Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	according_a	law_n	power_n	3,809	5	5.0020	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45159	The third step of a nonconformist, for the recovery of the use of his ministry with some occasional notice taken of the judgment and decree of the University of Oxford, past in their convocation, July 21, 1683 / by one of the followers of peace, and lovers of impartiality.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1684 (1684)	Wing H3712; ESTC R39280	17,273	38

a Solution See the Margin of the first Sheet of that Case And that this is the true sense of the Law-giver let the Second and Third Sheets of the same be consulted I am not indeed ignorant of the many and hard Cases which are and may be raised here by way of Objection and which do require therefore that I should speak a little fuller though I am else unwilling and this alone is as much as can be well born The Learned and Acute Bishop of Winton who like another Caleb in Divinity does write after Fourscore as if he were but Forty whether his Pen be for Fight or Government for Polemicks or Politicks in his late Book against Mr. Baxter sticks not to assert that the Legislative Power in this Realm does lie solely in the King and yet doth make no doubt to tell us for all that with others that the Government is not Despotical but Political that is as I call it Regal which is thus explained by Bracton Non est Rex ubi Voluntas imperat non Lex As the Apostle therefore speaks of his own Authority which was Spiritual that he had none for Destruction but for Edification and that he could say nothing against the Truth but for the Truth So may we say of the Power of the King which is Temporal it is a Power according to Law and for the Law not against the Law The King and the Kings Officers can do nothing against the Law but for it Put the Case then that a Prince should go about to Destroy his whole People which is a Case put by Grotius from Barclay as inconsistent with Ruling them and the Bishop forementioned answers this is not to be supposed of any man but a Mad-man But suppose it replied what if a Price were a Mad-man or so mad or savage as the Spaniard who when they had Conquered Mexico Hispaniola and those places butcher'd so many thousands of them worrying them like Beasts with Dogs What if a Prince were of the Spirit of the Duke of Alva of Charles the Fifth of the Irish unto whom a hundred thousand Hereticks were but a Breakfast and he could then Dine presently with another hundred thousand of the same Suppose a Prince that would alienate his Kingdom as King John That would bring in the Turks upon them or sell them for Slaves to a Forein Tyrant What if a Prince would raise an Army out of one of his Dominions that were Papists and bring it into another of them that are Protestants and swear that unless they will turn their Religion that is yield to be damn'd he will burn them all or exterminate them according to the Lateran Council yea though the said Religion were by Law Establish'd These are Cases may be supposed Not that I imagine any such in good earnest ever like to be God forbid I am not a man of that complexion but to the end I may make the most of the Objection for I had as good else even quite say nothing I do anatomize the Scruples of my Brethren laying them naked before all men of equal Judgment who may consider whether they are with or without Reason and searching the wound to the quick I am willing so to apply the Remedy as at once to procure both the Adversaries Compassion and our own Satisfaction Suppose then it be demanded whether a Kingdom or whole Nation have a right by the law of Nature to defend themselves in these Cases though Particular Persons have not I must answer that such Cases as these are so odious in the naming as we are not to conceive they came once into the mind of the Law-giver that is the King and the Two Houses as one Corporation who imposed this Declaration and consequently that they are not to be put for the stumbling such as are to subscribe it but if they be supposed and put that it was the mind of the Imposers they should be excepted or excluded by such an Interpretation of the Commissionated as is already given For for instance but in one Case more that is casie and obvious Suppose a Prince of our Land should send persons for the Levying Money on the Subject without a Parliament or Parliament-Tax I doubt not but the Constables Justices or Sheriffs might keep the Peace in the name of the King against these men and that yet we may maintain it unlawful to take Arms against those that are Commissionated by him because such as these I have said are not Commissionated or such Commissions have no Authority and are no Commissions The Constitution of our Kingdom is such as the King can Commission no such thing And when I have said so in regard to this one Case which is the lower the same Answer may be given to those Cases which are higher I account beyond disputation The Learned Arnisaeus writes a Book I remember on this Subject Non licere subditis ulla ex causa contra legitimum Principem arma sumere He holds the Position indefinitely in the affirmative yet makes no scruple upon supposition of any such a Case to put in his Limitations And why may we not conceive that when a Parliament impos'd upon us such a Declaration as this they did intend we should subscribe it no otherwise but in such a Determination as the Learned who have most Loyally written for Monarchy and against Rebellion do maintain such a Position that is prout prudens definierit The Commissionated I say are such as have the Kings Authority The Kings Authority is Political and he can give no other but what he hath himself to any If his Authority then be for the Law and he has none against it and if it be against the King only and those Commissionated by him that is against his Person and his Authority only that we declare it unlawful to take Arms I see not any thing left in the Objection let what Case soever be put but that this Declaration in the Two first Clauses of it may be subscribed For the last Clause And I will Conform to the Lyturgy of the Church of England as it is now by Law Established let us compare it with the last Clause of the Oath And I will not at any time endeavour any Alteration of Government in Church or State and surely methinks a mans heart will begin to beat much rather at his approach to the taking the latter than subscribing the former But there is one thing instead of all to satisfie This Subscription is not imposed only on Ministers but on such as Teach School and Tutors at University and it cannot be conceived the meaning of the Law-giver that such persons in subscribing this Declaration should be engaged to read Common-Prayer but to hear it or go to Church or Chappel Now while I am a Minister without any Place which requires my reading Common-Prayer I am to be understood to engage no farther in my Conforming to the Lyturgy that such who are bound

must be taken in the sense of the Imposer we agree and that a man that takes it and says nothing is obliged to the full sense thereof so taken But if a man declares his Limitations I suppose that Instance alone of the Oath between Rahab and the Spies does make the matter good on my side beyond disputation But sure the University of Oxford can never differ with me in this and consequently there is some mistake here about this Book The Sheriffs case I speak of was first Printed 1680. and Reprinted 1681. in one Sheet and then again Printed the third time with the Addition of the two Papers more making four Sheets and a half in all for the year 1682. and entituled The Case of the Sheriffs or third years Paper in regard to the Act for Corporations being the Case also of the Dissenting Ministers in regard to the Act at Oxford Whether this Paper or Book be the Sheriffs Case condemned and burnt by the Convocation I must take liberty to question I do acknowledge my self to be a Son of that University and I ought not to think unmannerly of my Mother I ought not to think so many not only of Persons but Ranks of judicious persons could be so overly nay so directly out in any censure And why should they condemn a Book that was never like to hurt any of them Why should they really burn a Book that could never have been writ for the nonce by any one of themselves so much to serve them Why should they Martyr an Innocent Book let me say yet seeing so many think it this which hath certainly offered more toward Justifying the Conformist I pray God it may not hinder any one man from a due sense of his sin who either went against his Conscience or knew not what he did when he Conformed and helping the Dissenters to Conform than all the Books that were writ on their own side which generally have waved these Political Points where lay our chief scruples since the Act of Uniformity I ought not above all to think them of such a manner of spirit at University as if they did hate us for coming in and yet hate us for being Nonconformists If any persist that this indeed is the Book which they meant and condemn'd I must not then leave that matter yet without some farther discussion The University have charged the Sheriffs Case for asserting that an Oath obliges not in the sense of the Imposer but the Takers The Sheriffs Case says expresly An Oath must be taken in the sense of the Imposer and builds upon it There are two questions therefore to be made of this One In what sense must an Oath be taken The other In what sense does it oblige being taken If these be not made two the University will he guilty of Slander and belying the Sheriffs Case which is a thing not to be imagined But these being distinguished it appears straight that the University and Sheriffs Case agree thus far as was said even now that an Oath must be taken in the sense of those that Impose it and when it is so taken it obliges accordingly The difficulty arises only when the Imposers sense and Takers do differ and there are two Cases herein to be proposed for there are no General Rules ordinarily without their Exceptions One is the Case of Mistake when a man does honestly take an Oath in that sense which he believes in his Conscience to be the very sense of the Imposer but he comes after his taking it to understand the sense to be such as he could not and would not have taken it if he had understood the same before The question then is Whether his Oath now obliges him to the performance in that sense which really is the Imposers or that which he understood to be theirs when he took it and else had not taken it If the University does hold that an Oath binds in the sense of the Imposer universally even in this case of Mistake and all others without discrimination I desire the Judicious to ponder well of it whether that be a mature Determination The other Case is when a man is not mistaken but distinguishes the sense of an Oath beforehand and declares the sense in which he takes it excepting against that sense wherein he cannot take it The question then still arises Whether the University do hold the man is obliged to the Imposers sense notwithstanding his Predeclaration and if they do I must leave it again to the better advised to consider whether this be a mature or rash Determination If they determine the Point otherwise how could they condemn the Proposition they have condemned without explanation or exception In short unless it be another Book they mean they have collected their Proposition out of the Sheriffs Case very untowardly and they have as overly condemned it when they have so done To pass on It is proposed farther in that Sheriffs Case that a man should moreover write down his sense or limitations and give in his Writing or that Case it self supposing it speaks his full mind for him to the Justices together with his declaring those Limitations which if he does in abundantiorem cautelam he is like to be still the better satisfied Yet if he does not so long as in words or writing a man does but declare as openly as he swears that it may be as much known that he takes the Oath but in such or such a lawful sense Sèe the Quotation in the Margin of the Case this is the main there intended There are two ways then for my self here to take to establish me in my Resolution One is if I can convince my Soul beyond doubt that the meaning of the Law-giver was no more than I propose in my Explanations And the other is if any doubt yet remains to heal it with the prepared Remedy For the two first Clauses of the Subscription they are all one it is plain with the two first Clauses in the Oath and it is really something easier in my mind to subscribe to the same things in a Declaration than to swear to them in an Oath The Contents of both Clauses comes but to this That it is unlawful to take Arms against the King or against his Authority when both are certainly to be held inviolable To take Arms in the first Clause must be construed Raising War or Forces because it is meant so on necessity in the second Clause Nothing less can be understood by it against the Commissionated The Commissionated are such as have the Kings Authority The Authority of the King in this Realm is Royal not Lordly that is a Right to Govern according to Law These persons consequently who have not or pursue not their Commissions according to Law are not Commissionated that is have not or exercise not his Authority When this little Interpretation only is made there are no Objections to be invented but they may hereby receive