Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
church_n heathen_a let_v publican_n 2,742 5 10.9981 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
A42125 An answer to some queries concerning schism, toleration, &c. in a letter to a friend ... Gandy, Henry, 1649-1734. 1700 (1700) Wing G197; ESTC R8150 50,034 60

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

the Party From him that will never be Vnfaithful to the K. c. To suspend is a Judicial Act which cannot be done without Bp. Londons Council hearing the Cause When the King commands a Judge he commands him to Act as a Judge The Ecclesiastical Commissioners would not declare the Bishop of London suspended till he had been fully heard The Prince of Orange in his Declaration represents the proceedings P. O. Declaration against the Bishop of London as one of the great Grievances he came to redress The Commissioners says he suspended the Bishop of London only because he refus'd to obey an Order that was sent to him to suspend a worthy Divine without so much as Citing him before him to make his own Defence or observing the Common forms of Process The substance of what is said in answer to this Query is 1. That a Clergyman cannot be regularly depriv'd but by Bishops 2. That a Clergyman cannot be suspended but by a Legal Process 3. That a Bishop cannot be try'd or depriv'd but by his Collegues that is Bishops 4. That those that are depriv'd without a Hearing or by Incompetent Judges cannot be so properly said to be Depriv'd as violently Thrust from their Places and therefore it will follow 5. That a Bishop being not Regularly Depriv'd is to all intents and purposes the Canonical Bishop of his See and a Priest the True and Lawful Pastor of his Flock and the people consequently owe obedience to Them and cannot forsake their Communion without incurring the guilt of Schism Q. Were not the Protestants in Q. Mary's days guilty of Schism in making Separate Meetings under the then Depriv'd Bishops A. I willingly grant that in times of manifest Corruptions and Long 's An. to Hales of Schism p. 147. Reform justify'd p. 6. Persecutions such as the Roman and Marian were Private Meetings are Lawful and Necessary Duties because if men do forbid what God has Commanded it is better to obey God than Man 'T is plain that the Schism is on the side of the Papists who upon pretence of Papal Authority did withdraw themselves from the Communion of their own Bishops after an Universal agreement and concurrence in the Communion of the Church of England for ten or eleven years together and make a formal division in the Church which was before united in Peace and Truth The Popish Bishops that were set aside in Q. Elizabeth's Reign Id. p. 14. did possess the places of Lawful Bishops yet living or United themselves to such as did possess them therefore they were Schismatical and no Lawful Bishops of the Church of England For as soon as these Lawful Bishops were turn'd out others were put into their places and not only so but contrary to all rule and orderly Government in the Church For the most certain fundamental Constitution of the Church in all Ages and the constant Order of all Societies which is always tacitly suppos'd tho' not formally observ'd is That while Particular Churches keep to the Faith and Vnity of the Catholick Church as ours had done all things ought to be managed by the Arch-Bishop and Bishops of the Province and so by the Chief Governors and main Body of the Society or else things cannot regularly be done 'T is confess'd that 14 or 15 Bishops were turn'd out or went Id. p. 17. away in Q. Elizabeth's days but according to our Author 's own Argument they were Schismaticks and no Lawful Bishops because they came into the places of Lawful Bishops while they were alive or else were Ordain'd by and Communicated with such Schismaticks I add they Vsurp'd their places by turning out the Metropolitans and Major part of the Bishops of each Province and so could have no Lawful Authority or Jurisdiction The true Right and Authority of the Church was in those Id. p. 18. Lawful Bishops that were made in K. Edward's days and that was the True Church of England which did adhere to their Constitutions They Q. Mary's Bps. were no Lawful Bishops because they Id. p. 20. either did Schismatically invade the places of the Lawful Bishops or else were willingly Consecrated and did joyn in Communion with those Schismatical Bishops When the Queen Eliz. therefore did set them aside she did but dispossess men who had no just Right and remove those by her Civil Authority who had no Power but what they had by Force and the Secular Constitution All else but Thirlby were ordain'd by or Communicated with Id. p. 25. them during their Schism and Usurpation and therefore neither the Ordainers nor Ordained had any Right or Jurisdiction in the Church of England That which is Essential and the Authority and Power to execute Id. p. 27. the sacred office of a Bishop or Priest in their respective Charges is deriv'd from the Bishops of the Province and after great violence and disorder from as many or the major part of them which survive Every Bishop and Priest orderly constituted in his place do's Id. ibid. act by the Power and appointment of the Catholick Church and they contemn the Catholick Church that desert and disturb them in the performance of their Office Hence we may understand our Saviours meaning when he says If he neglects to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican which in the first place do's require us to hear our own particular Parish Priest and Bishop whilst they are constituted and live in the Unity of the Church but principally it does oblige us to hearken to the Catholick Church So that if our own Pastors turn Hereticks or set themselves up by undue means and not according to the Order of the Church they are not to be hearkned to but we must according to our Saviour's Command Hear the Church and not those Pastors that will not themselves Hear and Obey the Church The Popes Usurp'd Authority and his Prohibition of joyning Saywel of Vnity p. 307. with our English Bishops made the first Schism and is the hindrance to keep them from now joyning in Communion with us For the first 10 years of Q. Elizabeth the Papists did Communicate Faith and Pract. Ch. of Eng. man c. 1. with us till the Bull of Pope Pius IV. An. 1569 70. tho' our Reformation was then fully setled So that they are bound to answer it why they joyn not still in Communion with us We can say the Pope never had any setled and quiet Possession Faith and Pract Ch. Eng. man Chap. 1. and exercise of Power here at least for any considerable time together as is at large evident from what Mr. Prynn and others have Collected and all our Statutes of Provisors and Premunire's do show how little hold here the Pope was by our Government allow'd or own'd to have And tho' many did Appeal to Rome it was against Law and therefore that gives the Pope no more Right here than many Peoples
Momentous particulars 1. It was a Primitive and Fundamental Power and Duty of See Municipium Ecclesiasticum printed 1697. Bishops to convene in Synods without restriction 2ly All Ecclesiastical Rights are so Spiritual that they cannot be by Allowance and Approbation of God or his Church vested in any one in form of a Temporal Right but only on this Condition that the parties intrusted with them continue in the Unity of the Catholick Church and their own Provincial Bishops as Prelates of it having immediate care of their Souls What Princes have no Rightful Authority to do that they may Municipium Eccl. p. 100. irresistibly do upon an uncontroulable Domination and Impunity Upon which when they presume to repress our Rights and Liberties if it be in matters Necessary they are to be disobeyed in Fact and submitted to as to their Legal Processes without resistance The Church is Subject to all Common-Wealths where it is Thornd prim Ch. gov p. 89. maintain'd in Temporal matters In those which concern the Soul whom shall we think our Lord leaveth her in charge with but those whom he trusteth with the Keys of his House Our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme in all Causes Ans to several Capt. Qu. p. 36. and over all Persons Ecclesiastical viz. that no Quality in the Church nor Cause of the Church exempts a Subject from the Secular Laws and the Sword of Justice which may be very true as it undoubtedly is yet all manner of Obedience in Religious matters shall not presently become due to the King For when Sovereigns require the Subjects to do things contrary to Religion if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws which goes with us under the Name of Passive Obedience it saves at once their Acknowledgment of the Sovereigns Supremacy over them and of Gods Supremacy over all So that we are not oblig'd by our Oath to become Calvinists c. nor in a word to be of the King's Religion but to submit to his Authority let his Religion be what it will c. If by the Parliaments changing the Church of England you mean Id. p. 25. that Parliaments can make the Religion profess'd by the Church of England to become a false Religion when their Inclinations are once vary'd from us then I tell you that the Church of England is not changeable by English Parliaments nor by all the Powers of the Earth for this matter is fix'd to their hands and can never be unfixt to the end of the World No Ordinance of Secular State can deprive our Church of its Hill's Cath. Bal. p. 99. essential Rights given us from God but only lay Temporal Punishments on us for the use of them without their permission Which if it be absolutely necessary for us at any time to do in Opposition to the State Our Ecclesiastical Acts are not Null but valid to all effects Purely Ecclesiastical and we can but suffer and despise the Penalty The Romanists triumph that we have no Power to meet in Id. p. 122 Convocation without Royal Licence nor at Liberty when there to dispute one Question without the Kings Allowance nor are our Conclusions valid without the King's Ratification whether Catholick Heretick Heathen Turk or Jew on pain of hampering by Praemunire's c. But here it is to be remember'd that these are Impositions of the State for which the Church is not bound to advocate if they are Persecutions but if men would be just they would pass the most favourable interpretations on publick Sanctions and herein conclude that these Statutes were intended not for Persecution but for Caution only against those extravagancies which the Church had abus'd its freedom to the Kings always graciously promising us on request opportunity to Convene and discuss our Matters as to us shall seem Convenient that we might have no cause to think that their Laws are intended for Persecution And for the Kings Ratification it is justly necessary not meerly to an Ecclesiastical effect but that our Censures for breach of these Canons may be seconded upon the Contumacious by the Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo c. It being no reason that the King should be the Churches Hackney without any consent of his own But if any Prince should Pervert these advantages to a Persecution we must then do our duty and fear no Sufferings We hold our Benefices by humane Right our Offices of Priests Bramhal Vindic. Ord. p. 77. and Bishops by Divine Right and Humane Right But put the case we did hold our Bishopricks only by Humane Right is it one of your cases of Conscience that a Sovereign Prince may justly take away from his Subjects any thing which they hold by Humane Right If one man take from another that which he holds justly by the Law of Man he is a Thief and a Robber by the Law of God The substance of what has been said upon these two last Queries amounts to this 1. That Toleration may excuse a Schismatick from the Penalty but not from the guilt of Schism 2. That Communicating with Schismaticks because Tolerated makes the crime less dangerous but not less sinful 3. That tho' Persecution or extreme Severity in Governours may make some men thro' humane frailty to comply with a Schismatical Church yet that will not excuse them from Schism in the sight of God because they ought to obey God rather than Man 4. That tho' the Prince be Supreme in Ecclesiastical Causes yet he cannot alter Religion at his pleasure or injoyn a Sinful Worship and if he do's 't is no Sin but a duty to disobey him 5. The Bishops and Governors of the Church in such a case are bound to defend the Rights of the Church against him as the Primitive Christians did against the Heathen Emperours 6. That all even Kings are liable to Church Censures Q. Whether a Prince being Excommunicated by the Church may be Resisted Depos'd or Murder'd by his Subjects A. It is contrary to the nature of Excommunication tho' in the Falkner Christian Loyalty p. 316. highest degree that any person and especially a Sovereign Prince should thereby lose those Temporal Rights which are not founded in their relation to the Church Indeed in Christian Kingdoms there are ordinarily some Temporal Penalties and abatement of Legal Privileges inflicted upon the persons Excommunicate But this is not the natural Effect of that sentence but is added thereto by the Civil Government and Sovereignty under which such persons do live And therefore no such thing can take place with respect to Sovereign Princes who have no Temporal Superiour to annex this as a Penalty Sovereign Princes are not liable to the Sentence of Excommunication Id. 318. in the same manner with Christian Subjects A Sovereign is capable of losing and forfeiting his relation to the Society of the Christian Church as well as other persons because as Mr. Thorndike Rt. of the Ch.