the greatest Men of the last Age who could have no other Motives to mislead them but the impartial discovery of Truth who were of the same Opinion with us Indeed I think we ought to pay a great deal of respect to Men that go upon sincere Principles of Conscience but then it were to be wished That they would not judge too rashly of other Men but consider that they who dissent from their Notions may not be less sincere and consciencious than themselves It can't be supposed that Men who believe Religion should be so fond of the little interest of a short Life as to forfeit all pretences to a better for the sake of it Surely Men that know the present value of things ought to think them very inconsiderate Motives for the byassing a Man's Conscience one way or other There are a great many who can't comply with us whom we must and do entertain a very high Opinion of and who deserve and command our Esteem The late Service which one of them has done the Church and Clergy by the vindicating them from the Contempt and Abuses of the Stage in his admirable and just Reflections upon the Immorality and Profaneness of that Place ought always to be acknowledged with the highest returns of Gratitude But to return to our Convocations if we should grant that Revelation has not in express Terms determined this Matter yet we may venture to lay this down for a certain Principle That in a Christian Common-wealth that Order ought most to be observed which is most subservient to its Peace and Unity and that such a method of Government cannot be lawful which will necessarily confound and destroy it Now if the Clergy should have the sole Power among themselves of meeting and Establishing what Laws they please for the Government of the whole Church and of subjecting all Christians to the observance of them whether they will consent to them or no it will probably occasion great confusion and raise perpetual Heats and Jealousies in the State The State does not challenge such a superiority over the Clergy in Civil Affairs no Temporal Laws are made to bind them but such as themselves have assented to The same Reasons will hold in Christian Discipline none ought to be bound to obey any Constitutions but such as are made by their own consent or which is the same thing by that of the Supream Authority which represents the whole State Nor indeed can the Clergy plead such a Priviledge their Business being only to deliver their Opinions and to declare their own and the Sense of the Church concerning any Point in Religion and no farther than this does their Authority extend G. Vossius has proved this at large and tells us That the Clergy are forbid by the Scripture to Exercise Authority and Grotius tells us That they are called in Holy Writ by the Titles of Embassadors Messengers and Teachers to signifie that it is their Part to declare the Authority and Power of another and not to oblige Men by their own The Government therefore which is committed to them when they are said to Guide to Rule to Feed to be set over the Church ought to be interpreted of the declarative kind or of that which consists only in persuasion When the Apostles are any where said to have commanded it is to be understood in such a figurative Sense as they are said to remit and retain Sins that is to declare them remitted or retained He farther proves That the Church can have no commanding Power by Divine Right because the Sword which is the instrument of Power and denotes Authority is not committed to them There can no Power naturally belong to the Pastors of the Church because no such thing is included in the nature of the Function Under the Mosaical Law when there was neither King nor Judge the Supream Power in Civil as well as Ecclesiastical Affairs devolved on the High Priest But during the Regal Dignity the High Priests Jurisdiction was always under that of the King so Aaron was under that of Moses The Trust that is committed to the Ministers of the Church by the Law of the Gospel and which comes nearest to Iurisdiction though it is distinct from it are those Actions which were either peculiar to the first Christians only or are still continued to the Pastors of the Church Such was that Sharpness which the Apostle threatens the Corinthians with which denotes according to Grotius a certain miraculous Vertue of imposing Punishment Thus Ananias and Sapphira fell down dead Elymas was smitten with blindness and others were delivered to Satan which was plainly an Act of miraculous Power exercised by God himself who at the Denunciation of the Apostles commanded Men to be vexed and tormented with Diseases and seized on by Divels Grotius upon this observes That before the Civil Powers exercised their Authority in the Church God himself supplyed by Divine Assistance what was defective in Human Laws But as Manna ceased after the Israelites were possessed of the Holy Land so after Emperors took upon them to protect the Church their Office being to punish all that any way disturbed its Peace these Divine Executions of Justice were dis-continued But however all those Divine Punishments were the Acts