Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A44094
|
Some thoughts on a convocation and the notion of its divine right with some occasional reflections on the defence of the vindication of the deprived bishops.
|
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707.
|
1699
(1699)
|
Wing H2346; ESTC R37493
|
30,786
|
42
|
State of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this Case because the proper Affairs and Actions of the Church as it is the Church hath no Dependence on the Laws or upon the Government of the civil State an Opinion hath thereby grown That even so it should be always This was it which deceived Allen in the writing his Apology The Apostles saith he did govern the Church in Rome when Nero bare Rule even as at this Day in all the Churches Dominions the Church hath a spiritual Regiment without Dependence and so ought she to have amongst Heathens or with Christians Another Occasion of which Mis-conceit is That things appertaining to Religion are both distinguished from other Affairs and have always had in the Church spiritual Persons chosen to be exercised about them By which Distinction of spiritual Affairs and Persons therein employed from temporal the Error of personal Separation always necessary between the Church and Common-wealth hath strengthned it self These Notions have been often made use of by the Papists in their Disputes against the King's Supremacy and 't is strange they should be now revived when they have been so learnedly considered and refuted by Mr. Hooker Dean Nowel Bishop Iewell and other great Men of our Church And I may add That some of our present Adversaries Opinions are much the same with those of the Scotch Disciplinarians refuted by Bishop Bramhal The Author of the Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops hath told us That Mr. Hooker for whom he pretends a very great Respect tho' for what Reasons I know not since they differ in every thing is against him in making the Church one Body with the believing State And therefore I suppose he would have it taken for granted That his Reasons are more conclusive in making them distinct Indeed it was necessary for this Author's Purpose That the Church and State should be separate Societies for all the Weight of his Arguments depends upon it and if this should fail his whole Fabrick must sink of Course It was certainly time for him to call a new Cause and since the Practice of the whole Church is against him to omit Authorities and the Sense of Antiquity and to retire to downright Reason But he would have done well to have considered and answered Mr. Hooker's Arguments before he had produced any others on the contrary side For certainly if the Common-wealth be Christian if the People which are of it do publickly embrace the true Religion this very thing doth make it the Church And to make it a separate and independent Society from the State where all Mens Principles are the same is a Notion neither agreeable to Scripture or Reason But I shall not pursue an Argument which has been already so fully and learnedly managed by Mr. Hooker to whom I shall refer the Reader But I think my self obliged to do Mr. Hooker Justice in a Passage cited from him by this Author as though it made for him and which appears to me to be designed to prove directly contrary This Author it seems would perswade us that Mr. Hooker is of his Opinion That the Deprivation of spiritual Persons by the Civil Power is not justifiable by even our present secular Laws And to this end he cites these Words all Men are not for all things sufficient and therefore publick Affairs being divided such Persons must be authorized Iudges in each kind as common Reason may presume to be most fit Which cannot of Kings and Princes ordinarily be presumed in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical so that even common Sense doth rather adjudge this Burthen to other Men. This indeed looks plausibly as it is here set down without its Connexion with what goes before and follows it But however all that it can prove by its self is only That it may be more proper for spiritual Persons to judge in Causes meerly Ecclesiastical But then it denies not That if Princes are so pleased they may judge themselves this takes not away their Right though it may be Prudence in them to appoint others to sit in their stead But let us see the full Scope and Extent of Mr. Hooker ' s Words As says he the Person of the King may for just Considerations even where the Cause is civil be notwithstanding withdrawn from occupying the Seat of Iudgment and others under his Authority be fit he unfit himself to judge so the Considerations for which it were haply not convenient for Kings to sit and give Iudgment in spiritual Courts where Causes Ecclesiastical are usually debated can be no bar to that Force and Efficacy which their Sovereign Power hath over those very Consistories And for which we hold without any Exception That all Courts are the King 's And then follows All Men are not for all things sufficient c. And after that he goes on We see it hereby a thing necessary to put a difference as well between that ordinary Iurisdiction which belongs unto the Clergy alone and that Commissionary wherein others are for just Considerations appointed to join with them as also between both these Iurisdictions and a third whereby the King hath transcendent Authority over both Why this may not lawfully be granted unto him there is no Reason Now take the whole together and the Argument turns on the other side and proves That the Judgment of the supream Power is in all manner of Causes to be the highest But hower were Ecclesiastical Courts alone to judge of spiritual Matters and there could be no Appeals from their Decisions which yet the supream Power has a Right to receive yet these Courts do not exercise any Power that is not derived from the Supremacy either mediately or immediately The Laws by which they act and exercise their Jurisdiction proceed from thence and the Courts are constituted by its Authority So that all that is done there is by Virtue of the King's Commission But besides if the King had no Power at all in spiritual Cases yet it does not appear That the Cause of the deprived Bishops is purely spiritual they are as much Ecclesiastical Persons now as they were before their Deprivation And though they may not exercise any part of Episcopal Power in the King's Dominions yet they still retain their Office and have a Right to perform all the Duties of it where and whensoever the Sovereign Power will authorise them to it It was the Opinion of Archbishop Laud That the Use and Exercise of his Jurisdiction in Foro Conscientiae might not be but by the Leave and Power of the King within his Dominions If his Majesty should forbid a Physician to practise within his Dominions for some Crime committed by him 't is plain That by this means he is not degraded from his Profession nor will it follow That his Majesty ought to be acquainted with that Art before he pronounces Sentence against him If his Offence had been
Opinions or Innovations in Religion by a judicial Sentence against them in Convocation without the Pleasure of the State The Church will by this means be deprived of its Liberty and never be in a Capacity of deciding any Controversies which may disturb its Peace and Unity And if the Prince be Heretical as 't is not impossible and will not suffer the Meeting of a Convocation our Religion will then very probably be corrupted by Errors and Heresies and the Church unable to relieve it by being divested of the Power of summoning its Clergy by whose united Opinions and Decrees a timely stop might be put to all false Doctrines and Divisions To this I answer That the Case is the same wherever the Power shall be lodged Let us suppose in a Metropolitan Now 't is not impossible but he also may be a Heretick and will not suffer a Convocation of the Clergy For if the Authority is in him the inferior Order must be as much subject to his Will as to that of the Civil Governor and may as equally be deprived of their Liberty of Meeting by the one as the other and so it may be let the Authority be placed in any other Hands But perhaps it may be thought that the Civil Power is not a proper Judge of the Necessities of the Church when its Faith or Discipline are in danger of being corrupted or destroyed Let it be granted That there may be others more fit to judge of these things tho' it may happen that even some of the Clergy themselves may be mistaken in these Matters and may be sometimes very unfit Judges of the most proper Times for calling a Convocation Yet I hope the King is not to be precluded from all Council and Advice in such Cases If any of the Clergy had the Power they would not I presume make use of it upon their own single Opinion They would certainly ask the Advice of the most Wise and Judicious in such Matters And why the King may not have the same Priviledges and Opportunities of Enquiry I can see no Reason But it is objected That the Office of the Clergy is distinct from that of the Civil Power and they receive no Parts of it from thence and therefore cannot be under its Jurisdiction So it was also among the Jews yet their Kings had the Supream Power over their Priests The Power and Authority of the King is Spiritual though he is not invested with the Spiritual Office The King indeed seems in some Cases to be subject to the Priestly Office as he is to receive the Sacraments Absolution and the like from them So also is he subject to his Physician as to his Health he is to be governed by his Rules and Methods for preserving Life Yet this does not diminish his Authority over either His Right over them as Supream Governor still remains the same But 't is again objected That the Care of Souls is the particular and immediate Business of the Clergy And the observance of the true Religion being necessary to that end 't is undeniable that they ought to have a Power of endeavouring to preserve it by such ways as may seem most effectual and proper for it To this we may answer That the Supream Governor has the same Care incumbent upon him he is obliged to preserve and defend the true Religion to see it rightly observed and to punish those that do Evil For which Reason G. Vossius as well as Grotius is of Opinion that Princes have the Supream Authority in Sacred Matters by a Divine Right For if they are the Ministers of God for Good they must have the Supream Command in Religious Matters whereby to enforce Obedience to them And indeed if the Commission given by God to Moses and Exercised afterwards by Ioshua and the Iewish Kings and never abolished by our Saviour does give the same Right and Authority to Christian Kings now to call Ecclesiastical Assemblies as they did it can't be denied that they also Act by a Divine Commission And it is one great Business of theirs that Divine Things should be rightly ordered and the Salvation of Men procured They are the Defenders and Guardians of the Divine Law The Inspectors of the Actions of all Men and have accordingly a Power to Reward and Punish 'T is also necessary that Kings should have the chief Command in Religious Matters because Religion is of mighty Service to the Civil Government nothing more advantageous for the preserving Peace and Unity Love of our Country Justice Equity and all other Moral Duties which 't is a Princes Duty to maintain And which he has no means of effecting so well as by his Sovereign Power in all Sacred Concerns And therefore to deprive him of this Power is to forbid him the Exercising those Commands which a Vertuous King is obliged to Upon the whole then it can't be denied That by our Constitution the King has the sole Power of calling and dissolving Convocations and that they have no Authority to Act but what is derived from him And whoever takes the Oath of Supremacy grants as much That this Power is no other than what was Exercised by the Iewish Kings and afterwards by the first Christian Emperors and was never disowned and protested against by the Clergy That the Practice of the Christians before the Conversion of the Supream Authority is not concerned in the Dispute and that the Scriptures are either for us or wholly silent in the Matter Tho' I think we may fairly urge That the Examples of the Iewish Kings and the general Authority given to Princes by God do sufficiently prove even from Scripture that this Power does belong to them That the Ends of Government require That where all profess the same Religion they should all be subject to the same Common Head in Spiritual as well as Civil Affairs And that He to whom the chief Care of the Church is committed and to whom it principally belongs to preserve and defend the Orders and Constitutions of it should also have the Principality of Power in Approving and Establishing them But if the Clergy have the sole Power by a Divine Commission of making Ecclesiastical Laws it will follow That 't is the Prince's Business to maintain and see them observed whether he is willing to consent to them or not He cannot refuse to obey them himself nor to oblige others to submit to them Nay more if the Clergy have a Divine Right to meet and constitute any Orders without the leave of the Supream Power they have a Right also to Decree and Enact what Laws they may judge beneficial to the Church how opposite soever to the Constitutions of the State They may declare what Doctrines they please to be taught in the Church provided they be not repugnant to the Law of God For if their Right is Divine their Power is Absolute and Uncontroulable where Scripture has not determined the bounds and