Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	highness_n	power_n	successor_n	2,068	5	9.8990	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27494	Clavi trabales, or, Nailes fastned by some great masters of assemblyes confirming the Kings supremacy, the subjects duty, church government by bishops ... : unto which is added a sermon of regal power, and the novelty of the doctrine of resistance : also a preface by the right Reverend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Lincolne / published by Nicholas Bernard ...	Bernard, Nicholas, d. 1661.	1661 (1661)	Wing B2007; ESTC R4475	99,985	198

other laying hold on the body and the things belonging thereunto The one having speciall reference to the Judgment of the world to come the other respecting the present retaining or loosing of some of the comforts of this Life That there is such a Civil Government as this in Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall no man of Judgment can deny For must not Heresie for example be acknowledged to be a Cause meerly Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and yet by what power is an Heretick put to death The Officers of the Church have no authority to take away the life of any man it must be done therefore per brachium seculare and consequently it must be yeelded without contradiction that the Tempor all Magistrate doth exercise therein a part of his Civil Government in punishing a crime that is of its own nature Spiritual or Ecclesiasticall But here it will be said the words of the Oath being generall that the King is the only supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries How may it appear that the power of the Civil Sword is only meant by that Government and that the power of the Keys is not comprebended therein I answer First that where a Civil Magistrate is affirmed to be the Governor of his own Dominions and Countries by common intendment this must needs be understood of a Civil-Government and may in no reason be extended to that which is meerly of another kind Secondly I say That where an Ambiguity is conceived to be in any part of an Oath it ought to be taken according to the understanding of him for whose satisfaction the Oath was ministred Now in the case it hath been sufficiently declared by publick authority that no other thing is meant by the Government here mentioned but that of the Civil Sword only For in the book of Articles agreed upon by the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and the whole Clergie in the Convocaetion holden at London Anno 1562. Thus we read Where we attribute to the Queens Majesty the Chief Government by which Titles we understand the minds of some standrous folkes to be offended we give not to our Princes the Ministring either of Gods word or of the Sacraments the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen doth most plainly testifie but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwayes to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiasticall or Temporall and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubbornand evill doers If it be here objected that the Authority of the Convocation is not a sufsicient ground for the Exposition of that which was enacted in Parliament I answer that these Articles stand confirmed not only by the Royall assent of the Prince for the establishing of whose Supremacy the Oath was framed but also by a speciall Act of Parliament which is to be found among the Statutes in the thirteenth yeer of Queen Elizabeth Cap. 12. Seeing therefore the makers of the Law have full authority to expound the Law and they have sufficiently manifested that by the Supream Government given to the Prince they understand that kind of Government only which is exercised with the Civil Sword I conclude that nothing can be more plaine then this that without all scruple of conscience the Kings Majesty may be acknowledged in this sense to be the only Supream Governor of all his Highness Dominions and Countrys as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as temporal and so have I cleered the first main branch of the Oath I come now unto the Second which is propounded negatively That no forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm The Forreiner that challengeth this Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Jurisdiction over us is the Bishop of Rome And the Title whereby he claimeth the Power over us is the same whereby he claimeth it over the whole world because he is St. Peters Successor for sooth And indeed if St. Peter himself had been now alive I should freely confess that he ought to have spiritual Authority and Superiority within this Kingdom But so would I say also if St. Andrew St. Bartholomew St. Thomas or any of the other Apostles had been alive for I know that their Commission was very large to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel unto every Creature So that in what part of the world soever they lived they could not be said to be out of their charge their Apostleship being a kind of an Universal Bishoprick If therefore the Bishop of Rome can prove himself to be one of this Rank the Oath must be amended and we must acknowledge that he hath Ecclesiastical Authority within this Realm True it is that our Lawyers in their yearly Books by the name of the Apostle do usually designe the Pope But if they had examined his Title to that Apostleship as they would try an Ordinary mans Title to a Piece of Land they might easily have found a number of Flaws and main defects therein for first it would be enquired whether the Apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour Christ as a special Commission which being personal only was to determine with the death of the first Apostles For howsoever at their first entry into the Execution of this Commission we find that Matthias was admitted to the Apostleship in the Roome of Judas yet afterwards when James the Brother of John was slain by Herod we do not read that any other was substituted in his place Nay we know that the Apostles generally left no Successors in this kind Neither did any of the Bishops he of Rome only excepted that sate in those famous Churches wherein the Apostles exercised their Ministry challenge an Apostleship or an Universal Bishoprick by vertue of that succession It would Secondly therefore be enquired what sound evidence they can produce to shew that one of the Company was to hold the Apostleship as it were in Fee for him and his Successors for ever and that the other Eleven should hold the same for Term of life only Thirdly if this State of perpetuity was to be cast upon one how came it to fall upon St. Peter rather then upon St. John who outlived all the rest of his Fellows and so as a Surviving Feoffee had the fairest Right to retain the same in himself and his Successors for ever Fourthly if that State were wholy setled upon St. Peter seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome We require them to shew why so great an Inheritance as this should descend unto the younger Brother as it were by Borough-English rather than to the Elder according to the ordinary manner of

the English Reformation then will they make you leave the French Reformation You fail against wind and tyde you think that the Governors you shall have hereafter will be like Sir Tho. Layton you are deceived Though this day you had compassed your wish to morrow or the next day after at your Governors pleasure all shall be marred again Finally the Ecclesiasticall Government which you aske hath no ground at all upon Gods word 'T is altogether unknown to the Fathers who in matter of Christian Discipline and censure of manners were more zealous and precise then we are But you cannot of all the learned and pious antiquity shew one example of the Discipline or Ecclesiasticall order which you hold as your Bishop in his book of the perpetuall government of the Sonne of Gods Church doth learnedly teach I pass over what I have my self written concerning it in my book De diversis Ministrorum gradibus and in my Defence against the Answer of Mr. Beza and more largely in my Confutation of his book De triplicigenere Episcoporum I cannot wonder enough at the Scotchmen who could be perswaded to abolish and reject the state of Bishops by reasons so ill grounded partly false partly of no moment at all and altogether unworthy a man of such fame If the Scots had not more sought after the temporal means of Bishops then after true Reformation never had Mr. Beza's Book perswaded them to do what they have done And I assure you that your opinion concerning the government of the Church seems plausible unto great men but for two reasons the one is to prey upon the goods of the Church the other for to keep it under the Revenues and authority of Bishops being once taken away For the form of your discipline is such that it will never be approved of by a wise and discreet supreme Magistrate who knows how to govern Ye see not the faults you commit in your proceedings as well Consistoriall as Synodals men well versed in the Lawes and in government do observe them But they contemn them so long as they have the law in their own hands and that it is far easier for them to frustrate them regard neither Consistorie nor Synodes then for you to command and make Decrees Were your Discipline armed with power as the Inquisition of Spain is it would surpass it in tyranny The Episcopall authority is Canonical that is so limitted and enclosed within the bounds of the Statutes and Canons of the Church that it can command nothing without Law much less contrary to Law And the Bishop is but the Keeper of the Lawes to cause them to be observed and to punish the transgressors of your Consistories and Synodes For the present I will say no more only take notice of this that it is not likely the King who knows what Consistories and Synodes be will grant that to the Islands which doth displease him in Scotland This Gentlemen and Brethren have I thought good to write vnto you intreating you to take it well as comming from him that loves the Islands and the good and edification of the Church of Christ as much as you can doe Upon this occasion I have thought fit to add thus much concerning Dr. Hadrianus Saravia HIs learning is sufficiently known by his works his judgement in relation to the Liturgy and Discipline of the Church of England is declared by this Letter which doth further appear by his Subscriptions following 1. In Queen Elizabeth's time the form required was in these words We whose names are here underwritten do Declare and unfainedly Testify our assent to all and singular the Articles of Religion and the Confession of the true Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments comprized in a book imprinted intituled Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God 1562. according to the computation of the Church of England for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions and for the establishing of Consent touching true Religion put forth by the Queens Authority And in testimony of such our Assents we have hereunto subscribed our names with our own proper hands as hereafter followeth Unto this Doctor Hadrianus de Saravia the sixth Prebend of the Church of Canterbury being conferred upon him subscribes in these words Per me Hadrianum de Saravia Sacrae Theologiae Professorem cui sexta Prebenda in Ecclesia Cathedrali Christi Cantuariens conferenda est sexto December is 1595. Wherein I find he did immediately succeed Doctor Whitaker whose Subscription is in these words viz. Per me Gulielmum Whitaker sacrae Theologiae Doctorem ejusdemque Professorem Regium in Academia Cantabrigiensi cui sexta Praebenda in Ecclesia Cathedrali Chrstl Cantuarens conferenda est Decimo Maii 1595. According unto which I find Mr. John Dod of Hanwell in Oxfordshire who wrot upon the Commandements to have subscribed in these words Per me Johannem Dod in Artibus Magistrum praesentatum ad Ecclesiam de Hanwell Oxon. Dioces 28. Julii 1585. unto whom abundance more and about that time might be added Mr. Richard Rogers Doctor Reynolds of Oxford c. among whom it pleased me to find the hand of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Hooker thus subscribing Per me Richardum Hooker Clericum in Artibus Magistrum praesentatum ad Canonicatum et Praebendam de Neather-haven in Ecclesia Cathedrali Sarum 17. Julii 1591. 2. In King Jame's time and since the form of the Subscription was thus To the three Articles mentioned in the 36. Chapter of the Book of Canons First that the Kings Majesty under God is the only supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or Causes as Temporall and that no foraign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preheminence or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within his Majesties said Realms Dominions and Territories That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordering of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God and that it may lawfully so be used and that he himself will use the form in the said book prescribed in publick prayer and administration of the Sacraments and none other That he alloweth the book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-bishops and Bishops of both Provinces and the Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord One thousand five hundred sixty and two And that he acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained being in number nine and thirty besides the Ratification to be agreeable to the word of God To these three Articles Doctor Hadrianus de Saravia being instituted unto the Rectory of Great Chart in the Diocess of Canterbury anno 1609. subscribes in these words Ego Hadrianus

p. 114. l. 3. dele the. l. 20. r. are l. 30. dele p. 115. l. 24. r. they p. 116. l. 19. r. of this mind l. ult dele ut p. 117. l. r. degrees p. 122. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 128. l. 6. r. Scythia p. 130. l. 26. r. These p. 132. l. 26. r. pam l. ult r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 133. l. 18. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In marg p. 134. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 150. l. 12 dele 2. p. 147. l. 2. r. Christi REcensui Librum cui Titulus CLAVI TRABALES Imprimatur Tertio Nonas Sext. 1661. MA. FRANCK S. T. P. Reverendo in Christo Patri Episcopo Londinesi à Sacris Domesticis A SPEECH Delivered in the CASTLE-CHAMBER at DUBLIN 22. of November Anno 1622. At the Censuring of some Officers who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy By the late Lord Primate Usher then Bishop of Meath WHat the danger of the Law is for refusing this Oath hath been sufficiently opened by my Lords the Judges and the quality and quantity of that Offence hath been agravated to the full by those that have spoken after them The part which is most proper for me to deal in is the information of the Conscience touching the Truth and Equity of the matters contained in the Oath which I also have made choice the rather to insist upon because both the form of the Oath it self requireth herein a full resolution of the Conscience as appeareth by those words in the very beginning thereof I do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience c. And the Persons that stand here to be censured for refusing the same have alledged-nothing in their own defence but only the simple Plea of Ignorance That this point therefore may be cleered and all needless Scruples removed out of mens minds Two maine Branches there be of this Oath which require special Consideration The one Positive acknowledging the Supremacy of the Government of these Realms in all Causes whatsoever to rest in the the Kings Highness only the other Negative renouncing all Jurisdictions and Authorities of any Forraigne Prince or Prelate within His Majesties Dominions For the better understanding of the former we are in the first place to call unto our remembrance that Exhortation of St. Peter Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of Man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as having the Preheminence or unto Governors as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well By this we are taught to respect the King not as the only Gove nor of his Dominions Simply for we see there be other Governors placed under him but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as him that excelleth and hath the preheminence over the rest that is to say according to the Tenure of the Oath as him that is the only Supream Governor of his Realms Upon which ground we may safely build this conclusion that whatsoever Power is inetdent unto the King by vertue of his place must be acknowledged to be in him Supream there being nothing so contrary to the nature of Soveraignty as to have another Superior power to over-rule it Qui Rexest Regem Maxime non habeat In the second place we are to consider that God for the better setling of Piety and Honesty among men and the repressing of Prophaneness and other Vices hath establisted two distinct powers upon earth the one of the Keys committed to the Church the other of the Sword committed to the Civil Magistrate That of the Keys is ordained to work upon the Inner man having immediate Relation to the remitting or retaining of sins That of the Sword is appointed to work upon the outward man yielding Protection to the obedient and inflicting external punishment upon the Rebellious and Disobedient By the former the spiritual Officers of the Church of Christ are enabled to govern well to speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority to loose such as are penitent to commit others unto the Lords Prison until their amendment or to bind them over unto the Judgment of the great Day if they shall persist in their wilfulness and obstinacie By the other Princes have an imperious power assigned by God unto them for the defence of such as do well and executing revenge and wrath upon such as do evil whether by death or banishment or confiscation of Goods or Imprisonment according to the quality of the offence When St. Peter that had the Keys committed unto him made bold to draw the Sword he was commanded to put it up as a weapon that he had no authority to meddle withall and on the other side when Uzziah the King would venture upon the Execution of the Priests office it was said unto him It pertaineth not unto thee Uzziah to burn incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the Sons of Aaron that are consecrated to burn Incense Let this therefore be our second conclusion that the Power of the Sword and of the Keys are two distinct ordinances of God and that the Prince hath no more authority to enter upon the execution of any part of the Priests function then the Priest hath to intrude upon an● part of the office of the Prince In the third place we are to observe that the power of the Civil Sword the Supreame managing whereof belongeth to the King alone is not to be restrained unto temporal causes only but is by Gods ordinance to be extended likewise unto all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Things and Causes That as the Spiritual Rulers of the Church do exercise their kind of Government in bringing men unto obedience not of the duties of the first Table alone which concerneth Piety and the Religious Service which man is bound to perform unto his Creator But also of the second which respecteth moral honesty and the Offices that man doth owe unto man So the Civil Magistrate is to use his Authority also in redressing the abuses committed against the first Table as well as against the Second that is to say as well in punishing of an Heretick or an Idolater or a Blasphemer as of a Thief or a Murtherer or a Traytor and in providing by all good means that such as live under his Government may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Piety and Honesty And how soever by this means we make both Prince and Priest to be in their several places custodes utriusque Tabulae Keepers of both Gods Tables yet do we not hereby any way confound both of their Offices together for though the matter wherein their government is exercised may be the same yet is the form and manner of governing them alwayes different the one reaching to the outward man only the other to the Inward the one binding or loosing the soul the