Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	bishop_n	emperor_n	king_n	3,569	5	4.0009	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43271	A treatise concerning schism and schismaticks wherein the chief grounds & principles of a late separation from the Church of England, are considered and answered / by Henry Hellier ...	Hellier, Henry, 1662?-1697.	1697 (1697)	Wing H1381; ESTC R20518	24,128	62

his Judgment And this would be such another Immorality as the Authors of these late Books of Schism talk of in paying Allegiance to one whom Men might mistake to be their King But they wave the question about the King's Title as I said before and insist on the invalidity of a Lay-deprivation the next thing to be considered by way of answer to the second Objection This Deprivation does not take away the Power conferr'd on them in Ordination but only of having such and such Dioceses or parts of the Kingdom to officiate in which why the Supreme Civil Power whether lodged in one or more Men should not be sufficient to do is altogether unintelligible The distribution or division of a Country into so many Dioceses is not Jure Divino but depends on the discretion and determination of the chief Governors of the Church i. e. in a Christian Country of the Supreme Legislative Power to the Preservation whereof it is necessary to have them well marked out and fixed and to the well-being of the Republick Bishops are Subjects and Kings may demand Allegiance of them and in case of refusal if they have the whole Legislative Power they may forbid them living in any part of their Dominions Such Power is necessarily annexed to or rather implied in the Imperial Dignity from which our blessed Saviour by his Gospel detracted nothing nor designed to uphold his Disciples or Apostles against it for his Kingdom was not of this World And though the Church did subsist at first without the assistance of Heathen Emperors yet Kings when they embraced the true Faith became Members of the Church as well as any other Believers and are therefore as much obliged to act according to the Station wherein they are placed As did the Jewish Kings notwithstanding that the Church in Egypt and Babylon did subsist without them and as did the first and best of Christian Emperors And among the rest of those Powers that of depriving Bishops hath been one And this Power hath been exercised here among us with the Approbation of the Church of England and consonantly to the Articles Homilies and Canons thereof And among the Reasons of Deprivation the not acknowledging the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Causes was none of the least which yet is not so much as to deny his Civil Authority also which is the present * See the Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees c. Case Indeed if we consider the Supreme Power only as having so much Authority as is absolutely necessary to preserve the Civil Government and to secure the outward Peace of the Kingdom we must own that it can judge also what shall be reasonable Security of any Subjects being true to the Government and that Ecclesiastical Persons as well as others for want of such Security given may be deprived of places of trust or places where they may have considerable influence on the People least they should pervert them to disaffection Cujus rei facilis est probatio c. Grotius De Imperio Summar Tot. circa Sacra Cap. 10. § 33. Hence follows a Power of removing Bishops from their Sees upon such occasions which that it belongs to the Sovereign Grotius thinks is a very easy matter to prove For he that hath power to banish a Man out of all parts of the Country or Kingdom hath by * Hoc enim illi inest a● cujus totum est in Potestate ejus in Potestate pars non esse non potest Idem ibid. Consequence a Power of forbidding him to exercise there the Episcopal Office This he can do as the same Grotius observes not only by way of Punishment but also by way of Caution if he finds the People tumultuous on the account of any Pastor though without the Pastor's fault And such Deprivation may be made not only without but even against the Consent of a Synod of whom Kings are so far from being obliged to ask the question whether they shall have their Subjects Allegiance or no that they are rather obliged especially here in England not to ask or enquire of them because it is a Violation of of the Laws of the Land and an injury done to the proper Judges of Allegiance And although in Cases of Heresy or Schism when there are matters of difficulty to be decided it is very fit and proper and agreeable to the most ordinary and usual practice of the Church to call Synods Yet even in those Cases they are to be convened only at the Sovereign's * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. Proaem lib. 5. Doce quis Imperator hane Synodum jusse●●… Congregari Hieron Apolog. adv Ru●●i●●● lib. 2. appointment and when they are come together they are all of them under the same Circumstances of Obedience to the Civil Power as they were singly before obliged to the same Duties and liable to the same Penalties upon refusal of them How then can this be a matter of Ecclesiastical Cognizance or how can it belong to them to determine it Examples of Emperors deposing Bishops without as well as with a Synod are many and that even in the Case of Heresy which doth most properly belong to the determination of a Synod and which they are best able to judge of not but that in plain Cases or Cases before sufficiently declared Heresy this may be done without them even as Kings in the Old-Testament brake down the Images destroyed the high Places and put down the Idolatrous Priests by their own Authority which Kings under the New-Testament having the entire Legislative Power do not come short of Thus Christian Emperors have deposed Hereticks and their Power to do so seems anciently to have been generally acknowledged on all hands All Parties seem to have been sensible thereof Sometimes the Emperor threatned to depose them and sometimes put it in Execution without any ones gain-saying To him Bishops brought their a Theodorit lib. 5. c. 23. Complaints against such other Bishops as they desired to have deposed Him they sometimes b Leo. 1. Ep. 99. praised for using this Power His Power they c Flavianus in Theodor. loco citato acknowledged though against themselves In his Sentence though sometimes unjust they acquiesced d Socrat. lib. 2. c. 12. And this is more than to depose them on the account of State-Crimes or for default of Allegiance Lastly As this is agreeable to Antient Practise so it is the constant and concurrent Sense of all the old Reformers and till of late it hath been denyed I think by none but Papists and some of the worst and maddest of Enthusiasts And thus Men may become guilty of Schism by contending for Power Whereby we may also discern how Persons in other Relations according as they happen to be concerned in some of these Circumstances may become guilty of the same fault 2. They may be Schismaticks by misimploying their Power and so cutting themselves off

‖ This objected in the Second Part. Lay-power is invalid † This is inferred from the fomer Principles in the Third Part. Therefore the old Bishops retain still their Right the others are Anti-Bishops and Schismaticks that are set up against them As to the First of these Objections I answer 1. That the Author who makes it seems to have misunderstood the Treatise called The Vnreasonableness of a new Separation on the account of the Oaths c. which he quotes in divers places and deservedly commends Wherefore I shall repeat something out of it An Vsurper is one The Unreasonableness of a new Separation c. pag. 30. who comes in by Force and continues by Force A King de jure is one who comes in by lineal Descent as next Heir and whose Right is owned and Recognized by the Estates of the Realm A King de facto is one who comes in by consent of the Nation but not by virtue of an immediate Hereditary Right but to such a one being owned and received by the Estates of the Realm the Law of England as far as I can see requires an Allegiance So then a King de facto doth not signifie an unjust Possessor for he is King jure optimo By such a Right as supersedes the bare right of Inheritance not recognized by the Estates of the Realm By such a Right as all the Laws which make our Allegiance due to a King de facto do confirm by such a Right as implies sometimes and particularly in the present Case an express and free Consent of the People by their Representatives which is better than a tacit Consent implied in Prescription which in these days is the only thing that can make Succession a good Title considered as distinct from other Titles or a forced Consent i. e. Consent subsequent upon Conquest which only doth make Conquest a good Title 2. As for any other meaning of a King de facto I shall not concern my self with it but only take notice that whether Men call the present King King de facto or de jure if they hold him to be their Sovereign to whom Allegiance is due which can never be due from the same Person to two opposite Kings at once the Prayers for his Preservation Victory over his Enemies c. do not contain any Immoralities but only that which is their bounden Duty and that which is implyed if we should use no other than the Apostles own words Praying For Kings and for all that are in Authority 1 Tim. 2.2 that we may lead a quiet and peaceable Life in all Godliness and Honesty Nor is then the using but the omission of such Prayers on days by their Superiors appointed for solemn Meetings rather to be esteemed an Immorality 3. But if Men should use those Prayers against their Consciences and profess they did so which it is to be hoped few or none do or if they should be guilty of other open and acknowledg'd Immoralities must He that is not Bishop of the Diocese come thither to reform them Then for the Extirpation of Immoralities which are to be found more or less in every Diocese any Bishop might invade the Diocese of another saying he came to take away Immoralities to teach Men their duty c. And though the Commission of the Apostles when the Labourers were few was indefinite over all the World and that of Bishops and Pastors is so in some sort now in regard they are according to their Places and Stations to give assistance to and promote the Edification of the whole Church of Christ and are in that sense Bishops over all the Church yet they are to be under certain Orders and Rules and within bounds such as may be consistent with the good Government and Peace of the Church and therefore not to make their Dioceses as large as they please or go a A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 disorderly beyond their own Precincts or proper Districts Whence it was justly forbidden if not by express b Act. 20.28 Tit. 1.5 Scripture as some think yet by the Canons called c Can. Apost 14.35 Apostolical by the two first General d Conc. Nic. Can. 6 7.8 Conc. Constantinop Can. 2. Councils by the Council of Antioch e Can. 13.22 and by the Imperial Laws f ● 14 l. 36. C. de Episcopis Clericis that one Bishop should g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. see Zonaras Invade the Diocese of another whereby in understood doing the Episcopal Offices therein without h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consent of the Bishop of the Place when he is not i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B●●●●mon in Can. 2. Constantinop gone off or deprived without being appointed k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by other Bishops so to do not being in l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Barbarous Nations where Bishops and Pastors are wanting Without some of which Reasons specified and excepted by the Councils prohibiting them no Man therefore ought to return back to officiate in a Diocese of which he is deprived notwithstanding any pretence of Immoralities Fourthly and Lastly Schism is a great Immorality and hath many others evidently consequent upon it so that if by such proceedings they make a Schism the just Imputation whereof I know not how they can avoid then instead of bringing Men out of they bring them into Immorality and therefore by their Titles of Messengers Watchmen c. they are obliged not to return It may be 't will be said that these Dioceses are their own and that they come to recover their own Rights But 1. If these were indeed their Rights they cannot by thus returning hope to recover them neither are they capable by the present Establishment of having them although the others should be willing to resign or deliver the Dioceses up to them 2. Where the fore-mentioned Cause is wanting or insufficient viz. that of ill Morals this latter of Right by a true lover of Peace will be parted with of Course John 10.11 The good Shepherd giveth his life for the Sheep much more is he content to part with the profits of his Pastoral Office to do them good And as the true Mother of the Child in the Case brought before Solomon would rather suffer her Child to go to another Woman then let it be divided So will a true Pastor rather suffer his Flock to go to any other Orthodox Bishop than let it be crumbled and broken into Factions only for the sake of him The pretended Mother of that Child might have made her excuse with the Schismaticks of our days that she had rather her Child should be cut in pieces than guilty of an Immorality in Honouring a false Mother and witholding due Honour from the true One. And yet she that had not that Scruple was the best Woman and the true Mother of the Child as Solomon judged and the Scripture approves