Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	faith_n	true_a	11,956	5	5.9540	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60706	Sober advice to church-wardens in a letter to a church-warden in London, from his friend out o7the countrey, and may serve indifferently for constables, and others, who are required to make presentments for not going to their parish-churches, or communicating, &c.		1683 (1683)	Wing S4400; ESTC R41687	10,566	15

lawful that Man was guilty of sin and liable to be damn'd for the same He that doubteth is damened if be eat because he eateth not of Faith Saith the Apostle Paul Rom. 14.23 I will grant that it may so fall out that a Man may be so minded that he sins both ways whether he do that which is required or forbear it but that is when he his absolutely oblig'd by God to do it and he through an Ignorant or ill inform'd conscience thinks it unlawful but in the case we discourse of our Bishops and Ministers acknowledge that in the things doubted of by those that do not frequent their Parish Churches there is no obscure comand of God why they should be done they become a Duty say they by Humane Authority which may be with-drawn and being with-drawn they are no longer any Mans Duty now how it comes to be in the power of Christians to imposer upon their Fullow Christians to do those things which no Law of God or Christ oblige them to and which their Fellow-Christians account unlawful or doubt of and to punish them for Disobedience when their Obediance would be a sin against God I leave you to determin But if neither you nor your Minister nor yet your Bishop can remove the doubts of these Ghristians and if they behave themselves as Christians in Obedience to all things that Christ requireth of them in Profession of Christian Faith in Christian Worship and Prayer in the Celebration of the Lords Supper as they understand Christ to have commanded it c. If you will not admit these People to be reasonably excus'd of their absence from their Parish Church I doubt Christ will not exchse you of injustice and uncharitableness at the great day I confess the Prosecution of these People with penalties is not so great a Sin as the Apostle Paul caused Christians to commit when his Name was Saul before his Conversion for he compell'd them to Blaspheme and sinning against ones own conscience in a matter of Circumstance is not so bad as blaspheming of Christ against ones Conscience but the same Apostle says in a less case When ye sin so against the Brethren and wound their weak Conseiences ye Sin against Christ 1. Cor. 8 12. now that which you Brother cannot do without Sin and that which you cannot prosecute him for not doing without Sin should me thinks be a reasonible excuse both for him and you Obj. You will perhaps urge against what I have said that there is no other way but this of presenting them for not coming to Church to convict Papists of Recusancy and that they also as well as Protestants may escape upon the pretence of Conscience so the Laws in these cases provided be made of no effect Ans To which I answer that the case of Protestant Dissenters and of Papists is not the same but far different For the reason why Papists do not communicate with Protestants in Parish Churches is Their acknowledgment of a foreign Power and Authority Superior to that of the King and the Laws of the Land namely the Authority of the Pope of Rome who is the declared Enemy of the King and the People being Protestants whence it is that their not coming to Church is an effect and indication of that acknowledgment and against them were the Statutes of the 1st and 23d of Queen Elizabeth made the last whereof is An Act to retain the Queen Majesties Subjects in their due Obedience and the Presace gives this as the reason of making that Act viz. That diverse all disposed Persons have practised by other means than by Bulls to withdraw diverse the Queens Majesties Subjects from their natural Obedience to her Majesty to obey the usurped Authority of Rome and in respect of the same to perswade great numbers to withdraw their due Obedience to her Majesties Laws established for the due Service of Almighty God For it is observed by the Lord Coke in his charge at Norwich and by others that not any Papists during the first ten years of that Queens Reign did refuse to come to Church that Cornwallis Beddingfield and Eylyard were the first Recusants in the beginning of the eleventh year of her Majesties Government And then Pope Pius Quintus being informed by some English Jesuits that such was the number of Roman Catholicks here is if he would Excomunicate her they would presently enter into an open Hostility with force sufficient to depose and utterly supplant her Highness and re-establish the Roman faith whereupon the Pope does Excomunicate her and Plots with the King of Spain to invade her Then did the Papists withdraw themselves from our Churches Thus you see it was not Conscience of Duty to Christ as it is in the Protestant Dissenters who own no Authority on Earth but the King and the Laws but Veneration to the Autority of the Pope the Queens Enemies and implaceable hatred of all Protestants that led Papists together to forsake the Church and their Allegiance and still contiuues them Recusants so that it is the true intent of the Law that it should be executed against Papists upon this Ground it was that as I am well informed a Grand Jury of Middlesex having Presentments brought against several great Papists would not find the Bill against them for not going to Church till the Constable or Witnesses had given Testimony that they were commonly reputed to be of the Roman Religion and that the Clerk had inserted in the Bill of Indictment Pontificiam Religionem Profitentes wherein I judge they did persue the true Intent of the Law in that case provided If you shall still insist and say that Papists do religiously give this Authority to the Pope I answer First that that Opinion is so manifestly contrary to Reason and Christianity that every man that uses Reason or owns Christ's Religion except Papists themselves must condemn it Think you that a Mahometan or a judicious Heathen upon a fair Hearing of both Parties would judge the Pope's Pretensions to his Infallibility and Supremacy reasonable or in the least doubt of their Invalidity But Secondly They that would have Liberty of Religion and Conscience do not pretend to such that is incosistent with the Sovereignty of Independent States and Kingdoms in things necessary to civil Society much less to such a Liberty as shall permit Religious Enemies to cut their Throats whenever they can by Watchfulness find an Opportunity Such is that Conscience which this Objection pleads for as may appear by what I have said above And the very thing I am pleading against is The depriving Men of their Properties and Liberties upon any Pretence whatsoever saving for a Crime that 's inconsistent with common Liberty and Property But the Consciences of Dissenters require nothing but a Liberty to that which if it were not forbid would be so far from being hurtful to the Commonwealth that it would rather be a Vertue nothing detracting from but conducing to the Common Good And I hope every honest Man will make a difference between those Laws that are necessary to the common Cood and those that are made merely for the Pleasure of the Law-givers and which others as wise and Christian as they would either null or make contrary Surely the Consciences exercized about the Obedience of these two sorts of Laws are far different one from another And that our Penal Laws so far as they respect Dissenters are of such a Nature as that they are not now to be press'd upon Protestants who have the Opinion of the House of Commons in the last Parliament at Westminster Gentlemen of as good Credit for Wisdom and Love to Protestantism and for Estates and Interest in their Countries as perhaps ever was seen in England wherein it was resolved nemine contradicente That the Persecution of the Protestant Dissenters upon the penal Laws is at this time grievous to the Subject a weakening to the Protestant Interest an Encouragement to Popery and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom Jan. 10. And now methinks Sir you should have as great Respect to the Opinion of the whole Nation of Commons in Parliament as you have to the Opinion of his single Grace my Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury from whom this Order for prosecution of Protestant Dissenters by Presentments Excommunications c. issues in flat Contradiction to the Opinion now mentioned especially considering withal the Doubtfulness of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Laws and all the rest that I have said and argued in this Case which I presume may have some Influence upon you and any rational honest Man I pray you consider in the Fear of God in Honor of Christ and his Religion and in the Love of your Christian Neighbours and do what such Consideration shall direct you to Take the safer Course which is always the more moderate in penal Matters Be sure you act not against Conscience neither compell others so to do Your affectionate Friend and Servant April 14. 1683. FINIS

resort to their Parish Church or some other place having no lawful or reasonable Excuse to be absent upon every Sunday and Holyday Now I perswade my self that in ordinary there are but few People or Church wardens themselves that are not guilty of the Breach of this Statute most Holydays in the Year And the Church-wardens know it perfectly How is it then that they do not present them except that they either know or presume they have some lawful or reasonable Excuse to be absent and if they take upon them to judge of reasonable Excuses in this Case so as to excuse themselves from the Breach of their Oath why not in other Cases also and particularly in the case of Communion at Easter wherein they certainly know there may be the like Excuses And the same Argument will hold in the case of those that come not to Church c. in a Month contrary to the Tenour of this Statute who are punishable by the Forfeiture of 20 l. a Month by the Statute of 23 of Eliz. ch 1. made against Papists Fourthly This Statute of 1 Eliz. makes it not absolutely criminal Not to resort to their Parish or some other Church but not to endeavour themselves to resort c. Now a man may endeavour to resort c. tho' he do not perform being hindered by some lawful or reasonable Lett * Nay I am well assured that many who resort not to their Parish Church c. do endeavour themselves to resort more by far than those that do They read confer study and pray more for Satisfaction in the Lawfulness of it so that a Church-warden that presents a Man for not coming to his Parish Church for a Holyday or a Month without consulting with him whether he had any reasonable Excuse of being absent or whether he was not at some other Church or Chappel and without judging of reasonable Letts is injurious to his Neighbour beyond the Statute and if he may not judge of lawful and reasonable Excuses but must present a man notwithstanding he makes a false Presentment because he does not know whether it be true or no that a man did not endeavour to resort to Church It may be false and if it be true it 's more than he knows tho' upon Oath he pretends to know it so commits Perjury He swears neither in Truth nor Judgment nor Righteousness Jer. 4 2. And why may not a lawful or reasonable Lett come in a Mans way at Easter as well as at another time Which if it were so the Church-warden ought not to conclude him guilty of a wilful omission and therefore ought not to present him Fifthly In crimes there is the matter or fact and the manner or Circumstances of that fact the matter or fact is for the most part neither good nor evil but according to Circumstances which make it the one or the other So under the Law of Moses God commanded to rest on the Sabbath day but if a man had fallen into a Ditch on the Sabbath it was evil to rest and not Labour to lift him out for it was lawful to do so for an Ox or a Sheep so in our Law one may kill a Man and be Innocent when he does it in his own Necessary defence but if in malice he is guilty of Murder So to take a Mans Sword from him on the High-way is robbery if it be done with a Fellonious intent but to keep a Man from doing himself and others a mischief it is good and lawful In like manner he that will present a Man to a Court to be punisht as a prophane Offender as the Bishop of London speaks in his Order for not coming to Church and receiving the Sacrament at Easter ought first to be assur'd that he did it with a prophane Mind and had no lawful or reasonable Lett to excuse him Having now my Friend shewed you that your Presentment has the force of a Verdict and the refore you ought to hear what your Neighbour has to say for himself before you bring in the Verdict of your Presentment to the spiritual Judg for him to pass Sentence upon him Having also clearly proved as I suppose that you are to judge of lawful and reasonable Excuses and that you do it most frequently in other cases It remains now that I say something of lawful and reasonable Excuses The first Rule I shall lay down to discern them by shall be general even that general Rule of our Saviour Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you do ye even so unto them If your Neighbour give as good Testimony of his Sincerity in the Christian Religion as you your self or at least no Cause to the contrary that which you would have to be judged a reasonable excuse in your own case that ought you to think in his case I describe your Neighbour here to be in Appearance an honest and true man because you are to believe what he says in his own Defence which if he were a man of ill Fame you could not reasonably do but if a man be of as good Credit as your self or you hear nothing against him I see not how you can avoid giving the same credit to him you would have another give to your self This is to be understood of such causes as admit not of outward Evidence besides a man 's own Testimony How otherwise do you love your Neighbour as your self which the Ap. James says is the Royal Law according to the Scriptures and Christian Charity is that which believeth all things hopeth all things to wit which he hath no good Grounds to disbelieve and doubt I prosume then that you and every Church-warden will judge that Sickness of the Party or any Relation whom he or she cannot in duty Wave without great danger or also journeying in forreinparts about a Mans necessary Occasions or in our own Countrey about sudden business that will not admit of delay are reasonable excuses for not presenting ones self and communicating at his parish-Parish-Church at Easter and there may be many other excuses of the same Nature which I will not Trouble you to enumerate But from hence I assume If the manifest danger of ones Health or the very probable damage of a Mans worldly Estate Credit or Liberty be reasonable excuses to be admitted by the Church-warden how much more reasonable and to be allowed is that excuse of sinning against God by doing that which he cannot do in Faith or with a perswasion of its lawfulness when divine Authority says Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin For it were better for a Man to lose all his Estate his Credit his Liberty yea and his Life too then sin against God But he that judgeth any thing required of him to be sinful and doth it he certainly sins For he that in the Apostles time eat of those meats which were lawful to be eaten judging them to be forbidden or even doubting whether they were