Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	case_n	court_n	king_n	2,054	5	4.0186	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79437	The Catholick hierarchie: or, The divine right of a sacred dominion in church and conscience truly stated, asserted, and pleaded.	Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.	1681 (1681)	Wing C3745A; ESTC R223560	138,488	160

contrary to the truth of the Word of God 6. The Magistrate cannot be conteded to be such a Judge nor is useful as such unless he may be acknowledged to be infallible A supream Judge in our sence and that which must be here understood is one into whose judgment our Faith hath its last and utmost resolution but we cannot acquiesce in a humane fallible determination And besides what Prerogative hath the Magistrates judgment above another mans and what ease and advantage is it to us if our minds lie open to doubt as much after as before the determination No Christians minde can rest satisfied in a humane fallible opinion of divine things the authority causing Belief must have the same original that the Revelation hath therefore Faith built upon a Testimony must be onely on his own fidelity as one infallible as we believe that Truth also which carries its own Evidence with it axiomatically delivered or evinceth it self from the light of another Truth dianoetically § 11. The second Case consists in Causes disciplinarily debated being Differences arising within one particular Church or between Church and Church or between Pastors and Churches c. All Causes usually handled and determined in Ecclesiastical Courts The Question is Whether the civil Magistrate be the supream Judge or Head and Governour By Causes Ecclesiastick are without doubt meant in the Oath of Supremacy all disciplinary Causes handled in Spiritual Courts the supream Head and Governor whereof was the Pope in whose name and authority those Courts were called and managed and to whom it was lawful for any grieved party to appeal before the reign of King Henry the 8th who by the Oath of Supremacy cut off the Popes Supremacy and established his own Now I thus resolve as followeth § 12. If Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Courts be not jure divino nor held jure divino Episcopacy as it 's setled in the Hierarchy and all its Offices and Appurtenances being onely a humane politick device as hath been abundantly by the Opposers thereof proved and by many of the Asserter and Defenders confessed then I say it 's fitter that man should be supream Head there and if any man the supream civil Magistrate within whose Realm or Dominion their Courts and Causes Ecclesiastical be The nature of this Supremacy is or should be that 1. That all Ecclesiastical Courts be called and kept in the Kings Magisties name 2. That the Sentence denounced should be also grounded on some penal Law of the King for all the Kings Courts should judge by his Laws 3. That any party grieved may appeal to a superiour Court of the Kings or to himself from whom there is no Appeal 4. That the King hath power by himself or Judges to prohibit or supersede the proceedings of the said Court at his pleasure This is the true sence of the Oath of Supremacy which the Bishops notwithstanding all the noise they make against Dissenters from their Church will least subscribe unto whereas most others of the Kings Subjects that refuse to own the divine right of Episcopal government will willingly swear the Kings Supremacy in their Ecclesiastical Courts and Causes in the largest extent And though that sort of ruling men use all endeavours to suggest the disloyalty of the said Dissenters yet I doubt not but most Puritans in England would rather refer themselves to the Kings judgment and stand or fall at his Tribunal than at the Churches and have generally found more relief from under the severities of Excommunication in the Kings Courts than in the Ecclesiastical Supposing that all Ecclesiastical proceedings in Spiritual Courts of Judicature and the whole Fabrick of Church-government as now it stands is a humane Polity as is not denied by the most ingenious I know not why any Puritan or Papist should refuse for to take the Oath of Supremacy for it is no more than to acknowledge the King to be supream Head and Governour in his own Courts which is but Reason Justice and Religion that he should be § 13. But if Ecclesiastical Causes be understood of disciplinary Controversies such as follow upon the execution of Laws and administration of the Institutions of the Lord Jesus in the visible Gospel-churches of such Ecclesiastical Causes it is not the Magistrates part to be the determinating Judge of for 1. To judge and determine a Cause in the Church of Christ is to judge Ecclesiastically and such an act of Judicature is a Church-act which is always preceded by a Church-Officer and no other in foro Ecclesiae and if the agrieved party appeal it must be to an Officer of the same kind it 's not to an Officer of another State 2. He that is supream Judge of a Church-cause on Earth must be an Officer substituted by Christ for none can hold any Place or Office in the Church but by Subrogation from Christ much less the highest Authority but none can shew that Christ hath substituted the Magistrate his Church-Vicar on Earth 3. If the civil Magistrate be supream Head to the Church Ecclesiastically then because he was always so since Christ was on Earth then there was times when Heathen Magistrates in whose jurisdiction the Churches was were his Vicars and Christ himself when on Earth was subject Ecclesiastically though Head of his Church to Heathen Church-Officers for he was no civil Magistrate disclaim'd it nor could be appeal'd unto as such 4. If the civil Magistrate be supream Judge he is the supream Church-Officer for he cannot be denied to be an Officer of that state wherein he doth acts of Judicature as his right And if a Church-Officer then the civil State hath power to chuse and constitute a Church-Officer and that of the highest rank for if he become a Church-Officer his Calling and Constitution must needs be Civil and not Ecclesiastical So that the civil State hath the power of Peter's Keys both to dispose of them and give them to whom she will and the Church cannot be entrusted with them they must still be kept in the Magistrates pocket Hence it will follow that Christ hath not left power enough in the Church for the management of its own political affairs nor wisdom enough for the determining her own Controversies § 14. Seventhly No civil Magistrate can imposse Articles of Faith on any of his Subjects to be owned subscribed or sworn to by a Penal Law for quatenus a Magistrate he is not an universal competent Judge for it 's not necessary that he should be religious understanding found in his principles because he is a Magistrate 1. If he can do it as a Church-Officer we have shewed that Christ hath made no such Officers in his Church 2. If he were Christ never empowered any Church-Officer to use a Magistratical Sword he never put Temporal Crowns on their heads nor Scepters into their hands if any of them out of ambition have got Miters and Crosier Staffs they had them from Antichrist and not from Christ

considered according to its internal and its external acting It s internal acting is its believing assenting concurring judging between fact and fact or disbelieving dissenting condemning c. and these are those that are Actus eliciti and they are not without doubt under any humane Law or Power in the world either to force them where they are not or to obstruct them where they are As men may not presume to do it by any external compulsion so there is an impossibility in the nature of the thing that it can never be accomplished 'T is onely God's Prerogative to charge us to believe under a penalty and the light of Truth carries demonstration with it to challenge our assent and call forth our understanding to a free acting unless we be inveloped in the darkness of corrupt nature or captivated in slavery to any Lusts Neither is it in the power of man to remove this vail it 's God onely by the light of Truth working by its prevailing evidence and the mighty operation of the divine Spirit which way it pleaseth that can effect this Hence he that makes a penal Law that this or that thing is a truth and to be believed by me to be assented and consented unto and doth endeavour to compel me to such a belief and assent by the threats and punishments of this Law doth usurp a power that was never given unto him by God neither was ever practicable to effect the end pretended to § 4. Secondly There are external acts Actus imperati of Conscience as professing subscribing declaring doing but these are not properly acts of Conscience but from Conscience as they ought to be under the Rule and Dominion and direction of Conscience and will come to be duely considered in this place whether any man may be thus compelled by any subordinate Power and doubtless there is none that can compel a man to act from Conscience no more than he can compel him to understand or will what he pleaseth for though the acts are external and may be compelled de facto and in some cases de jure the principle of good or evil actions viz. from Conscience cannot be compelled the relation it hath to Conscience is internal as if a man be brought and forc'd upon his Knees before an Idol c. it is no formal act of Conscience for that still resists and opposeth the action though it 's improperly called a forcing of Conscience when a man is thus forced to an action against his Conscience Indeed he is forcibly induced through fear or sense of some evil to do or omit something against his light and conviction and the choice is also free he being attended with such circumstances yet it is said to be compelled because the argument of a Penalty to be incurred upon refusal is very strong to reach flesh to prevent the suffering of which the Will is carried away to chuse that as a comparative good which the enlightned Understanding allows not as lawful nor the Will as absolutely good and this is that compulsion of Conscience which is most usually found in the world And here it will be enquired whether any Subordinate power can lawfully compel us to such imperate acts Ans 1. I say men may make and execute de jure such a Law as many cannot in conscience submit unto by way of active obedience so that it be really such as the great Law-giver hath allowed them to make and it be agreeable to the rules and limits of power committed to their charge and the reason of refusal be the weakness and ignorance or prejudice of the Subject or else no Laws could be made or executed in the world for one or other that should obey would be pretending Conscience against it and here the Subject is to submit either actively if after sufficient illumination he findes the goodness and justness of the Law-giver If he doth not he is to refuse to act if he is perswaded it 's utterly unlawful but if it be doubtfully so he is to suspend his acts till he is better informed and patiently submit to the Magistrates will and pleasure in the Penalty-execution but if any Power endeavour to enforce obedience that no Power enacting may lawfully do and require us and force us with penalties it 's questionless very great Usurpation We must also consider the matter about which this compulsion may be conceived to be No Magistrate may compel to any thing against Conscience quatenus such Scil. under the formality and notion of being against Conscience that were the greatest Tyranny in the world Or we may understand it of compelling under the notion of Truth and so a Faith must be enforced which no man is capable of accomplishing this way Or Thirdly under the notion of Duty not respecting how the Consciences of persons stand affected in relation to it on whom it is urged And thus the Magistrate may compel to the doing of good or avoiding of evil by penal Edicts though accidentally it may be against the Consciences of some on whom it is imposed for the Magistrate being not a competent Judge of mens Consciences he cannot make other mens Consciences the rule of his Laws and Executions but the will of the Lord whose Ministers he is and the good of the Commonweal that is committed to his trust The Magistrate is not to command or forbid any thing under the formality of being with or against Conscience but he supposing that the Consciences of his Subjects are convinced being sufficiently pre-informed may command any thing to be done or forborn according to that latitude of Rule and Government which he hath received from the Lord whose Minister he is for the right knowledge whereof he ought sincerely and impartially to consult the Word of God and his own Conscience and so to take the measures of his own Duty and Actions Neither is his Conscience the Standard to his Subjects for every one must give an account of himself to God the Magistrate for himself as a Magistrate and the Subject for himself as such and therefore the Conscience of the Magistrate doth not binde the Subject to active obedience though his relation to him as such bindes him to Subjection which is abundantly shewed in his quiet and peaceable submitting himself to the Law-penalty if he cannot satisfie himself that the Magistrate acts in his place according to the revealed Minde and Will of God in such cases provided which cases also are always to be of a civil and politick nature for here he hath power compulsory of the outward man mandatory or prohibitory though the Conscience of the Subject is or may be pretended to be against it § 5. And now that all cause of exception may be removed on all hands it will be requisite more explicitely to shew how far a Christians Conscience hath to do with humane Authority and we grant that humane Authority in civil and politick affairs is an Ordinance of God 2. That