Selected quad for the lemma: king_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A66957
|
[Catholick theses]
|
R. H., 1609-1678.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing W3438; ESTC R222050
|
115,558
|
162
|
shall keep teach and maintain our Lord's Laws inviolably as to necessaries to the end of the world This Question he asketh not he solveth not as writing against the Presbyterians who will not ask it him But what can he say when asked it Shall the Clergy judge They deny it to be the Lord's Law what the Prince against their consent would restore Shall the Prince judge But this is most unreasonable that the judgment of a Laick in such a Contest shall be preferred before the whole Succession of the Clergy in Spiritual matters and what mischief will come hereupon if he judge amiss And here let me set before him his own Rule A difference falling out saith he i. e. between the Secular Power and the Bishops so that to particular persons it cannot be cleer who is in the right and how can that be cleer in such high mysterious matters of Divinity to any humble person the contrary to which is judged cleer by his Spiritual Guides it will be requisite for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereigns Thus Mr. Thorndike § 38 Dr. Field saith much-what the same as He That tho ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment of Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Affairs to the Bishops and Pastors yet because they may fail i. e. the chiefest of them else these may redress the failings of inferiors either thro negligence ignorance or malice Princes having charge over God's People and being to see that they serve and worship him aright are to judge and condemn them the foresaid Clergy that fall into gross Errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into any other Heresies formerly condemned I conceive he meaneth condemned by former Councils And tho there be no general failing in the Clergy yet if they see violent and partial courses taken they may interpose themselves to stay them and cause a due proceeding or remove the matter from one sort of Judges to another I suppose he meaneth either from the whole Clergy to Secular Judges or from that part of the Clergy which the Prince dislikes to some others of the Clergy whom he approves § 39 Thus Dr. Field who not to urge Bishop Andrews's Observation against him Ad extraordinariam Potestatem confugere non solet quis nisi deplorata res est here seems to fix the Prince as one that cannot fail thro negligence ignorance or malice or at least cannot fail so soon thus as the whole governing Body of the Clergy may What not fail in ignorance sooner then they That is somewhat strange Again as one that hath a charge over God's people and is to see that they worship God a right As if the Clergy had not such charge more then he or as if he could judge what is Right in God's Worship better then they Again he represents this Body or major part of the Clergy as those that may fall into gross Errors contrary to the common Sense of Christians and into Heresies condemned he meaneth by former Clergy But why may not this former Clergy be supposed by the Prince to have erred sometimes contrary to the common Sense of Christians as well as the present Clergy Or if the judgment of the Clergy of former Ages is to be followed by the Prince why not that of the present that is of equal Authority But lastly imagine the Prince to fail as he may thro negligence ignorance c. may not an Ecclesiastical Power within his Dominions review his Acts and reform his Errors too But how this if they may enact promulge or execute no new Canons or Constitutions in spiritnal matters without his consent Or if this be allowed them how may these two both of them made supreme and ultimate Law-givers at the same time in the same place reform one another and the people subjected to them according to their different Judgments What Confusion § 40 See Bishop Andrews going the same way with the former Resp ad Bell. Apol. p. 332. Cum in Deuteronomio dicere jubeantur Sacerdotes docere juxta legem Dei leget exemplar suum Rex ut sciat an ex ea respondeant Pascua petet nec sibi Pastor erit sed sibi tamen gustabit si amarum pabulum noxtum gustabit ut Christus acetum quod cum gustasset noluit bibere And after him Mason De Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 3. c. p. 272. Pastorum est dubia legis explicare Regum vero veritatem cognitam sibi promulgare subditis cujufcunque sint ordinis i. e. whether Clergy or Laity imperare Ibid. p 273. Nec tamen splendidis hominum titulis aut suffragiorum numero aut locorum privilegiis tantum deferet quantum veritati i. e. that which he-conceives to be Truth paucis secundum Scripturas docentibus i. e. when he conceives to teach so potius credet quam 400 pseudo prophetis proâ—cultu Baalis contendentibus And Ibid. 4. c. p. 289. Imperator etiam in Sacro-sanctis fidei Mysteriis proveritate i. e. quae sibi videtur jubere potest pro doctrina Apostolica Concilii Decreto in contrarium non obstante And p. 297. Neque ad primatum Regium quicquam interest sive praelucentes Synodorum sententias habeat Rex sive non habeat Sive enim veritatem caelestem ipsi dignoscant sive a Praelatis suis edocti ediscant dummodo pro veritate i e. quae sibi videtur jubeant leges condant vere se exhibent Supremos Gubernatores § 411 Here therefore the King judgeth when or which of the Clergy judgeth aright and which otherwise and is at his liberty to follow therein any number of them And neither is he thus a Judge for himself only judicio diseretivo as they call it but for others also judicio decisivo which the Clergy are not so far as to promulgate and command all his Subjects and amongst them the Clergy to obey that which he upon consulting the Clergy and hearing their reasons judgeth to be according to God's word and this without the consent of the Clergy at all or at least of the major part of them But they of the Clergy may not promulgate any Canons or Constitutions of theirs or what they judge according to Gods word in such Controversy without the King's consent And yet Quis enim nostrum said he before unquam affirmavit Principes in causis Fidei Religionis supremos esse Cognitores Judices § 42 Now this Primacy of Christian Princes in the vindicating and restoring God's Truth without or also against the Clergy is by them maintained and supported 1 principally α. α By the Reformations in Religion which they say were made by the Godly Kings of Judah β. β To which some join Moses's correcting Aaron's Idolatry in making the Molten Calf γ. γ and St. Paul's Appeal from the Jew 's Ecclesiastical Court to Caesar 2. δ. δ
By the Acts of some pious Emperors cassating the Decrees of some Ecclesiastical Synods as particularly Theodosius the Decrees of the second Ephesine Council 3. ε. ε By many precedents of later Christian Princes and amongst them the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth vindicating such Rights of Princes against the Pope But indeed none of these well examined will bear the weight they charge on them To α. The first Instance which is the main To α. Habuerunt Reges § 43 saith Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 379. in vetere Testamento primatum suum atque inde Nervi lacerti causae nostrae in novo autem deteriore jure non sunt It is willingly granted 1. That Princes may reform and that as Supremes in the exercise of their Civil Power in matters of Faith and Religion 2. May reform as Bishop Andrews would have it Ibid. p. 365. Citra Declarationem Ecclesiae without any Declaration of the Church at that time in Doctrines of the Church known and undisputed and formerly declared as those things the Kings of Judah reformed in were and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this the duty of their Place and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorow Reformation than the Priest's 3. May reform the Clergy too such as sound in the Faith neglect their Duty or also are fallen from that Faith which is taught by that Church that is the Canonical Judge of such Controversies and Princes in punishing such Clergy are to be accounted Assistants to the Church 4. May reform this Clergy tho these a greater number than those professing the Catholick Faith because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated and excluded tho the more but only in the whole or in the major part of the Catholick party easily discernable from the Apostates as were those deserting Moses's Laws and changing the former Divine Service and but a few at the first Only it is contended that never may Princes so reform against that Body of the Clergy which is the Canonical Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith nor can it beproved that the Godly Kings of Judah did so either that they reformed all the Priests or the High-Priest who was always their Guide in matters of Religion or reformed the People against them or reformed the People at least without them § 44 The chief Reformations were made by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah And in all these we find an Orthodox Clergy Co-adjutors and Con-reformers and the Prince rectifying nothing in them but with them and if the King's Actions appear in the Book of Kings or Chronicles more set forth than their's it is because it is an History of the Acts of the Kings not of the Priests When after the flourishing times of the Church under David and Solomon in Jeroboam's Reign Israel fell away yet the Priests and Levites revolted not with the People but leaving their Cities and Possessions went over to Judah See 2. Chron. 11.13 14. 13.9 15.9 and new Priests were made by Jeroboam for his new Worship Afterward we find these Priests and Levites assisting Jehosaphat in his Reformation 2. Chron. 17.7 8. and 19.8 9 10. In the times of Ahaz's Apostacy these Aaronical Priests were excluded the Doors of the house of our Lord shut up 2. Chron. 28.24 and new Priests not descended from Aaron called Chemarim consecrated with many Sacrifices and ordained for the new idolatrous Worship of whom see 2. King 23.5 Zeph. 1.4 Hos 10.5 Ezech. 44.8 To whom I will not deny but that some also of Aaron's race joined themselves But after this we find Hezekiah's Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign assisted with the Orthodox Clergy 2. Chron. 29.11 12. c. He opened the doors of the Lord saith the Text 2. Chron. 22.3 4 c. and brought in the Priests and the Levites viz. whom Ahaz had excluded not long before Afterwards these Priests of the Lord being excluded again from officiating in a greater persecution of Manasses Yet by him at last repenting we find them also restored and officiating in the Temple before Josiah's time 2. Chron. 33.16 And in the next Chapter 2. Chron. 34. Josiah perfected the Reformation which his Grand-father had begun by their Assistance and particularly by that of the High-Priest Hilkiah who also found in the Temple the Book of the Law this in those times at least entire being very rare and communicated it to the pious Prince who had neither seen it nor heard it read before this Eighteenth Year of his Reign and therefore must formerly have learnt God's Service and the true Religion to which he now so zealously reformed the People not from the Scriptures but from the Priests Neither were any of those Priests and Levites that assisted King Josiah such as had before Apostatiz'd under Manasses in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly offered Sacrifices in the High-Places tho these to the God of Israel afterward to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem but only indulged them their Diet with the rest of the Priests See 2. King 23.7.9 This Good King Josiah was the last Reformer And if the Clergy after this fell away in a much greater number so did the Princes too much more irrecoverably But in those times also when it is said 2. Chron. 36.14 That all i.e. very many as it is not unusual in Scripture of the chief of the Priests and of the People transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen yet a remnant still there was that remained Catholick whom the rest now being Extra Ecclesiam King and People were obliged to obey in Spiritual matters a remnant I say Catholick as appears out of Ezekiel who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity where Ch. 44.15 The Lord having condemned the lapsed Priests or Levites to lower service saith of these But the Priests the Levites the Sons of Zadoc either of Zadoc mentioned 1. King 2.35 c. And 1. Chron. 6.8 or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12 Grand-father to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the Children of Israel went astray from me they shall come near to me to minister unto me c. Some Priests therefore there were thro all those evil times whom God accepted and owned and who stood firm as to the Faith tho many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty of Covetousness and several other Vices and particularly of undertaking to foretel Good things to a Wicked people instead of exhorting them to Repentance and of persecuting the true Prophets who foretold things bad which rendred them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints See Jer. 23. c. § 45 This that all the Princes Reformations in the State of Judah that are instanced-in were done with the Priest's consent and assistance none against them And if instead