Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A50861
|
Remarks upon the occasional paper, number VIII in a letter to the author.
|
Milles, Thomas, 1671-1740.
|
1697
(1697)
|
Wing M2068; ESTC R31895
|
7,801
|
12
|
in purely Spirituals such as certainly is the Exercise of a Spiritual Power within a particular District more than a Heathen The Civil Magistrate receives nothing more at his Baptism than every ordinary Christian does and truly there is no reason why he should expect it since those Benefits and Advantages which he receives by his Admission into the Church are far greater than the Church receives from him by his defending and securing its Temporal Rights and Privileges And though we should suppose the Clergy could be so false to the Trust committed to them by Christ the Apostles and their Successors as to give up these their unalienable Spiritual Rights to the Civil Power yet such a Donation would be a perfect Nullity the Magistrate would have no more Right to them by it than a Man would have to an Estate which he buys with a crack'd Title As for the Learned Dr. Hody's share in this Controversy it is certain he has said nothing in his long Book which the most Impartial and Judicious of his own side can judge to be capable in any tolerable measure either to satisfy the doubtful or convince those that are of a contrary Opinion He argues upon such a Supposition as not only quite overturns what he has said concerning the Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor c. but also makes that huge Heap of Instances which he has amass'd together though they were never so much to his purpose as some of 'em are far enough from it to signify nothing at all The Doctor supposes the worst that can be imagined Pref. That the Deprivation is not only unjust and uncanonical but as he supposes all Lay Deprivations to be altogether invalid i. e. to be perfectly null yet notwithstanding all this the Doctor undertakes to prove That 't is Just Reasonable and agreeable to Antiquity to submit to the present Possessor i. e. to one that is not nor can be according to his Hypothesis a Bishop of that particular Diocess For all own that the Nature of an Invalid Act is such that it leaves no Effect behind it produces no Alteration as to matter of Right any more than if no such Act had passed Thus for instance if the Pope should pretend as they did formerly to deprive and depose a King of England from his Power and Dignity nay and if he could second such a pretended Deposition by Arm'd Force and drive him out of his Kingdoms yet no one can imagine that the Throne would thereby become vacant but 〈◊〉 the Prince would have the same Right he had before and the Subjects as much oblig'd as ever to adhere to their Banish'd Sovereign notwithstanding any other Person the Pope might intrude upon them Now if as the Doctor supposes such is the Case of Lay-Deprivations that they are thus null and invalid I cannot see how an Anti-Bishop can be indeed a Bishop at all I mean of that particular District since the See is not made void by such a Deprivation and the Bishop in Possession has notwithstanding all the same Rights which he had before And 't is in this sense and upon this Supposition that the Learned Vindicator applies that Saying of St. Cyprian Chap. 1. Sect. 9. That a second Bishop is no Bishop The Doctor owns If a Bishop put into the Place of one deprived by the Lay-Power be indeed no Bishop that then we can't be obliged upon any account to submit to him Now the Vindicator does not See Vind. p. 1. Sect. 16 17. as the Doctor misrepresents him alledge that Saying of St. Cyprian to prove That a Bishop put into c. any otherwise than upon the same Supposition that the Doctor himself makes viz. That a Lay-Deprivation is null and invalid cannot make the Episcopal Throne become Vacant And then to use the Doctor 's Translation of St. Cyprian Since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in Possession Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Ep. 55. i. e. has a Right to the Possession whether he be in actual Possession or not for that 's meant here as every one must own whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone the same is not a second but none And if this Reasoning holds as for ought I can see it must unless the Doctor will alter his Supposition What shall we judge of the Second Part of his Book What shall we say to the Matters of Fact those severe Things as my Lord Bishop of Sarum is pleas'd to call them Vindic. p. 53. that do not admit of Sophistry What shall we admire most The Doctor 's great Skill and Reading in Ecclesiastical History or his wonderful Judgment in producing so many Examples some from the most degenerate Times of Christianity to prove only this That in all Ages since the Empire became Christian and the Profession of our Holy Religion was not only Safe but Honourable there have been found some men who possibly to get or keep Preferment have been guilty of unwarrantable Compliances For such the Doctor must upon his own Hypothesis own they were unless the Lay-Deprivations were back'd by a Synodical Sentence or the deposed Bishops made room for their Successors by a Voluntary Resignation and Cession From hence it appears how necessary it was that the Doctor should first have shew'd us how far the Authority of the Civil Power extends towards the depriving Bishops of their Spiritualties because upon the settling of the Bounds of that depends the measure of the Peoples Obedience to the present Possessor For if the Civil Magistrate as the Vindicator has endeavour'd to prove have indeed no Power to deprive a Bishop then those Christians in the Instances the Doctor has cited which are to his purpose no doubt acted very ill in deserting him who had a Right to their Obedience and adhering to another who had none But the discussing this Point would have led the Doctor too far out of his Road of Ecclesiastical History and put him upon a Work to which neither his Genius nor the Course of his Studies nor it may be those Secular Prospects he had at that time did at all incline him But to return As for that one Gross Error of this Author in preferring the Pretended Rights of particular persons before the good of the whole Body c. If instead of that Epithet Pretended you will put the word Real every body will say you must bate me the Gross Error at the beginning of this Paragraph And truly Sir your calling of them pretended Rights will not make them such But as for the Proof of this you leave it to some better Pen if it shall be thought worth the while And indeed I wish it may not be thought worth the while since a further debating of this Matter is
REMARKS UPON THE Occasional Paper NUMBER VIII In a Letter to the AUTHOR SIR I Was very much surpriz'd to find you charge the Author of the Vindication of the depriv'd Bishops so severely as you do pag. 3 and 4. of your late Occasional Paper he having given you no occasion that I or any unprejudic'd Person can see for those unkind Reflections Your Paper pretends to shew the Necessity of Christian Discipline and therefore I cannot but wonder you should seem so desirous to pick a Quarrel with one who has always been and is still ready upon all occasions to second your Design What he has said and writ in Defence of the Rights of the Clergy might one would have thought have secured him from the Pen of a Clergyman and though he should be found to have been somewhat mistaken in so generously asserting the Rights of the Church yet the Honesty and Sincerity of his Intentions ought to have induced you to have drawn a Veil over appendant Miscarriages The Temper of the Laity in this Age and Nation is such that few of them appear very forward to defend even the just Privileges of the Clergy and therefore when a Layman will write in their behalf they ought to be so true to their own Interests as at least to stand Neuters the mean while But it seems 't is fear'd That the Rights of the Church are carried to such a height as to give just ground of Suspicion and Jealousy to the Magistrate This ought to have been proved as well as asserted But I cannot see how that Power which this Author asserts to the Church can give any the least Cause of Jealousy to the Magistrate since 't is a purely Spiritual Power and such as is wholly independent of and has no manner of relation to and therefore cannot interfere with that of the State Nor can it endanger the Safety of any Government Because those who have it are not enabled by it to meddle or concern themselves at all in Temporal Matters but only to Feed Direct and Govern that Flock of which the Church hath made them Overseers Nay they own or ought to do so That in all Lawful things they are to pay an Active Obedience to the Civil Magistrate and where they cannot do this without violating their Consciences that there they must patiently submit even to his most unjust Punishments and utterly disown all manner of Resistance purely upon the account of Religion Men surely that own and maintain such Principles as these are not very likely to raise Commotions in a State or disturb the Government of the Civil Magistrate I don 't at all doubt but that the Government had good Reasons to seize and suppress the Pamphlet you mention There were possibly some things in it which the Person by whose Order it was suppress'd did not think convenient should be expos'd to Publick View But yet since there was a Promise from one engaged in the Controversy That he would secure whatever should be printed of that kind and since after it was seiz'd and before it was suppress'd there were Offers made of striking out whatever was offensive and Printing those Sheets over again it seems somewhat hard it should after all be condemn'd to the lining Trunks and Paper-Boxes You say the Title of this Author's Book is long and obscure Which is a Charge as False as 't is Impertinent To prove it False I need do no more than present you with the Title which runs thus A DEFENCE of the Vindication of the Deprived Bishops wherein The Case of Abiathar is particularly considered and the Invalidity of Lay-Deprivations is further proved from the Doctrines received under the Old Testament continued in the First Ages of Christianity and from our own Fundamental Laws Now I appeal to any Man of Sense whether this Title be e're a whit too long or at all obscure But it seems Sir you thought that the Book being suppress'd and so not likely to come abroad into the World you might say any thing of it no matter whether true or false since few or none would be able to contradict you And therefore the Author is beholden to you that you did not fall foul upon the Book it self but contented your self to Nibble at the Title-Page But Good Sir what matter is it how long or obscure the Title may be provided the Arguments thar are in it be clear and conclusive I have often known a Glorious Title prefix'd to a very indifferent Book as on the other hand an Excellent Book have but an ordinary Title this being a matter of so little moment that 't is often left to the Discretion of the Bookseller or Corrector And truly I believe no one will judge of the Goodness or Badness of a Book by its Title unless they be such as look no further than the Title Pages of Books But it is the way of some Men to endeavour to raise Prejudices against some sort of Books because forsooth the Style or Title-Page or something else as trifling which does not concern the Merits of the Cause is not to their minds I readily grant you That they do a great Injury to the Church as to its Real Rights who pretend to such as are not so But then Sir I must desire you to grant me That they do a greater Injury to it who tamely give up its Real Rights and oppose those who would defend them And as they are no Friends to the Church who draw upon it the Jealousy of those in Authority so they are Friends to neither Church nor State who give the latter such a Power over the former as cannot be warranted by Scripture Reason or the earliest Antiquity You profess your self glad That this Author is neither a Clergyman nor a Member of the Establish'd Church But I am sure all good men are sorry both for the one and the other since a Person of his great Piety and profound Learning would be a Support and Ornament to both Church and Clergy As for the Measures of the Magistrate's Power over the Church and whether it reaches so far as that he may forbid the Exercise of those Offices in his own Dominions which are inseparable from the Episcopal Character by those who will not declare themselves his Friends it is the matter in Debate and your saying That indeed it 's hard he should not have such a Power does not determine it I am sure the Primitive Christians of the first Three hundred Years after Christ in some Instances would not declare themselves Friends to the Roman Emperors in such a manner as they required and yet even in such a Case they did not think that they had a Power of hindring any particular Bishop from the exercise of his Function in his particular District If you say the Case is alter'd since the Civil Magistrates are become Christians It is answer'd That a Christian Governement has not the least Authority or Jurisdiction over the Church