Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
church_n bind_v earth_n loose_v 5,255 5 10.5190 5 true
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
A43802 Municipum ecclesiasticum, or, The rights, liberties, and authorities of the Christian Church asserted against all oppressive doctrines, and constitutions, occasioned by Dr. Wake's book, concerning the authority of Christian princes over ecclesiastical synods, &c. Hill, Samuel, 1648-1716. 1697 (1697) Wing H2009; ESTC R14266 76,389 151

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

as much to the Laws and Regulations of Civil Societies as any other Public Assemblies This is a bold stroke indeed for it will put the Constitution of the Hierarchy and all its Functions into what Hands under what Conduct Times and Places c. the Civil Powers please They shall enable a Layman to ordain and Minister Sacraments to Preach Excommunicate Absolve Consecrate and degrade and do all things by an Arbitrary Legislation and Government thereupon and well then may this Incorporation into Society promote the Se●●●● of God and Salvation of Men with all Secular Heavens upon Earth 〈◊〉 But I pray what is this Incorporation Is it making the Church one of the National Estates to concurr in the Acts of Legislature and all her Ratified Canons not only Canon but Law too and of Civil Consequences upon the Subject Or is it only the Protection of the Law from Injuries or Oppressions or the addition of several Priviledges Honours and Encouragements If the first of these only then was the Church never incorporated into the State under the Roman Empire for it was no part of the Legislature and consequently not thereupon subject to the Laws of the Empire in Matters of Ecclesiastical Conduct If the second Favour be an Incorporation then the incorporating Powers have a Right to govern the Religion of all other Societies which they tolerate all Schisms and Heresies whatsoever exempt by Law from Violences and Oppressions so that an Orthodox Christian Emperor tolerating Novatians Meletians Arians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians and all other Clans of Heresies had full Right and good Authority to govern all their several respective Counsels and Discipline and to ratisie all their Synodical Acts Canons and Sentences O Sanctas Gentes What a mighty Supremacy would this be indeed wherein every Prince so indulgent would be another Solomon and reside not only over God's Church at Jerusalem but over those of Chomesh Milchom Ashtoreth c. a Supremacy I must needs confess more than divine And yet I doubt it would not be casily admitted either in Holland or the emulous England where tho the publick Indulgence is to save their Souls as well as their Temporals yet will not the Sectaries part with their Souls to these Indulgent Saviours nor endure the Thoughts of their Presidency and Conduct in their little Religious Politics but demand an Exemption as entire as the Chappels of foreign Factories or Embassadors Nor can in the third place an Accumulation of all Encouragements Priviledges and Honours prevail upon them hereunto most of them being against a National Church all of them against a National Religion i. e. confined to the Laws of a Civil State And commend me to Scotland who have acquired all Secular Priviledges and Franchises they desired and yet scorn that a King shall so much as be a Door keeper to their Holy of Holies notwithstanding all these their Incorporations and if the Dr. should preach up his Maximes but on the other side of the Tweed they world quickly bring him to the stool of Repentance for teaching their People or their Sovereign that Right of Supremacy over Holy Kirk which they are so far from owning in all Princes that 't is with them the most Funda nental Heresie to allow them any at all as appears by their perpetual Remonstrances upon all Occasions in their Synods § 6. Wheve tho Prince is of a different Religion But t is nor impossible that a Sovereign may contract a Religion contrary and destructive to that which is recieved and c●●blished among his People and which it is not in his Power by Force or Legislative Authority presently to Abolish As Izates King of the Adiabenes turning Jew and to omit others King James the Second Roman-Catholick How graceful in such a Case would it be to see a King of England of Jewish Popish Socinian Presbyterian Anabaptist Independent Quaker or M●ggletonian Principles or Profession convening a Church of England Convocation presiding in it in Person or a Vicar-General of his own perswasions upon Matters of alteration in the Liturgy and Canons or any other Expedients for the good of the Church of England and always twitting the Synods with Caveats of that Holy Statute of Praemunire not to speak one wold nor syllable to any purpose whatsoever till such Prince pleases to allow you of his meer grace and motion as being only of Counsel to this Head of the Church of England who is however to be presumed wiser to know all times and matters expedient for the Church which yet by his Religion he is in Conscience bound to abhor and destroy than whole Convocations and to prescribe to these his Counsellors herein as being fitter to be of Counsel unto them whose Resolves after all he has Wisdom enough as well as Authority to ratifie alter rescind or aunull so that not what they but what he shall bind or loose on Earth shall be bound or loosed in Heaven and reason good upon such an Heavenly Authority and Design By this Ecclesiastical Supremacy which K. James himself abjured did he most advantageously for the Church of England erect his Ecclesiastical Commission for the saving of this Church from the Encroachments of the Papal Supremacy So that by our Incorporation alone we are all safe Soul and Body with Lawyers and Court-Flatterers let our Supream Head be of what Religion he pleases But Lawyers indeed cannot be blamed for any inconvenienties which may happen from 2 positive Law and they are obliged to interpret and judge according to the Letter but for Clergy-Min to attribute Divinity to Humane Laws whatsoever the results of them be this this But will not here the same Right of Natural Reason come in which the Dr. asserts to the Chuach where the Civil Power is of another Perswasion to Consult together the best they can and to that end Aslemble in Synods Ecclesiastical This Reason this Right and Rule by the wording of it in general terms of quother perswasion will reach the Case of Churches not only under Heathen Powers but Christian Powers of different Communion and Principles from the pure Church that is in subjection And it seem'd Calculated for the Case of the French Protestants or the Vandoise for Comprehension sake Now tho' I know this to be no Rule of Common or Statute-Law here in such Cases yet will the Dr. allow a Natural Right and Reason for such Liberty even in opposition to our Laws when our King shall be of another perswasion shall the Church lean upon her own Authority and Wisdom not His This his own determination says as much in Generals and yet I believe his Design will not permit him to say so for us no not in our Case under the late K. James And if he shall make any Reply upon this Book I do desire him to speak home like a Man to this Supposition and the Case and Demand raised on it § 7. Supposing then according to the Dr's Concession that under
for departing from this Rule and that is much the same thing with not having departed from it But not so good Sir for in a confessed Right there is no need of a Justification but it is sufficient in such and so very many Synods held without any reference to Emperours that there was no Rule or Law against them nor ever any Censure of Irregularity past upon them If the Prince was angry at it he might call another to review the matters but he never could condemn the Provincial Conventions merely for being made without his License Of the Total Authority This in all Acts Synodical he avowedly attributes to the Prince yet unhappily falls sometimes into contrary instances and concessions unawares as for example chap. 2. § 24. p. 55. He says That in the sixth Council of Toledo we find the very Constitutions themselves in some measure drawn by up the Order of Cinthilus their King and only Confirmed by the Synod Now where the Right of Confirmation was there was the chief Internal Synodical Authority Again ch 2. § 36. p. 87. He says of the first Council at Ephesus That they appointed the Emperors Order for suspending the Sentence of Celestine and Cyrils to Provincial Synods to be inserted into their Acts and thereby gave a kind of Conciliary Authority to it But if Councils in themselves have all their Authority Conciliary from the Prince how could that Council give any to his Order Or how was it pertinent to the Doctors Principle ch 2. § 25. p. 56. to alledge Receswinthus magno precatu deliberationis exhortantem exhorting the eighth Council of Toledo with great entreaty to consider the matters he laid before them Of the Princes Ability to Judge matters Theological ch 2. § 31. p. 71 72. The Arguments given for this are very languid and repugnant to common experience and may as well be applied to the Reputation of a Beggars Judgment in Matters Divine But yet it must be allowed that before a Prince gives the Definitions of a Synod a Legal Sanction or his own recommendatory Suffrage 't is fit he should understand them but the Spiritual Authority lies not in the Prince but in the Spiritual Truth in matter of Faith enforced by the Canonical Order of Ecclesiastick Ministries tho' the Doctor ascribes the Authority of imposing belief on the Subjects to the Confirmations of the Kings lb. p. 75. I hope saith he they will think it to be their Duty in order to his consirming their Decrees with a good Conscience to convince him of the Truth of them and not expect that he should not only believe himself but should oblige others to BELIEVE what neither he nor they see any reason to believe The Fathers that scouted the second Sirmian Creed that dated it self in the Presence of Constantius and under the Consulship of Flavius Ensebius and Hypatius in the tenth of the Calends of ●nne for ascribing so late a beginning in but the Presence of a Prince how would they have blessed themselves had they heard any man ascribe to Princes an Anthority of making Subjects believe or had they read any such paslage as this ch 2. § ●3 p. 79. It is I conceive allowed on all bends that their Definions are no further obligatory than as they are rulified and confirmed by the Civil Authority For tho' the Faith of Christ neither depends upon the Authority of Man nor is subject to the Power either of Synods or Princes as to what concerns the truth of it Yet what that Faith is which shall be allowed to be professed in every Community by the Laws of it and receive not only Protection but Encouragement from the Civil Power must be left to the Prince to determine So far 't is tolerable well And the Definitions of Synods in favour of it will signifie very little till what they have determined to be the Right Faith be also allowed by the Civil Magistrate to the publickly Professed and Taught and be received into his Favour and under his Patronage as such Sute the Doctor forgot the three first Centuries and all other times of Princely Persecutions under which the Synodical assertions of the Faith signisied more to the convincing Men to Faith Ten Thousand times than all the Encouragement of Christian Princes ever could did or will And therefore whatsoever liking any other Arch-Bishop might have had to this Doctrine of the Doctors I hope this is none for which the Doctor will challenge his present Graces approbation Of Ecclesiastical Censures These the Dr. makes all annihilable by the Will of Princes But how then shall what they bind on Earth be bound in Heaven and their sins be retained which they retain if they are Repealable by an Earthly Prince Has this Earthly Potentate a Commission to bind and loose remit and retain in Earth and Heaven too as the Church had and has still except he can take it away The Doctor should have considered here that Kings are only concerned in Church Censures as by the Laws they are to have a Civil effect not as to their Spiritual validity before God in Heaven Of the Right of Summons Ch. 3. § 5. p. 107. They have Right to nothing but a Summons and it were no great matter whether they had a Right to that or no. Ch. 3. § 25. p. 141. Yet I humbly conceive that so antient and settled a Custom ought to be held to What! tho' 't is no matter whether they had this Right or no Of the Bottom of the Regal Supremacy This he solemnly and universally places in the Sovereignty of all Christian Princes as such but ch 3. § 25. p. 144. he lodges it in the Trust reposed and granted by the People The Government has intrusted him our King with the Power of giving them leave to sit and act when he pleases and when he pleases he may deny them to do either This is indeed the Truth and only Truth in this matter 't is a concession and trust of the Estates to our Princes established by Common and Statute Law which whether God approves or no must be left to his Judgment at last when Men shall be called to account for what they have done herein or hereupon But in the mean time this Truth is a prejudice against that universal Right of all Christian Sovereigns herein by mere vertue of their Sovereignty Of the Parallel of Counsellor and Jury Chap. 5. § 15. p. 289. Will not their Resolutions be their own because the King declared to them the general Matter upon which they were to consult Is a Counsellor at Law of no Vse or has he no freedom of Opinion because his Client puts his Case to him Or does our Law unfitly call the answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict because the Judge summed up the Evidence to them and directed them not only upon what points but from what proof they were to raise it What strange Notions must c. But what strange Notions must that Man have that thinks a Synod to have only a freedom of Opinion like a Counsellor without any Decisive Authority and yet compare that very freedom of Opinion to the Verdict of a Jury which is Authoritatively Decisive To compare the King to a Client and a Synod to his Counsellor and in the same breath to make the King a Judge and so of Counsel to the Jury Whatsoever esteem the rest of this Book may acquire among the learned of the Law I do not pretend to Divine but I believe this will raise no extraordinary Transports and so let it pass And now I have done with my Remarks upon the Doctors Incongruities which tho' necessary to shew the weakness of the Work that a false Reputation may not recommend the ill Principles I had never offered to publick notice had he not used his Generous Adversary not only with extreme Spight but undeserved Contempt insulting over him as a Man of no Honesly Logick Law or History c. I could have added a great many more such absurdities but the employ is uneasie and so I quit it and shall only wish that the Doctor may humble himself to God for the wrongs he has done to the Church and when he has done so he will quickly endeavour to make her Reparation FINIS
are therefore of two sorts one relating to the welf are of the Church the other to that of the Civil State § 6. And first with relation to the Church the Christian Prince is the Guardian of it ‖ P. 44. and consequently Supream Governonr in order to that Protection which the Church expects or enjoys from him * p. 79. and that such Synods hereby may become Legal Assemblies † p. 18. Secondly In reference to the Civil State such a plenitude of Regal Power over Ecclesiastical Synods is necessary to the ends of Civil Government ¶ p. 42 57 70 73 ● p. 81. and Peace particularly to prevent in them Proceedings prejudicial to the Regal Power Now if from these Reasons there be a necessity that the Divine Rights and Authorities of the Catholick Church in the Convention Freedom and Acts of Synods should thist their former Sebjects and Depositaries and pass over into the hands of Christian Princes then is the Argumentation hence hereunto suggested by the Dr. good but if all these Reasons Ends and Purposes may consist with the Permanency of these Liberties and Powers in the Church as they stood Authorized by God for the three first Centuries then whatsoever others may be brought these will not I doubt appear to the Author of the Letter to be valid necessary or cogent Reasons for the alienation of these Powers from the Hierarchy § 7. Protection from Heathen Powers We begin then with those Reasons that are drawn from the Benesit of the Church under the Guardianship of Princes the Protection of the Faith and the Legalizing our Synods Now here it is to be noted That Heathen Princes may do all this for the Christian Church as well as Christian Princes For tho' they do not believe Christianity themselves either in whole or in part yet they may give the Church a Legal Toleration to all its Offices and Assemblies and this Legalizes them He may also add other Immunities and Charters to his Christian Subjects and so not only protect but promote them And this was in great measure done by all Non-persecuting Emperors and the Persecutors too when ceasing to persecute by the Revocation of the cruel Edicis and Laws and giving new Edicts for their Security But will the Dr. thereupon conclude that those Heathen Emperors have or had Night to all those Church Powers which he hereupon arrogates to the Christian Sovereigns in the above-named Aphorisms If so I must needs say that he must condemn all the Synods held during times of Peace which were perhaps the only times in the three first Centuries as Violations of the Imperial Authorities without whose License they Convened Sate Deliberated Debated Promulged and Executed Decrees Canons Seatences on their own Divine Right and in the Name of the Lord. No ground for such Authority over Synods And such an Inference as would follow upon this supposed Ground of Legal Protection from Heathen Powers I need not expose by upbraiding the ridiculous Guise of an Heathen Prince actually ordering and directing all the Synodical Consults and Polity of the Christian Church and Ratifying Annulling and Altering their Decrees Acts and Sentences as he Judges best for the good of the Pupil Church of which he not the Synod is to be Judge But I think a meer Edict to this purpose would be very Pretty and Congruous as for Diversion and Example T. V. Caes Aug. c. To all Christian Churches within our Empire Greeting Know ye that of our especial Grace and Compassion we have taken upon us to be your Guardian to protecs you in the Freedom of your Religion and to Legalize your Synods Vpon which Consideration you have no Right nor Liberty of your selves to Convene in Synods nor to Sit Deliberate Act Decrce or Resolve any Matters of your Faith Doctrine or Discipline by Canon or Sentence without the Authority of our General or Particular License to every your Particular Act and Method of Acting nor Enact Promulge or Execute any Thing or Ordinance without our Ratisication who can of Right Annul Rescind Vacate or Alter all or any Thing you shall do in Synod which only is of Council to us in the Conduct of the Church which we protect being wholly dependent on us and in our hands its Conciliar Acts being wholly ours and all their Validity from our Imperial Authority To this we require your Synodical Submission on fear of a Praemunire otherwise incurred that thereupon we may put out an Edict of Praemunire upon all the Clergy that shall attempt any the least Violation of this our Ecclesiastical Headship or Supremasy Yet as odd as this sounds in all Christian Ears it is as justifiable as in any Christian Prince if such Protections as are aforesaid are the alone true Reason for this Supremacy for there is no differencing Cause assigned in the Reasons 'T is true indeed a Christian Prince looks more likely to protect us than an Alien and has one peculiar actually Federal Obligation by his Baptism to support the Communion of the Church by all his powers but so is every private Christian too and 't is possible for a Christian Prince to ornit this Care or to be disabled in it while elsewhere the Humanity of an Heathen Prince may do more for it voluntarily without any Federal Tyes of Christianity and consequently if the Ecclesiastical Supremacy be Founded on such Protection and Squared in its Measure by the proportion thereof I believe many Heathen Princes had more ' tho' unknown Right in the Ecclesiastical Supremacy than many Modern Princes professing Christianity it being possible that Princes may freely protect Subject Societies which they are not federally or otherwise bound to as Jewish Synagogues now are in their States of Pilgrimage which they that are especially bound to may oppress under the very colour of that Supremacy that is thus Founded on the Right of Protection Tho' speaking generally upon the Law of Nature all rinces are thereby equally bound to protect all the Fundamental Rights of the Innocent and consequently those of the Christian Church so that the Right and Reason of our protection under Princes is not Founded in their Christianity but the Churches Innocency and the Right She has to the Royal Protection in doing good by any Acts or Operations Synodical or other Toleration not founded on the Right of all Rehgioas tolerated but upon other exterior Reasons Nor will this assert a Right of Protection to all pretended Religions for tho' the Ignorance of a Prince in the distinction of true Religion from bad may occasion him in mistake actually to persecute the Right and cherish the Wrong to avoid which under that Ignorance he ought to tolerate that wherein he can see no hurt yet really nothing but real Truth has a real Right to any Protection or Countenance and the Connivances or Encouragements given to false Religions must be excused or justified not on the Right of the Errors which