Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
christian_n bind_v church_n communion_n 1,436 5 9.0889 5 false
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
A14037 An essay on ecclesiastical authority in which the pretence of an independent power in the church, to a divine right in the election of bishops; to the invalidity of lay deprivations; to the inseparable relation of a bishop to his see; to an obligation of continuing communion with the deprived bishops; and several other things relating to the nonjurors separation from our church, are particulary and impartially examined. By John Turner, D.D. Vicar of Greenwich, and chaplain to His Royal Highness the Prince. Turner, John, 1660-1720. 1617-1717 (1717) STC 24342; ESTC S102040 34,345 84

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

consequently they have nothing in 'em to exclude the Jurisdiction of temporal Governors Because those temporal Governors have the very same natural and common Right over all their Subjects and in all Cases and Causes to do every Thing that shall be found necessary to the Support and Preservation of the STATE which the others can pretend to Claim for the Support and Preservation of the CHURCH Nay farther That it would be no certain Advantage to Religion for the CHURCH to be possess'd of such Authority That it would rob Kings and Princes of one great Branch of their Sovereignty and may be and often has been used to defeat even their Civil Administrations and to shake their Thrones and to Ruin their Dominions And in a Word that such an Independent Authority is Incompatible with the Supremacy of Secular Princes whose Affairs must inevitably be influenced and controul'd thereby Therefore too such inconsistent Supremacies cannot be believed to be derived both from GOD. IN Consequence of all this I have shew'd That Princes have an Authority both in the Election and also in the Deprivation of Bishops if they be disloyal and disaffected to them That without such a Power Government may be made too weak to subsist and may be in Danger of being Overturned by the Power of the Clergy That as this is what Christ's Commission never was intended for so consequently all such Deprivations made by the legal Authority of the STATE are good and Valid to all Intents and Purposes and oblige the Consciences of all the Subjects THE Conclusion of all this is That the Deprivation of the late Non-juring Bishops was in all respects Valid that the People of their several Sees are thereby discharged from all Submission and Duty and spiritual Communion and Relation to them That they have no longer any lawful Authority in our CHURCH but we as Christians are bound to adhere to the Religious Communion of those whom the King by the Laws of the Land shall Promote into their Places And in a Word that the contrary Practice in leaving the Communion of this established CHURCH and setting up Religious Assemblies under the pretended Authority of such Deprived Bishops or their Adherents Is very Wicked and sinful in the Sight of GOD and an undoubted Schism from the Communion of the Church of England I WILL only add that as these have been the constant Doctrines and Principles of the Church of England from the Beginning of the Reformation down to our Times So they had not now been disputed had it not been in favour of the Pretender and of Popery FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Occasion and Importance of this Debate page 1. The State has a supremacy in all Cases antecedently to the Church's Claim 3 Natural Religion gives no Independent Authority to the Priesthood 4 Christs Commission appropriates only the Ministration in Holy Offices 5 The General Governing Powers of the Church founded only on Common Right and not Appropriated to the Clergy by Christ's Commission 8 Therefore not to be Executed by an Authority Independent on the State This proved by Six Arguments 10 I. From the nature of the Powers in Dispute 11 Where Christ has not appropriated the Power the State is not excluded ibid. Dr. Hickes admits this in Part 12 How the Church's pretended Independency is to be understood 16 The Practices of the three first Centuries were of mere Necessity pag. 17 The Royal Preisthood Nothing to this Controversy 18 The Non-jurors lofty Style and Pretensions unsuitable to the Temper of the Gospel 20 The Church's real Authority must not be judg'd of by high Strains and Metaphors but by the Powers actually convey'd and appropriated 22 II. Such an Independency in the Church not consistent with the Subordination of Christ's Kingdom to that of the Father 23 III. Not at all Serviceable to Religion 25 IV. It robs Secular Powers of one Branch of their Sovereignty 29 That secular Princes and States have Authority in Matters of Religion proved from the Jewish Kings 31 32 V. Such a Claim dangerous to all Kingdoms as Weakening and Ruining their Authority in their Temporal Affairs 36 This Evidenced by the Practices of the Non-juring Schismaticks 37 VI. Two Independent Powers in the Government of the same Body of Men breeds inevitable Confusions and therefore cannot be of GOD pag. 41 The Necessity of granting that Christ has given the Church no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers 43 The State must have as ample a Power for its own Preservation as the Church has for Hers ib. This necessarily gives them an Authority   1. In the Election of Bishops and Clergymen 44. 2. In their Deprivation 47 No Persecution in depriving the Nonjuring Bishops 50 No real Invasion of Ecclesiastical Authority 53 Three Objections answered shewing   I. That the Relation of a Bishop to his Flock is not Divine or Unalienable 54 II. The Principles and Practices of the Cyprianick Age altogether foreign to this Controversy 62 III. No real Detriment to the Christian Church or Priesthood from the Principles of this Essay 69 The properest Method of Advancing the Character and Interest of the Clergy 70 The Conclusion 75 ERRATA Page 14. line 21. read Modification p. 15. l. 6. r. Powers p. 50. l. 25. for their r. the.
to that Government were such that it was become impossible for them to execute their Spiritual Offices in the CHURCH with any Security to the Peace and Safety of the STATE They could not perform Divine-Service in Publick because they would not own the Authority of the King who was to be prayed for therein The Bishops could not ordain other Clergymen for the same Reason They could not do it without obliging them by the Laws of the Land to own those Secular Powers whom they themselves did not own They could not govern the Clergy as Bishops by the Laws of the Land are bound to govern them without Teaching them and Instructing them to teach their People the Duty of Obedience to that King whom they themselves looked on as an unlawful King Neither could they answer the Ends or do the Business of the Government by sitting in Parliament as the Law expects and requires that all the Bishops of the Kingdom should do Nay in all their Exercise of Divine Offices they must undeniably lie under a strong Byass and Temptation of instilling dangerous Doctrines and Principles inconsistent with the Peace and Security of the Kingdom Can it be supposed then that any National Government wants a sufficient and competent Authority of removing such Bishops from their Sees and of putting other Orthodox Bishops in their Room And must They ask the Clergy's Leave to do this Or must they borrow a competent Authority from the CHURCH to do this effectually Miserable are the Princes who are in such a Case Wretched is the Kingdom that wants a competent Authority to do any Thing which appears necessary to be done with any of its Subjects of what Order soever to support it self and preserve its own Authority Who then can believe that Almighty GOD ever intended this Those who object against the Validity of such a Deprivation should consider two Things 1. THAT there is no Persecution of Christianity in it Had those Bishops been deprived for any Doctrines or Articles of the Christian Faith it would have looked more plausibly on their Side and might with more Reason have been called Persecution Or if upon their Deprivation their Districts and Sees had been left destitute of Orthodox Bishops regularly consecrated to perform the Divine Offices as others had done before them This would have made a great Alteration in the Case But when it is for an avowed Disaffection to the established Civil Government and judged necessary for the Security of it that Necessity proves it lawful and answers all Objections that can possibly be brought against it And therefore to pretend that such a Deprivation is not valid as to the People living within their Districts of such deprived Bishops because it is not Canonical is in effect saying nothing at all For Deprivation signifies nothing to the Purpose if it does not in the Effects of it bind all the Consciences of the Subjects to disown the Authority of the Persons so deprived and discharge them from all Obligations of future Submission to and Communion with them This is a Power without which Civil Government cannot stand and therefore Secular Powers must be granted to have a competent Authority to all such Purposes or else they are not only Subjects and Inferiors but even Slaves to their spiritual Sovereigns and must depend precariously on the Good-will and Favour of their Clergy whether they shall sit easy and safe on their Thrones or no. And all the Laws and Canons and Constitutions of the CHURCH if they be wise and good and christian must be made with a due Regard and Subserviency to this End or else they lose all their Validity and are to be looked upon as Nothing For this is a sure Principle never to be disputed That all National Governments have as sufficient and competent an Authority to do every Thing which is necessary to preserve the STATE as the Bishops and Clergy can have for the Support of RELIGION and the CHURCH AND if this Authority will extend to the valid Deprivation of the disaffected and disloyal Governors of the Church the plain Consequence of it is That all the Subjects of the Kingdom are in Duty and Conscience discharged from any farther spiritual Relation to or Communion with the Persons so deprived What is it then that our Non-jurors mean by Exclaiming against this even as tho' it were a Sin against the Holy Ghost To tell the World That all other Bishops who will not adhere to the deprived ones can perform no valid Acts of Priesthood their Prayers Dr. Hickes Collect. p 32. are Sin and their Sacraments no Sacraments and their Absolution Null and of no Force That all other Christians who are not in the Communion of the deprived Bishops are cut off from the Church of Christ can have no Benefit by His Promises no Assistance of His Grace no Mercy thro' His Blood Nay that altho' they die Martyrs for Christ yet Martyrdom it self cannot make amends for this Sin If a Stranger to our Gospel were to hear this he would certainly conclude that Christianity aimed at Nothing more than the Exaltation of the CHURCH'S Power and that Nothing greater was required to Salvation than to own these deprived Bishops to be the Heads of it Whereas in Truth the Commission given is only to preach the Gospel to administer the Sacraments and to exercise such Offices and such Powers as shall be necessary to the Propagation of the Christian Religion Without any Check upon Secular Potentates in their Administration of Civil Government or any Exemption from their Jurisdiction They have no Authority that interferes with Civil Powers To confirm all which it must not be forgotten 2. THAT in this Deprivation the STATE took away no Power which the CHURCH truly and properly speaking gives Dr. Hickes indeed insinuates p. 24. That as only Bishops have from Christ a Right to ordain so they only have a Right to deprive one another But this Argument is formed with more Cunning than Ingenuity and the Opposition is not fairly put It should not have been between Ordaining and Depriving but Ordaining and Deposing from the Sacred Order of the Priesthood In the one the CHURCH gives in the other She takes away Her spiritual Authority But Depriving is of another Nature it leaves the Persons all the Catholick Authority which the CHURCH gave if they can find Places where they may lawfully Exercise it and only restrains them from doing so in such and such Dominions It is chiefly Removing them from the Districts and Sees which they held of the Secular Powers and thereby from all Right to the Exercise of their Spiritual Offices among any of the King's Subjects And if Kings and Princes have not a competent Authority to do this they are too weak to stand and consequently much weaker than GOD and CHRIST ever intended that Civil Government should be THE chief Objections to what is here delivered are these three I. IT is pleaded That there is