Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	allege_v	church_n	scripture_n	2,665	5	6.1884	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61414	An abstract of common principles of a just vindication of the rights of the kingdom of God upon earth against the politick machinations of Erastian hereticks out of the Vindication of the deprived bishops, &c. / by a very learned man of the Church of England.	Stephens, Edward, d. 1706.	1700 (1700)	Wing S5414; ESTC R22791	30,071	36

may be added That the Catholick Church and particular States are by order of Divine Providence of different unequal and inconsistent Dimensions and That Particular States are many intire independent Bodies but all Particular Churches Members of One great Body and subject to the Supream and Vniversal Authority thereof Nor ought any State Prince or Emperor be admitted or reputed Christian who will not submit all their Authority to the Authority of Christ in his Kingdom upon Earth Which being the Chief of all Powers who-ever resists resists the Ordinance of God and shall receive to themselves Damnation Rom. 13.2 CHAP. VII Of the Authority of the Church of England and that the Authority of the Primitive Catholick Church is greater than that of any Modern Particular one and to be preferred before it THE last Refuge is Argumentum ad hominem a poor Cause indeed that is reduced to that which tho' tolerable as an Adjective with others more substantial yet cannot stand alone much less support such a Cause as this Two things are alleadged the Oath of Supremacy Deprivation of the Bishops in Q. Elizabeth 's time for refusing that Oath for Proof of the Doctrine of the Church of England in this case To all this in general our Author opposeth the Authority of the Church of Christ the Catholick Church of the Primitive Ages which the Church of England it self admits and having set out the Objection fully makes this Reply I should most heartily congratulate the Zeal of these Objectors for our Church were it really such as it is pretended to be But I can by no means commend any Zeal for any particular modern Church whatsoever in Opposition to the Catholick Church of the first and purest Ages We cannot take it for a Reformation that differs from that Church which ought to be the Standard of Reformation to all later degenerous Ages at least in things so essential to the Subsistence and Perpetuity of the Church as these are which concern the Independence of the Sacred on the Civil Authority Nor is it for the Honor of our dear Mother to own her Deviation in things of so great Importance from the Primitive Rule much less to pretend her Precedent for over-ruling an Authority so much greater than hers so much nearer the Originals so much more Universal so much less capable of Corruption or of Agreement in any Point that had been really a Corruption It is impossible that ever the present Breaches of the Church can be reconciled if no particular Churches must ever allow themselves the Liberty of Varying from what has actually been received by them since the Ages of Divisions the very Reception thereof having proved the Cause of those Divisions If therefore our modern Churches will ever expect to be again united it must be by Acknowledgment of Errors in particular Churches at least in such things as have made the Differences and which whilst they are believed must make them irreconcilable Such things could never proceed from Christ who designing his whole Church for One Body and One Communion could never teach Doctrines inconsistent with such Unity and destructive of Communion And why should a Church such as ours is which acknowledges her self Fallible be too pertinacious in not acknowledging Mistakes in her self when the Differences even between Churches which cannot all pretend to be in the Right whilst they differ and differ so greatly from each other are a manifest Demonstration of Errors in Authorities as great as her own Nor can any such acknowledgments of actual Errors be prejudicial to Authority where the Decisions of the Authority are to be over-ruled not by private Judgments but by a greater Authority And if any Authority be admitted as competent for arbitrating the present Differences of Communion between our modern Churches I know none that can so fairly pretend to it as that of the Primitive Catholick Church Besides the other Advantages she had for knowing the Primitive Doctrines above any Modern ones whatsoever she has withall those Advantages for a fair Decision which recommend Arbitrators She knew none of their Differences nor dividing Opinions and therefore cannot be suspected of Partiality And it was withall an Argument of her being constituted agreeably to the Mind of her blessed Lord that she was so perfectly one Communion as he designed her And the Acquiescence of particular Churches in her Decision is easier and less mortifying than it would be to any other Arbitrator To return to her is indeed no other than to return to what themselves were formerly before their Divisions or dividing Principles So that indeed for modern Churches to be determined by Antiquity is really no other than to make themselves in their purest uncorruptest Condition Judges of their own Case when they have not the like Security against Impurities and Corruptions I cannot understand therefore how even on account of Authority our late Brethren can excuse their pretended Zeal for even our Common Mother the Church of England when they presume to oppose her Authority to that of the Catholick Church and of the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages I am sure we have been used to commend her for her Deference to Antiquity and to have the better Opinion of any thing in her Constitution as it was most agreeable to the Pattern of the Primitive Catholick Church CHAP. VIII Arch-Bishop Cranmer 's Opinion perfectly destructive of all Spiritual Authority and his Authority in these matters none at all FOR more particular Answer he first shews the Author and Original and so the Novelty of these pernicious Opinions in England and then answers to both the Allegations aforesaid the first not being very long and therefore recited in his own Words at length is as followeth In Henry the Eighth's time under whom the Oath of Supremacy was first introduced the Invasions of the Sacred Power were most manifest Yet so that even then they appear to have been Innovations and Invasions But who can wonder at his Success considering the violent ways used by him So many executed by him for refusing the Oath The whole Body of the Clergy brought under a Premunire for doing no more than himself had done in owning the Legatine Power of Cardinal Wolsey and fined for it and forced to Submissions very different from the sense of the Majority of them He did indeed pretend to be advised by some of the Ecclesiasticks as appears from several of their Papers still preserved But they were only some few selected by himself never fairly permitted to a freedom and majority of Suffrages And when even those few had given their Opinion yet still he reserved the Judgment of their Reasons to himself And to shew how far he was from being indifferent those of them who were most open in betraying the Rights of their own Function were accordingly advanced to the higher degrees in his Favour and were entrusted with the Management of Ecclesiastical Affairs None had a greater share in his

Ecclesiastical Councils than Arch-Bishop Cranmer Nor is there any who upon all the Questions proposed wherein Ecclesiastical Power was concerned does more constantly side with the King 's imperious Humour against the true Rights of his own Order He allows the King the Rights even of Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments and allows neither of them to the Ecclesiasticks any further than as they derived them from the Prince's Lay-Commissions He permitted indeed their Consecrations as he had found them by those of their own Order but derives nothing of their Power from those Consecrations He makes the Ceremonies of Consecration indifferent things no way concerned in conveying the Spiritual Power That he derives wholly from their Lay-Deputation He gives them a Power of Preaching the Word and Administring the Sacraments where the Lay-Powers allow it and he allows them neither where the Secular Magistrate forbids them They must admit whom the Laws oblige them to admit and they must not excommunicate any whom the Secular Laws take into their Protection The Magistrate notwithstanding his being a Lay-Man may perform these Offices himself if he pleased And the Ecclesiasticks notwithstanding their Consecration are not by him permitted to perform them unless the Magistrate be pleased to give them leave Nay so far he proceeds in his Flattery of the Civil Magistrate that he allows no more Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery than in the collation of any Civil Office Even in the Apostles themselves he rather excuses than commends all the Exercise of their Spiritual Authority as necessitated to it by the Exigency of their present Circumstances As if any Necessity could excuse Usurpation As if any Exercise of a Power not belonging to them could have been seconded by so visible manifestations of God himself as that was which was exercised by the Apostles Yet even their Authority he makes perfectly precarious He owns no Obligation on the Consciences of the Christians of those times to obey even the Apostles themselves but ascribes their Obedience then wholly to their good Will so as to leave it to their own Liberty whether they would be subject or no. And why so Only because the Apostles had no Civil Empire This wholly resolves all Obligation of Conscience into Civil Empire and makes it impossible for the Church to subsist as a Society and a Communion without the Support of the Civil Magistrate Accordingly the same Arch-Bishop Cranmer took out a Patent for his Episcopal Power * And another before from King Henry long before Bonner was Bishop from which and from the Composure it is plain who was the Projector preserved by Bishop Burnet full of a Style so pernicious to Ecclesiastical Authority He there acknowledges all sort of Jurisdiction as well Ecclesiastical as Civil to have slowed originally from the Regal Power as from a Supream Head and as a Fountain and Spring of all Magistracy within his own Kingdom He says they who had exercised this Jurisdiction formerly for which he took out this Patent had done it only PRECARIO and that they ought with grateful Minds to acknowledge this Favour derived from the King's Liberality and Indulgence and that accordingly they ought to yield whenever the King thought fit to require it from them And to shew what Particulars of Ecclesiastical Power he meant his Patent instances the Power of Ordering Presbyters and of Ecclesiastical Coercion meaning no doubt that of Excommunication Nay further the same Patent gives him a Power of Executing by the King's Authority those very things which were known to have been committed to him by God himself in the Scriptures per ultra caquae tibi ex Sacris Literis divinitus commissa esse dignoscuntur By which we understand that no Branch of Spiritual Power whatsoever was excepted Yet all this Grant was to last no longer than the King's Pleasure I know not what the Lay-Encroachers themselves can desire more Here is so little Security for the Church's subsisting when the Secular Laws discountenance her as that she is not allowed the same Liberty that other Subjects have of pleading the Secular Laws already made in favour of her but is left exposed to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Prince which is thought hard in the case of other Subjects This Yoke the Politicians have lately imposed on the Church of Scotland GOD in his good time release her from it I have often wondred how the most learned Bishop Stilling fleet who first published the fore-mentioned Papers as far as they concerned Arch-Bishop Cranmer could think them consistent with his own Principles They are so perfectly contradictory to his Discourse concerning the Power of Excommunication subjoined in the Second Edition of the Irenicum and indeed to the Doctrine of the Irenicum it self as far as it was consistent with it self or with any one Hypothesis For sometimes he seems to doubt whether there can be any Power properly so called without Coercion or any Coercion without external Force As if indeed the Fears of the future Mischiefs attending Exclusion from the Privileges of Church Communion had not been in the purest Ages of the Christian Religion more properly Coercive than the fear of any Evils that were in the Power of the Secular Magistrate It is certain that good Christians then chose rather to suffer any thing the Magistrate could inflict than Excommunication But I more admire that such a Betrayer of Ecclesiastical Rights should by our Ecclesiastical Historian of the Reformation be proposed as the Hero of his times and as Exemplary to such as might in his Opinion deserve the Name of Heroes still Yet he calls it a strange Commission in Bishop Bonner when he took out a Commission from the King as to his Spirituals conceived in the same terms with that of Cranmer in the Particulars now mentioned He grants that * It is not only a groundless Charge upon Bonner but false disproved both by this which discovers Cranmer the Contriver and by Evidence of Fact that he and others took out such Commissions long before Bonner v. A. Harmar pag. 51 52. The Historian to excuse Cranmer cast the Odium of it upon Bonner and devised a reason to render it credible Bonner's Inducement to take out that Commission was that it was observed that Cranmer's great Interest in the King was chiefly grounded on some Opinions he had of the Ecclesiastical Officers being as much subject to the King as all other Civil Officers were Yet Cranmer was to be excused because that if he followed that Opinion at all it was out of Conscience Why he should doubt whether he was of that Opinion I cannot guess when himself has published those very Papers of the learned Bishop Stillingfleet wherein Arch-Bishop Cranmer does so plainly own himself of that Opinion when he has also published Cranmer's own Commission to the same purpose As little Reason I can see why he should say that Cranmer