Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	law_n	power_n	resist_v	2,109	5	9.2401	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94740	A supplement to the Serious consideration of the oath of the Kings supremacy; published October 1660. In, first, some consideration of the oath of allegiance. Secondly, vindicating of the consideration of the oaths of the Kings supremacy and allegiance, from the exceptions of Richard Hubberthorn, Samuel Fisher, Samuel Hodgkin, and some others against them, in the points of swearing in some case, and the matters of those oaths. By John Tombes B.D.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1661 (1661)	Wing T1821; Thomason E1084_1; ESTC R207991	39,490	48

the actions of some of the members yet by outward force a thing cannot be imposed on the conscience For then only is a thing imposed on the conscience when the conscience is convinced that he ought to do or not to do it which must be done by doctrine or some other way insinuating into the conscience the necessity or lawfulness of doing or not doing a thing which outward force cannot perform 2. That it is a greater mistake That the King in the Oath of Supremacy is acknowledged to have power to be a Lord over faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God on mens consciences This mistake might have been rectified if they had heeded the Oath Proviso Admonition 37th Article prefixed before my book and the explication of the 5th and 6th Propositions which I gave conformably to the speeches of learned approved men by the Princes that have been and are which I find not yet any persons in authority have disallowed and yet I conceive by their words in the end of their petition they were not ignorant thereof sith they cite the proviso of the Statute 5. Eliz. and the admonition which I presume they found printed in my book By which they might have understood that Kings are acknowledged Governors in spiritual things as well and no otherwise as in temporal things Now in temporal things they have not power to impose any thing on mens consciences by outward force not is the King a Lord over our faith in temporal things so as that if he should tell us we may marry our brothers wife or command us to fight a duel for our honour we may think we are bound in conscience to do it or that we may lawfully do it much less that he is Lord over our faith in the things of God so as to impose on our consciences what we shall believe concerning God Christ the Covenant of grace the doctrine of salvation c. or to form the worship of God by addition or diminution otherwise then is appointed by Gods word but as Dr. Rainold's Confer with Hart chap. 10. cites the words of Augustine which I find in the seventh Tome of his works in the third book against Cresconius the Grammarian chap. 51. more fully then in the fiftieth Epistle For in this kings as it is commanded them by God served God as they are Kings if in their Kingdom they command good things and forbid evil things not only which pertain to humane society but also which pertain to the Religion of God And as they are not to govern in temporal things but according to just Laws of the Commonwealth so neither in the things of God but according to the holy Laws of God and although they have more authority in making and executing Laws in Civil things then in Religious yet in neither to make or execute Laws contrary to Gods Laws nor to usurp that prerogative which belongs to God to dispense with his Laws or to hinder the doing of a duty imposed in the first or second table of the Law or to mould or urge doctrines of faith or worship otherwise then God in Scripture declares or appoints nor do we acknowledge by taking that Oath that we owe them active obedience if they urge us by Laws and Edicts thereto in things reserved to Gods prerogative or such as are contrary to his Laws in force only we are to yield passive obedience by suffering and not resisting the power and authority thus abused Nor is there any thing in the words of Q. Elizabeths Admonition annexed to her injunctions contrary to this explication For the Queen doth not say that She challenged by that Oath such a power as was challenged by her Father King Henry the eighth which was to burn his subjects at the stake for their dissenting from him in religious matters But She saith That nothing was is or shall be meant or intended by the same Oath to have any other duty allegiance or bond required by the same Oath then was acknowledged to be due to the most Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth Her Majesties Father or King Edward the sixth Her Majesties Brother And again For certainly her Majesty neither doth ne ever will challenge any other authority then that was challenged and lately used by the said Noble Kings of famous memory King Henry the eighth and King Edward the sixth which is and was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the soverainty and Rule over all manner of persons born within these Her Realms Dominions and Countries of what estate either Ecclesiastical or temporal soever they be so as no other forrein power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Now if She had challenged power to burn at a stake her subjects for their dissenting from King Henry the eighth in religious matters then she must challenge power to burn all his Protestant subjects at a stake and therefore she must be conceived to challenge only authority over all persons to govern them according to just Laws excluding forrein power Whereto agree both the words of the 37th Article set down in my former book and the word of King James in this That in that Oath only is contained the Kings absolute power to be Judge over all persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrein powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Nor is it true That by King Henries practice appears that Q. Elizabeth challenged power to burn dissenters from King Henry in matters of Religion For she did not challenge all the power which King Henry practised for then she should have challenged a power to behead her mother which he practised and if the Queen her self exercised the same authority though it be not to be called authority or power truly but an usurpation or abuse of power in putting some to death for their conscience in Religion yet doubtless she challenged no other power then what before had been or might be lawfully exercised or used as the words are in the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 1. a little before the Oath of Supremacy nor doth the Oath acknowledge the King Governor or to have any other power or authority to be assisted defended or actively obeyed then as it is lawful and used or exercised lawfully and therefore in answer to the three Arguments of the Petitioners I say 1. That by the acknowledgement of the Kings Supremacy in spirituals as a Magistrate neither is a man bound to change his Religion as the King doth nor to forbear Gods worship which he forbids nor to deny Christ or worship other Gods because he commands it It followes in the Maidston prisoners Petition And now O King that no man as he is a Christian hath power to be a Lord over anothers faith or by outward force to impose any thing in the worship of God is as clear 1. Because the