Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	act_n	king_n	time_n	2,549	5	3.6924	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94222	Reasons shewing that there is no need of such a reformation of the publique 1. Doctrine. 2. Worship. 3. Rites & ceremonies. 4. Church-government. 5. Discipline. As it is pretended by reasons offered to the serious consideration of this present Parliament, by divers ministers of sundry counties in England. By H.S. D.D. Chaplain to his Majestie in ordinary.	H. S. (Henry Savage), 1604?-1672.	1660 (1660)	Wing S762; Thomason E1043_7; ESTC R202300	19,132	32

that of every consultation conditionall the Ordinary may of himself take upon him the true understanding thereof and therein proceed accordingly The Kings answer was That the King cannot depart with his Right but to yeild to his Subjects according to Law Answ. All this might have been spared and it shall be granted upon their bare words without further enquiry it being great reason that nothing be done to the prejudice of the King or the Laws of the Land for which reason the French K. hath alwayes a Commissary in the Protestants Conventions as may appear by the Edicts themselves Onely thus much I must say by the way that in my cursory observation I find that for one Act made against there are 3. for the immunities of Bishops in the time of that renowned King That which is said concerning the Bishops making his Will though true is little to the question But besides this 3. Many things are alleaged to weaken the authority of Bishops but the last and heaviest thing of all is that by Act of Parl. all their power and jurisdiction is taken away 17 Car. 1. Answ. That by that Act of 17 Car. is intended the taking away of the High Commission only as I humbly conceive If as I have heard Lawyers say preambles to Acts are the best interpreters of the Acts themselves For the preamble to that Act witnesseth the abuses of the Authority given to the high Commissiners by that Act of 1 Eliz. to be the grouud of the Act it selfe of 17 Car. 1. Again if Episcopal Jurisdiction had been wholy taken away by the repealing of that clanse of 1 Eliz. they would never have added another clause after that to restrain the power of Bishops in case of penalties for this had been to fight with a shadow But though it were granted that the power of exercising Episcopal jurisdiction be taken away contrary to the intent of the Legislative power yet all the world cannot take away Episcopacy it self it being an Ordinance of God as is here confessed The Reasons given by them why they should not sit in Parliament are but the killing of a dead man and so I let them passe III. Of DISCIPLINE FIrst they shew how this Discipline is bounded 2. They will have no Canon Laws to be in force And why Because say they the old Canons were enacted 25 H. 8. 19. to be in force till such time as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by 32 persons or the more part of them But Dr. Heylin confesseth that they were viewed searched and drawn into a body but never had the Kings Royal assent unto them therefore the said old Canons c. say they are abrogated Answ. By what authentick Record doth it or can it appear that those 32 persons did view search order or determine any thing therein Since well might they be written or printed in a book but the Kings Royal assent being never had they were never authentickly recorded consequently they have neither force in themselves nor do they abrogate or null any other Canons or Constitutions not contrariant to the Laws of the Land Inventa meliore Lege prior est abroganda and not before 2. Now passing by the Canons and Injunctions of Qu. Eliz. we come to those made in Convocation 1603. published by authority of King James under the great Seal and these onely can be pretended to be of any force say they Answ. That this is more then I can see if the other had the Queens Royal assent and were never expresly call'd in after especially if ●hey be not repugnant to after Canons c. But say they Even those Canons of 1603. are not binding in as much as they were never confirmed by Act of Parl. although the Kings Royal assent was to them For say they it seems to be contrary to the Petition of Right that they should Answ. That I cannot dive into the intrigues of Disputes touching these Canons the legality whereof hath been the business of Learned men who have so well justified it in the opinion of all impartial auditors of the long Parliam where the argument was made that they deserve an everlasting name for it 3 In the close of all they say that albeit it be pleaded by some that Liturgies and among them the substance of ours are ancienter then the Popish mass books by many hundred of years And for that they produce Fathers and the Liturgies of St. James Peter and others although by many learned men censured as suppositious Yet none of these Authors do mention any publique forme the same for substance with ours although they speak of publick prayers made in the Congregation which none ever denyed Publique prayer is one thing a publique form another I answ. That it follows not that those forms are supposititious because some of the matters therein contained are so A child is not therefore supposititious because it has the Rickets and is either swelled in one part or pined away in others beyond its just and naturall proportion But what do they think of the Liturgy of St. Chrysostome translated out of the Syriack by Masius and used generally throughout all the Greek Church as my Lord Primate of Armagh hath noted Is that no forme or is it onely a supposititious form Or what do they think of other Liturgies as well as this which have the Lords Prayer and giving of thanks in them together with snch improvements as are Explications of the Lords Prayer and the parts thereof are not these formes yea and the same in substance with ours but that these were the first Liturgies that ever were is testified by Cassander out of Dionysius in Liturgicis Who sayes that Eucharistea solâ Oratione Dominicâ cum gratiarum actione primis temporibus celebrabatur But now they speak out For whereas in the begiuning they said that they were not against nay they were for Liturgies c. Yet now they say that though the Ancients speak of publique prayers which none say they ever denyed yet they never spake of publique formes which is as much as to say that we have no antiquity to justifie publique formes and therefore it were better be without them But first they confesse that these Ancients mention publique prayers and that these publique prayers were publique forms is already proved Indeed there was a time when some used publique prayers in no publique formes but that they used such alone can never be proved and what inconveniences ensued upon it is too evident by the 12th Canon of the Milevitan Council made against them wherein it is provided that no Prayers be used but such as were approved by the wiser sort in the Synod least any thing should be vented against the Faith either through ignorance or want of meditation FINIS The faults being few may be amended in reading

Commination to be used divers times in the year taken out of Deut. 27. I answer That that place is a type of the day of Judgement that as all the People were to say Amen at their entrance into the earthly Canaan to the curses denounced against the wicked So all the Saints at their entrance into the heavenly Canaan are to say Amen that is to aprove of the condemnation of them for the Saints shall thus judge the earth To avoid which condemnation hereafter it imports us to condemn our selves here Now men are apt to justifie rather then to judge themselves and so escape the condemnation of the world For such therefore is this Commination necessary that hereby they may be brought to acknowledge their sins to repent of them and require Absolution from them That Discipline in stead whereof this Commination is used is noted in the beginning hereof If therefore they like not this they may do well to endeavour the restoring of that But they except further against the denunciation made by Ministers as unlawfull Whereunto I answer That the Ministers of the Gospel may and must sometimes presse the curses of the Law and the judgements of God denounced against sinners to the end that thereby they may be moved to flye to Christ as their onely Sanctuary and so escape the judgement to come And hereof we have an Example given in that very place For though they are pleased to say that Levi was none of them that were appointed to curse yet vers 14. we find the Levites to be the onely men that were appointed to curse 'T is true that at that particular time Levi was one of those that were set upon Mount Gerezim to blesse yet Levites and none else were charged with the ordinary denunciation of curses for the future as a service specially incumbent on them which is point blanck against the Authors and proves for us the quite contrary to what they endeavour to infer Of Rites and Ceremonies THey begin here with Ceremonies taken away 5 6 Edw. 6. complaining of the restoring them again partly by the Canons of 1603. partly by corrupt practice The thing they chiefly aym at as they professe is to shew the necessity of reforming those Rites and Ceremonies conteyned in the book of Common Prayer or enjoyned by the Canons of 1603. the consideration of the Canons for the present they defer The Book of Common Prayer they deny to be established by Law because no Record can be produced by which that Book now in use or priuted 1 Eliz. is by Act of Parliament ratified and confirmed Answ. That all I can say to this is that this is the book that hath been so long received and used and this is the book that is warranted by the Kings Proclamation printed before it And I doubt not but the Testimony of the King will in Law being for the affirmative too preponderate the testimonies of many other But since they undertake to shew the necessity of reforming the Book they must shew some reason in the things themselves therein conteyned which require it And this they endeavour to make good from the nature of them taking it for granted that they are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or things indifferent saying that those ought not to be imposed on such as cannot be perswaded in their owne minds that they are lawfull because to them it will be sin according to St. Pauls own Doctrine to his Corinthians Rom. 14. Answ. That if they be granted to be indifferent then they are made necessary by the intervention of humane authority As for those that cannot be fully perswaded in their own minds the Proclamation hath provided that they be born with for a time and no more is intended by St. Paul who never dreamt that that superstitious conceit of the uncleanness of some meats should remain to the end of the World Since the Conference at Hampton-Court there hath been time enough to cosinder of the indifferency of Ceremonies and the learned Authors of this Offer have had time enough to instruct and convince the weak amongst them in and of the indifferency which they grant to be in them Should Doctrine Liturgy Rites Ordination Episcopacy Discipline be laid aside till all men be agreed we must never expect any whilst the world stands 4. Of Church-government HEre they except against Episcopacy as not being Jure Divino because erected by the Kings of England Answ. That if Episcopacy be jure Divino in the Catholique Church it must be so in the Church of England which is a part of it The Kings of England are no Fathers of the Church so as to beget the Church but they are as well as other Kings the nursing Fathers to the Churches in their Dominions They allow them Nurseries to live in appennage to live upon and freedome of exercising their Government in which sense they are the Erectors of Episcopacy in England And if this erection be legall why need it a further confirmation by Law But they descend to the parts of Government and therein 1. Of the Consecration of Bishops and their power of Ordination thereupon 1. THey except against those that say that where there is no Dean and Chapter to choose and no Archbishop to Consecrate there can be legally and regularly no succession of Bishops Answ. The Archbishops Deans and Chapters c. being of Ecclesiasticall and Civill constitution it must follow of necessity that there can be no legall which respects the Civill power nor regular or Canonicall succession which regards the Ecclesiastical state and condition of them without Deans and Chapters and Archbishop 2. Exception is That Episcopacy hath been lately insisted upon not onely to be an office of Precedency and Presidency above other Presbyters and Ministers but also a distinct and specificall order by Divine right superiour to all other Presbyters to exercise such things as none else may meddle with Ans. That this hath been insisted upon and hath been made good by those that have been put upon it by the Presbyterians their adversaries herein decrying them as Popish and having no other bottom to stand upon besides Ecclesiastical constitution and civill Connivance till they enforced them to leave this hold and flye to one more impregnable that is to say the Scripture Impregnable I say for if our Saviour did appoint any Regimen Ecclesiae at all it may be undenyably proved out of the Scripture that it was to be seated in a single person The same Text or Texts that prove the one will make good the other a thing which hath been done within this nine or ten years at Oxford in the Vespers but was not then nor ever since hath been answered 3. Oh but say they Linwood himselfe our great English Canonist saith expresly that Episcopatus non est Ordo and our book of Ordination tacitely implyeth as much Answ. That this Tacitely is well put in yea but it doth more