Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	catholic_n	church_n	communion_n	3,075	5	9.3276	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26169	The fundamental constitution of the English government proving King William and Queen Mary our lawful and rightful king and queen : in two parts : in the first is shewn the original contract with its legal consequences allowed of in former ages : in the second, all the pretences to a conquest of this nation by Will. I are fully examin'd and refuted : with a large account of the antiquity of the English laws, tenures, honours, and courts for legislature and justice : and an explanation of material entries in Dooms-day-book / by W.A.	Atwood, William, d. 1705?; Atwood, William, d. 1705? Reflections on Bishop Overall's Convocation-book.	1690 (1690)	Wing A4171; ESTC R27668	243,019	223

other Tractates in that kind would be found unnecessary That Catholicon as he is pleas'd to call it would supersede the Divine Right of all Rulers even in Ecclesiastical Affairs other than Temporal Princes who prior to their Unction by which 't is suppos'd that the Spiritual Jurisdiction is convey'd are invested with all that Power that the Patriarchs had who according to our Prince of Politicians by Right in Nature and God's special Ordinance were absolute Priests and Princes Now one would wonder what Principle was receiv'd by King Edw. the 6 th more injurious to the Church than what the Doctor and his Followers eagerly embrace What was the Judgment of that King I have seen in a Manuscript worth Diamonds written by his own Hand and dedicated by him to his Uncle the Duke of Somerset in the Year 1549. when as I compute it he was but Twelve Years old entituled Petit Traité A léncontre de la Primaute du Pape Where amongst other things he discourses thus of the Power of the Keys This has been since translated by a Lady of great Quality Le second texte est que les clefz du ciel estoyent donnees non seulement à Pierre mais aussy aux autres Apostres par cest argument je repons qu'il n'estoit pas le Principal Galat. 2.9 car les autres recevoient la mesme authorité des clefz laquelle luy est commise Pour laquelle chose Paul appelle Pierre la Coulomne non pas le fondement de léglise son compagnon non pas son Gouverneur car quelles sont les clefz du ciel l'authorite de pardonner les pechez non mais le preschement de l'evangill de Dieu le pere ouy bien de Dieu non pas du Pape ou Diable Et tout ainsi que quand l'huys est ouvert quiconques veult peut entrer ainsy quand Dieu envoyoit son sincere Commandement son Evangile 2 Cor. 2.92 ' ils ouuroient la verité la quelle est la porte du ciel donnoient aux hommes à entendre la ecriture la quelle sillz suivent ilz seront saunez parquoy on peut entendre que ' l'evangile la verité de l'ecriture sont les seules portes qui conduisent l'homme au royaume de Dieu pour laquelle chose St. Paul dit Quiconque invoquera le nom de Dieu serra sauue Rom. 10.13 14 17. Comment invoquerent ils celuy auquel ilz ne croient pas Comment croyrent ilz en celuy du quel ilz non't pas ouy parler Comment orront ilz sans avoir un prescheur Et un peu apres il dit Foy vient par ouir ouyr de la parolle de Dieu Au quatriesme Chapitre aux Romans aussy il dit Rom. 4.5 à celuy qui naeuure pas mais croit en celuy qui justifie les meschans sa foy luy est imputee à justice Maintenant nous prouuerons que le preschement de l'evangile est la clef du ciel Rectiùs Dixiesme Au huitesme Chapitre aux Romans comme jay dessus dit Paul affirme que quiconque invoque le nom du Seigneur est sauue que le preschement de l'evangile est l'entree en linvocation de Dieu adonc il sensuit que le preschement de l'evangile est l'entre du salut D'avantage Paul affirme que foy justifie que le preschement de l'evangile fait la foy la quelle chose jay demonstree icy devant purtant il sensuit que le vray preschment est l'entree en justification car tout ainsi qu'un terre semee peut produire fruit porveu que la semence ne soit semee en terre plein de chardons brieres ou pierres Et encore s'elle est semeé en telle terre elle ferra la terre un peu meilleure ainsi si le Commandement de Dieu est semé à cueur de honestes gens ou de ceux qui ont un bon zele à la verité il les confirmera en toute bonte mais si aucuns sont obstinez opiniatres ilz ne peuent imputer la faute à l'ecriture veu quelle est en eux mesm Mat. 28.18 Pourtant nous nous devons efforcer que l'evangile soit preschee par tout le monde comme il est ecrit Tout povoir m'est donne en la terre au ciel Mark 16.15 pourtant allez preschez à toutez creatures les baptizans en mon nom Puis donc quil est prouue que les clefs du ciel sont l'authorite de prescher que l'authorite de prescher estoit donnee à chacun Apostre je ne puis voir comme par ce texte l'authorite estoit donnee à Pierre plus que aux autres c. Now in short here lies the Substance of these Principles the Danger of the improvement of which was happily prevented by Queen Mary's Reign The Power of the Keys or Church-Power is only Authority to preach the Gospel that was equally given to all the Apostles therefore all Apostles had equally the Power of the Keys and so were equal And by consequence will some say all Preachers after them that had only a general and ordinary Commission to preach are equal of the same Order to one another Order being taken for a Power to do a special Act as the Learned Bishop Andrews informs us Ep. Wynton Resp ad 3 Ep. Pet. Moline p. 192. Ordinem esse potestatem ad actum specialem non à me dico Schola hoc dicit tota Even the Authority to preach the Gospel which was in an especial manner committed to the Apostles and by Ordination by them practised conferr'd upon others and always continued in the Church some great Church-men will tell us ought to yield to the Civil Power so far that no Man forbidden by the Magistrate ought to preach without an immediate Commission from Heaven by working of Miracles Whereas others will say 't was enough that the Power was given at first and attested to by Miracles Something agreeably to which a Learned Church-man says Touching the Worship of God Since the Divine Establishment of the Publick Christian Service is contained in the Gospel Falkner 's Christian Loyalty p. 41. no Authority upon Earth hath any right to prohibit this And those Christians that rightly worship God in the true Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship as appear useful for the Church's Good tho this should be against the Interdict of the Civil Power This is greatly opposite to the Judgment since deliver'd in the Case yet by adding false Terms he enervates his Argument for his Argument is taken from such Service its being contain'd in Scripture but upon that he would support those Modes of

Worship which though not contain'd in Scripture were us'd in the Primitive Church which is an Individium vagum which some confine to the Life-time of the Apostles some extend to the whole first three Centuries some even to this according to the Doctrine of Infallible Tradition Suppose for Example that in such Assemblies as are form'd with or without leave of the Civil Power the Sign of the Cross be used as a Symbol of dedicating to the Service of Christ those who are let into Catholick Communion and this they judg useful to the present and according to the Primitive Church it will be a Question Whether the retaining of this against a particular Interdict of the Civil Power which is supposable at least is to be justifi'd upon these Grounds Put this Argument into Form and you will find he has more or less in his Conclusion than in his Premises Rightly taken I conceive it lies thus If the Gospel contains a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth hath any right to prohibit But the Gospel does contain a Divine Establishment of Publick Christian Service Therefore such Publick Christian Service as has therein Divine Establishment no Authority upon Earth has Power to prohibit This being taken for granted he proceeds What no Authority upon Earth has right to prohibit may be done or perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But such Service ut supra no Authority upon Earth hath right to prohibit therefore it may be perform'd notwithstanding the Interdict of the Civil Power But he concludes contrary to the Laws of Arguing That those Christians who rightly worship God in the True Catholick Communion according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church have a right to hold such Assemblies for the Christian Worship as appear useful for the Church's Good Now if hereby he means that they who worship God according to the Scriptures even though taking in the Practice of the Apostles have not this Right unless they do it in the manner us'd till or at the end of the first three hundred Years after Christ which is the modestest acceptation of Primitive Times Here by adding of Circumstances his Conclusion has really less than the Premises because it ties up them whom the Scripture has left free and takes from the Authority of Scripture where the Foundation was laid and undermines it by going to support it with the specious words of Apostolical and Primitive which still are of doubtful Acceptation Whereas some believe that no manner of Worship is to be term'd Primitive which was not truly Apostolical that is us'd by the Apostles themselves others call every thing within those three Centuries at least Primitive and therefore Apostolical But to be sure here is a very false way of Arguing if he uses any or else 't is gratis dictum But take it for an Argument and then to his purpose there is more in the Conclusion than in the Premises for the Premises are only of such Publick Service as is contain'd and establish'd in the Gospel and thence he would conclude that whatever has been practis'd in the Primitive Church in the Publick Service of God may be continued notwithstanding the Interdict Nay he would go farther That they may in their Assemblies practise according to their own Judgment of what is useful for the Church's Good If it be said that he means no more than that they may hold such Assemblies for Christian Worship as appear useful that is of Five besides a single Family 22 Car. 2. c. 1. or more as appears useful if he means not that they may assemble and worship in such a manner as appears useful he excludes the Worship out of the Assembly and then it may be a Silent Meeting if the Civil Power please and is less than his Premises warrant I must confess he seems to intend the amusing rather than satisfying his Readers by putting in the true Catholick Communion for he must mean either that what-ever Publick Service is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church is in true Catholick Communion and so vice versa that what-ever is in true Catholick Communion is according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church so that the Church becomes the Rule to the supplanting of Scripture or else that to worship God rightly and warrantably notwithstanding a Civil Interdict 't is not enough to be according to the Apostolical and Primitive Church unless it be in the true Catholick Communion that is with such Terms of Communion as Christ himself or his Apostles made Catholick and universally obliging and indeed in this sense though he has not observ'd it he comes up fully to the Force of his Argument The great Sanderson whose Judgment where it was according to that lumen siccum the general want of which is to be deplored is of great Authority has gone about to split the Hair between two Extreams in relation to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and lays down what he says is most consentaneous to the Doctrine of the Church of England and moreover to the Laws of the Kingdom Sanderson de Obligatione Conscientiaa Pag. 209. Quod Doctrinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Regni insimul Legibus maximè sit consentaneum Which by the way is an insinuation that the Church of England holds some Doctrine not consentaneous to Law and it may be the Canons of 1640 might be instanced in Now his Notion is that the jus condendi Leges Ecclesiasticas that is the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Affairs is in the Bishops Presbyters and other Persons duly elected by the Clergy of the whole Kingdom and duly assembled in a lawful Synod Upon this I would be bold to ask the Question Pag. 188. How this agrees with his Concession That the King is Supream Head and Governour over all Persons and Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil since his own Argument is That he who is Supream has the Power or Right to make Laws But the King is Supream wherefore P. 192. according to him the King and not the Clergy hath this Power This I think is the unforc'd Consequence from his other Assertion Potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse potestatem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hoc est jus ferendi leges quae obligant totam communitatem esse penes eum solum Pag. 186. sive sit is singularis persona ut in statu Regiminis Monarchici sive plures ut in aliis qui cum summâ potestate toti communitati praest Nay he argues that it must needs be so in reason Praecipuus actus gubernationis praecipuam requiret potestatem c. Est autem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive legum latio actus gubernationis supremus praecipuus Non ergo potest exerceri nisia persona habente aut saltem in virtute ex authoritate habentis supremam authoritatem jurisdictionem in communitatem sibi

to be thought but that the Floude of Bloode from which God defend thee that otherwise might be shedde doth continually flowe before her Highnes pitifull and most mercifull Eyes And that her Maiestie taryeth but some goode tyde most carefully to provyde for the same as may be possible Which it may please God to graunte vnto her Highnes for th'Honer of Him and the greate Benifyte of the whole Realme with most convenyent speede Amen 20. Martii 1565. God save Queene Elizabeth REFLECTIONS ON Bishop Overall's CONVOCATION-BOOK M.DC.VI CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD's CATHOLICK CHURCH AND OF THE Kingdoms of the Whole World LONDON Printed in the Year M.DC.XC Reflections on Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book 1606. c. IT having been my purpose to consider all Objections of any weight in themselves or from the Authority of Persons which should occur to me against the Right of Their Present Majesties and the Justice of their Undertaking our Deliverance I ought not to pass by Bishop Overall's Convocation-Book compos'd in the time of James I. Licensed by the late Bishop of Canterbury since his disowning this Government and Printed as it is to be presumed with a manifest Intention of undermining it for every Man may discern that the Scheme of Government there drawn for the whole World is contrary to the Foundation of our Present Settlement but tho the Hypothesis is laid together with much Subtilty nothing but Infallibility can give it Authority and to me it seems a piece of Presumption only short of that of the Romish Church For having made a Collection from Sacred and Prophane History and the Apocryphal Writings tho of the last they say P. 64. they mean not to attribute any Canonical Authority unto them nor to establish any Point of Doctrine they Canonically condemn of Errors all that agree not to their Inferences and Conclusions upon a state of Fact which at least may be false This single Observation might make it needless to consider more particularly what is there said especially when I add this further That it would make Scripture Examples under the Jewish State to have the force of Precepts now which if they have then the Examples of Jehu in killing wicked King Joram then his Subject and of Othniel P. 46. 2 Kings Judges and Ehud who rescued the Israelites the one from the King of Moab the other from the King of Mesopotamia who had brought them under Subjection may serve for Rules in the like Cases If they do not then to what purpose do they in other Instances bring Presidents of God's dealing with the Jews of his chusing and anointing their Kings and the like With these Antidotes we may venture upon a further tast of the Doctrines The Foundation of all is the Patriarchal Power of Adam which they suppose to have been absolutely Monarchical all the World over that Noah had the like Authority all his Life but that he divided the whole World among his Three Sons upon which they conclude P. 84. That if any Man affirm Can. 35. That God ever committed the Government of all the World after Adam 's and Noah 's times to any one Man to be the sole and visible Monarch of it he doth greatly err And another Error which they Canonically condemn is of them who hold that Christ doth not allow the distributing of this his one Vniversal Kingdom Lib 2. Can. 4. p. 147. into divers Principalities and Kingdoms to be Ruled by so many Kings and Absolute Princes under him Upon the whole the Fatherly Power was absolute in Adam then in Noah then in his Three Sons together and ever after in all the Princes in the World Can. 2. and as they affirm in relation to Adam's Monarchical Power that it rose not from any choice of the People neither say they is it deduced by their Consents naturally from them P. 3. Which is meant of the Powers which now are in the World And yet if I mistake not they elsewhere own that the Consent of the People may be requisite to the legitimating some Governments when they justify Mattathias P. 67. who being moved with the Monstrous Cruelty and Tyranny of Antiochus made open resistance the Government of that Tyrant being not then either generally received by Submission or setled by Continuance wherein the Consent or Submission of the People is owned to be material The consequence of which will reach a Prince that Exercises a Power beyond what has been submitted to or setled But admit their Notion of the Absolute Power of the Father should hold while the World was but one Family and the Father might be supposed to be the sole Proprietor I doubt they cannot advance one step further without meer Fictions of their own Imaginations or as vain and uncertain Tradition If we attend to the sacred Text freed from their imposing Comment Noah's Sons are by God himself made joynt Proprietors with him Gen. 9.1 2 For the Text says God blessed Noah and his Sons and said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every Beast of the earth and upon every fowl of the air upon all that moveth upon the earth and upon all the fishes of the sea into your hand are they delivered If this Donation had no effect as to the Sons in the life-time of the Father neither according to the Patriarchal Scheme could the younger Sons have any Benefit in the life-time of the Elder wherefore either here was a joynt Propriety in all and consequently the Distribution must proceed from an express or tacit Consent of the Proprietors or else they must be beholden to Jewish Tradition for the establishing their Christian Canon concerning Government For two things I must confess we are obliged to them 1. For pathetically describing the unhappiness of the Jews and how Religion went in those days P. 72. when the Priests had gotten the Reins into their own Hands 2. For observing That the Pharisees the most proud and stubborn of the Jewish Sects P. 79. were the only Men who refused to swear Allegiance to Herod and Caesar Can. 30. yet they say If any Man shall affirm that Jaddus the Jewish High Priest having sworn Allegiance to Darius might have lawfully born Arms against him he doth greatly err This is in a Canon which they raise from the Fact in Josephus of Jaddus's refusing to assist Alexander in his Wars and becoming Tributary to the Macedonians as he had been to the Persians and this after Alexander had overthrown Darius who escaped by Flight The Jewish High Priest seems to put words into the Mouth of our late Archbishop returning for answer That he might not yield thereto because he had taken an Oath of Allegiance to Darius which he might not lawfully violate whilst Darius lived Compare this with the next Canon according to the Analogy of their Doctrine and see