Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	king_n	power_n	supremacy_n	2,252	5	10.5244	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26854	Richard Baxter his account to his dearly beloved, the inhabitants of Kidderminster, of the causes of his being forbidden by the Bishop of Worcester to preach within his diocess with the Bishop of Worcester's letter in answer thereunto : and some short animadversions upon the said bishops letter.; Account to his dearly beloved, the inhabitants of Kidderminster, of the causes of his being forbidden by the Bishop of Worcester to preach within his diocess	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699. Letter to a friend for vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter's calumny.	1662 (1662)	Wing B1179; ESTC R1412	40,242	54

to Govern Thes. 151. XI Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God that this is the person by whom we must be Governed is enough as joyned to Gods Laws to oblige us to consent and obey him as our Governour Thes. 153. XII When God doth not notably declare any person or persons qualified above others there the people must judge as well as they are able according to Gods general rules Thes. 157. XIII And yet All the people have not this right of choosing their Governours but commonly a part of every Nation must be compelled to consent c. XIV Those that are known enemies of the Common Good in the chiefest parts of it are unmeet to Govern or choose Governours but such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men Pag. 174. So that if those that are strongest though fewest call themselves the Godly Partty all others besides themselves are to be excluded from Governing or choosing of Governours As amongst the ungodly that are to be thus excluded he reckons all those that will not hearken to their Pastors he means the Preshyterian Classis or that are despisers of the Lords-Day that is all such as are not Sabbatarians or will not keep the Lords-Day after the Jewish manner which they prescribe and which is condemned for Judaism by all even of the presbyterian perswasion in the world but those of England and Scotland only XV. If a People that by Oath and Duty are obliged to a Soveraign shall sinfully dispossess him and contrary to their Covenants choose and Covenant with another they may be obliged by their latter Covenant notwithstanding their former and particular subjects that consented not in the breaking of their former Covenants may yet be obliged by occasion of their latter choice to the person whom they choose Thes. 181. XVI If a Nation injuriously deprive themselves of a worthy Prince the hurt will be their own and they punish themselves but if it be necessarily to their welfare it is no injury to him But a King that by war will seek reparations from the body of the People doth put himself into an hostile State and tells them actually that he looks to his own good more then theirs and bids them take him for their Enemy and so defend themselves if they can Pag. 424. XVII Though a Nation wrong their King and so quoad Meritum causae they are on the worser side yet may he not lawfully war against the publick good on that account nor any help him in such a war because propter finem he hath the worser cause Thes. 352. And yet as he tells us pag. 476. we were to believe the Parliaments Declarations and Professions which they made that the war which they raised was not against the King either in respect of his Authority or of his Person but only against Delinquent Subjects and yet they actually fought against the King in person and we are to believe saith Mr. Baxter pag. 422. that men would kill them whom they fight against Mr. Baxter's Doctrine concerning the Government of England in particular HE denies the Government of England to be Monarchical in these words I The real Soveraignty here amongst us was in King Lords and Commons Pag. 72. II. As to them that argue from the Oath of Supremacy and title given the King I refer them saith Mr. Baxter to Mr. Lawson's answer to Hobb's Politicks where he sheweth that the Title is often given in the single Person for the honour of the Commonwealth and his encouragement because he hath an eminet interest but will not prove the whole Soveraignty to be in him and the Oath excludeth all others from without not those whose interest is implied as conjunct with his The eminent dignity and interest of the King above others allowed the name of a Monarchy or Kingdome to the Common wealth though indeed the Soveraignty was mixed in the hands of Lords and Commons pag. 88. III. He calls it a false supposition 1. That the Soveraign power was onely in the King and so that it was an absolute Monarchy 2. That the Parliament had but onely the proposing of Laws and that they were enacted onely by the Kings Authority upon their request 3. That the power of Armes and of Warre and peace was in the King alone And therefore saith he those that argue from these false suppositions conclude that the Parliament being Subjects may not take up Arms without him and that it is Rebellion to resist him and most of this they gather from the Oath of Supremacy and from the Parliaments calling of themselves his Subjects but their ground saith he are sandy and their superstructure false pag. 459 460. And therefore Mr. Baxter tells us That though the Parliament are Subjects in one capacity yet have they their ptrt in the Soveraignty also in their higher capacity Ibid. And upon this false and trayterous supposition he endeavours to justifie the late Rebellion and his own more then ordinary activeness in it For IV. Where the Soverainty saith he is distributed into several hands as the Kings and Parliaments and the King invades the others part they may lawfully defend their own by war and the Subject lawfully assist them yea though the power of the Militia be expresly given to the King unlesse it be also exprest that it shall not be in the other Thes. 363. The conclusion saith he needs no proof because Soveraignty as such hath the power of Arms and of the Laws themselves The Law that saith the King shall have the Militia supposeth it to be against Enemies and not against the Common-wealth nor them that have part of the Soveraignty with him To resist him here is not to resist power but usurpation and private will in such a case the Parliament is no more to be resisted than he Ibid. V. If the King raise War against such a Parliament upon their Declaration of the dangers of the Common-wealth the people are to take it as raised against the Common-wealth Thes. 358. And in that case saith he the King may not only be resisted but ceaseth to be a King and entreth into a state of War with the people Thes. 368. VI. Again if a Prince that hath not the whole Soveraignty be conquered by a Senate that hath the other part and that in a just defensive War that Senate cannot assume the whole Soveraignty but supposeth that Government in specie to remain and therefore another King must be chosen if the former be incapable Thes. 374. as he tells us he is by ceasing to be King in the immediately precedent Thes. VII And yet in the Preface to this Book he tells us that the King withdrawing so he calls the murdering of one King and the casting off of another the Lords and Commons ruled alone was not this to change the species of the Government Which in the immediate words before he had affirmed to be in King Lords and Commons which constitution

averre that He could not otherwise uphold and maintain it than by preserving the Undue and as some think Antichristian Dignity and Prelation of His inferiour Officers 3. Bishops are so little useful to support the Regal Dignity which is founded upon a distinct Basis of its own that upon enquiry it will be found how none have been greater Enemies to the True and Undoubted Soveraignty of Princes than some Bishops themselves For by their Officious and scarce warrantable intermedling in Civil Affairs by their Absurd and Insignificant distinguishing between Civil and Ecclesiastical Causes of which last they have alwayes made themselves sole Judges they mangle the Kings Authority and as to Church-matters which may be extended as far as they please they leave the King nothing of Supremacy but the Name The Pope of Rome therefore who is the great Father of all such Bishops hath improved this Notion and Distinction so far that in ordine ad spiritualia he hath laboured to subject all Civil Empires unto his sole Jurisdiction So that if the Bishop of Worcester's Rule hold good of Crimine ab uno Disce omnes i. e. That all men who are of a Party may be judged of by the miscarriages of one then I must leave it to You to judge what all those Bishops that are of the Bishop of Worcester's complexion do really drive at by the fatal example of that one Bishops Usurpation For Secondly That Assertion That the Bishop of Worcester and consequently every other Bishop is the sole Pastor of all the Congregations in his Diocesse if it be at all defensible I am sure can be defended only by those Arguments which are commonly alledged to maintain the Popes Supremacy over all Churches whatever For since a Bishop can no otherwise discharge his duty herein than by providing Substitutes what hinders but the Bishop of Rome may as well oversee a million of Churches as the Bishop of Worcester five hundred Since if Deputation be lawful more or less compass and circuit of ground doth not at all alter the case I forbear to urge how contrary this Practise is to the Doctrine of the Apostles both Paul and Peter I hope the Bishop will not take it ill that I do not call them Saints for these Holy men do not need any stile of Honour out of the Popes Kalender When Paul had sent for the Elders of the Church at Ephesus he bids them to feed the Church of God over which not he himself by his sole Authority as Bishop of the Diocesse but the Spirit of God had made them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Overseers or to use the proper stile Bishops And Peter commands his Fellow-Elders for so doth that Apostle condescend to call himself to feed the Flock which was among them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Overseeing or Acting the Bishops not like the Bishop of Worcester as Lording it over Gods Heritage but as Patterns of the Flock From which places we learn not only that those two so much controverted Names of Bishop and Presbyter are without distinction ascribed to the same Persons but likewise that whoever feed the Flock are under Christ whom the Apostle there stiles the Chief-Shepherd the next and immediate Pastors of the Flock And to extend the Pastoral Power beyond the actual care of Feeding is a Notion altogether unscriptural and likewise leaves us no bounds where to fix till we come to center upon some one Universal Pastor who may claim this Power over the whole World by the same parity of reason that a Bishop doth over one Diocesse Thirdly It seems to be a Light and to say no more unseemly trifling with sacred Scripture to affirm that those words of our Saviour concerning such as come not in by the Door and therefore are Thieves and Robbers ought to be understood of such Ministers as preach to Congregations without the Bishops License Which thing the Bishop in great Heat and Earnestnesse as if he had done very well in it tells us more than once that it was the Principal reason why he silenced Mr. Baxter Truly if this practise be justifiable and those who design themselves to preach the Gospel must besides their Ordination procure a License from a Bishop to do that which a Woe is denounced against if they offer to omit Then 1. I see not what Ordination signifies since the Power that then is given no Authority from Man can take away any more than dissolve the Contract of a Marriage much less impeach and hinder the free use of it except for Moral and notoriously vicious Misdemeanours 2. For one Minister of the Gospel for certainly a Bishop is no more to Silence another and that for no better Reason than because his Fellow-Minister is desirous to preach the Gospel without a new License this is an abuse of Dominion which as our Saviour doth no where countenance so the first Ages of the Church were altogether unacquainted with For the Bishops instance of our Saviours putting to silence the Scribes and Pharisees is both Impertinent and False because our Saviour did only silence them by Argument which the Bishop may do when ever he is able but what is that to an Authoritative and Imperious commanding men to be Silent Besides even then when our Saviour was most strict in pronouncing Woes against the Pharisees in that very Chapter he is so far from forbidding the Pharisees to preach that he commands his Disciples both to Hear and to Obey their Doctrine So that since the Bishop will needs have the Presbyterians to be Pharisees let him but allow them the same Liberty of Teaching the People as our Saviour did the other and I believe they will not at least were I a Presbyterian I should not envy his Lordship either his Title or Maintenance how undue and unmeri●●ed soever they ●●oth be And though the Bishop is pleased to say that the Presbyterians preach nothing but Sedition and Treason which is most false as being directly contrary to their declared Principles yet the Pharisees taught something worse and that was Blasphemy Yet our Saviour who sure had more power and withall more care of his Church than the Bishop of Worcester did not go about by Force to prohibit them I wish therefore th●● this bishop and the rest of his Brethren if any are Cholerick and Testy enough to be of his mind would consider that as by silencing their Fellow-Ministers for such frivolous and slight pretences they usurp a Power which Christ never gave so at the last day he will not thank them for the Exercise of it Fourthly How consistent with the Civil Peace for as to Christian Charity the whole thing is but a Letter of defiance against it the Bishops Distinction is about the Act of Indempnity and the so much forgotten Act of Oblivion I hope His Majesty and the Parliament will in due time consider For he is so hardy as to tell us That the

saith he we were sworn and sworn and sworn again to be faithful to and to defend And yet speaking of that Parliament which contrary to their Oaths changed this Government by ruling alone and taking upon them the Supremacy he tells us that they were the best Governours in all the world and such as it is forbidden to Subjects to depose upon pain of damnation What then was he that deposed them one would think Mr. Baxter should have called him a Traytor but he calls him in the same Preface the Lord Protector adding That he did prudently piously faithfully and to his immortal honour exercise the Government which he left to his Son to whom as Mr. Baxter saith pag. 481. he is bound to submit as set over us by God and to obey for conscience sake and to hehave himself as a Loyal Subject towards him because as he saith in the same place a full and free Parliament had owned him thereby implying That a maimed and manacled House of Commons without King and Lords and notwithstanding the violent expulsion of the secluded Members were a full and free Parliament and consequently that if such a Parliament should have taken Arms against the King he must have sided with them Yea though they had been never so much in fault and though they had been the beginners of the War for he tells us in plain and expresse terms VIII That if he had known the Parliament had been the beginners of the War and in most fault yet the ruine of the Trustees and Representatives and so of all the security of the Nation being a punishment greater than any faults of theirs against the King could deserve from him their faults could not dis-oblige him meaning himself from defending the Common-wealth Pag. 480. And that he might do this lawfully and with a good Conscience he seems to be so confident that in his Preface he makes as it were a challenge saying that if any man can prove that the King was the highest power in the time of those Divisions and that he had power to make that War which he made he will offer his head to Justice as a Rebel As if in those times of Division the King had lost or forfeited his Soveraignty and the Parliament had not only a part but the whole Soveraignty in themselves IX Finally Mr. Baxter tells us pag. 486. That having often searched into his heart whether he did lawfully engage into the War or not and whether he did lawfully encourage so many thousands to it he tells us I say that the issue of all his search was but this That he cannot yet see that he was mistaken in the main cause nor dares he repent of it not forbear doing the same if it were to do again in the same state of things He tells us indeed in the same place that if he could be convinced he had sinned in this matter he would as gladly make a publick recantation as he would eat or drink which seeing he hath not yet done it is evident he is still of the same mind and consequently would upon the same occasion do the same things viz. fight and encourage as many thousands as he could to fight against the King for any thing that calls it self or which he is pleased to call a full and free Parliament as likewise that he would own and submit to any Usurper of the Soveraignty as set up by God although he came to it by the murder of his Master and by trampling upon the Parliament Lastly That he would hinder as much as possibly he could the restoring of the rightful Heir unto the Crown And now whether a man of this Judgement and of these affections ought to be permitted to Preach or no let any but himself judge A Letter unto a Person of Honour and Quality Containing some Animadversions upon the Bishop of Worcester's Letter Honourable and Worthy Sir I Am to thank You for the last piece of Divertisement you gave me in sending the Bishop of Worcester's Letter and I wish you would have let me enjoyed the satisfaction I took in reading it without obliging me to give You my sense upon it For besides my unwillingness to meddle in a Personal quarrel it will not I think be very safe for any to engage against so angry an Adversary which I shall be thought to do though I resolve to speak nothing but Truth in the Character I intend to give of him And it is briefly this That in fewer leaves I never yet read more Passion which is so very predominant that his disorderly and abrupt stile doth altogether partake of it so that the Bishops best way will be to get his Heat mistaken so Zeal for else it may justly be accounted something that hath a worse Name and which in the Dog-dayes will be very dangerous This being Sir my Judgement upon the whole Letter You may well expect that I should make it good by an Induction from particular instances but before I do this I must deal impartially and assure you that as to the main Controversie I think the Bishop hath much the better of Mr. Baxter For if the Question between them was as D. Gunning and Dr. Pearson do attest such a Command is so evidently lawful that I shall much wonder if Mr. Baxter did ever dispute it and till he doth clearly disprove that that was not the thing in Question I must needs think that he hath much forgot himself in making an Imperfect and Partial Relation Setting therefore aside the business of that particular Contest wherein You see how much I am inclined to favour the Bishop there are other things in his Letter of general Concernment which I think lyable to just Exception As First That he supposeth there is so strict an Union and so inseperable a Dependence between Kings and Bishops that they must stand and fall together and all who are Enemies to the one must needs be Enemies to the other I know very well this Axiom is much talked of and some advantage may be taken to confirm it from the event of our late Wars You know likewise Sir how much my Judgement is for the Order of Bishops and how Passionate a Lover I am both of the Kings Person and Government but yet being thus called by You to declare the truth though contrary to my own Humour and Interest I must needs say 1. It is clear from Story that Kings were in all parts of the World in their most flourishing Estate before ever Bishops were heard of and no reason can be given why what hath once been may not with the same terms of convenience be again 2. Bishops as they are by Law established in England are purely the Kings subordinate Ministers in the management of Ecclesiastical Affairs which His Majesty may confer upon what order of men he pleases though they be as much Lay persons as You and I are It is therefore very injurious to the Kings Authority to