Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	bishop_n	church_n	2,934	5	4.3576	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29084	A defence of the Kings authority and supremacy in the church & church-discipline and that he is supream head and governour over all persons, in all causes ecclesiastical : against these disciplinarians, the Pope and his clergy, the bishops and episcoparians, the Scottish and English Presbyterians, with the independents ... / by Theophilus Brabourne.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1660 (1660)	Wing B4091; ESTC R25285	18,498	27

A DEFENCE OF THE Kings Authority AND SUPREMACY In the Church Church-Discipline And that He is Supream Head and Governour over all persons in all Causes Ecclesiastical Against these Disciplinarians the Pope and his Clergy the Bishops and Episcoparians the Scottish and English PRESBYTERIANS with the INDEPENDENTS Who have for a long time usurped the power of Kings and authority of Magistrates contrary to the will of GOD and the Honour of KINGS The second Edition much enlarged By THEOPHILVS BRABOVRNE Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars LONDON Printed for the Author and are to be sold by William Nowell Book-seller in Norwich 1660. A DEFENCE Of The KINGS SVPREMACIE In the Church and Church-discipline Against these Disciplinarians the Pope English Bishops Scottish and English Presbyterians and Independents who have for a long time usurped the authority of the King and his Magistrates MY ensuing Discourse shall be to maintain the Kings Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical and the authority of all Magistrates under him and to confute the authority of Bishops and other Ministers in Church-matters Now because I will not dispute on Generals I will by and by come to a particular namely to the censure and punishment of Excommunication the which is all the authority that Bishops and Ministers do claim and I shall try whether it belongs to the office of our Christian Magistrates or to the Bishop and his Chancellour or to the Minister and his Lay-Elders Now if it can be made appear as I believe it will that the censure of Excommunication belongs to the Magistrate and not to the Bishop then Bishops have lost all their authority even the richest flower in their Garland By the way note that as the inferiour Ministers rule with their Lay-Elders so doth the Bishop with his Chancellour who is no Minister but a Lay man and thus you see that all Disciplinarians have their Lay-Elders Now my endeavour shall be to give unto Caesar our King the things that are Caesars and to his subordinate Magistrates the things that are theirs and to give unto Bishops and Ministers the things that belong to them as to be Preachers not Rulers like Magistrates I have 2 or 3 things more to premise before I come to my task 1. Near twenty years agone I took the Nationall Oath and Covenant to be true and faithfull to the King and his Posterity the which I have been ever since so far as in my power was sorrowing to see so many illegall and treacherous practises beyond my power to amend I then also did swear to do my endeavour for the extirpation of Prelacy that is of Archbishops Bishops and Chancellors c. In pursuance whereof I writ this little Treatise holding my self bound in conscience to keep my Oath But it will be said the Parliament when they required this Oath was then illegall the King being absent I answer Hence it follows that my Oath was illegall and binds not in the Common Law but yet it binds in point of Divinity For an Oath taken by force and feare binds as in the case of the Oath taken to the King of Babel Ezek. 17.12 c. And an Oath taken by fraud binds as in the case of the Gibeonites and no man on earth can absolve from such an Oath Josh 9.3 4.18 19. with 2 Sam. 21.1 2.6 wherefore I dare not be a perjured person Jeremiah said Because of Oaths the Land mourns Jer. 23.10 God plagued the Israelites in Davids time for the perjury of Saul before him 2 Sam. 21.1 c. We have sins enough in this Land to answer to God for and shall we add wilfull perjury to them to provoke the Lord to wrath God forbid Now I humbly beseech our honourable Parliament to order things so as those who have taken this Oath which cannot be recall'd may not be enforced by Law to be forsworn by any of their endeavours to establish or countenance our new Bishops 2. Many say as King James did no Bishop no King but King James was no Prophet he spake as he thought and desired But had he lived to our dayes and seen what we have seen he might have changed his proverb If I may be so bold to speak my sense it had been good for King Charles his Son if he had cast off Bishops twenty years before his death For as I suppose they were one great cause of his untimely end For he had armed his Bishops with too much of his Authority the which some of them abused to pride calling them Jack Gentlemen Most of them abusing his authority for the ushering in of Popish Ceremonies spending their zeale to maintain trifles not beseeming learned and grave Doctors as an ayeriall Cross and white Surplice an Hood and Tippet whereby they became ridiculous to the people And then they abused his authority to cruelty and persecution for those trifles How many hundreds of painfull and godly Ministers of a good life and conversation did they silence for non-observance of these and unmercifully deprived them of their livings and livelihood so as they were enforced to live upon Almes So great was their persecution in those dayes as they drove many hundreds of the Kings Subjects out of the Kingdome to plant themselves in a Wilderness And how great was their tyranny in the High Commission Court at London and their Chancellours Courts in the Country persons of years know too well and all this for trifles whereby they became odious to the people then and to those that sate at the beginning of this long Parliament after who rooted them quite up For these were eye-witnesses and sensible of the pride ambition and cruell persecutions of the Bishops whereof many in our dayes being but young men are totally ignorant and therefore think to gather grapes of these thorns and Figs of these thistles But a wolf will be a wolf still though you crop his eares and cut his tayle the same is true of a Fox Now in process of time when unhappily the King and Parliament fell at odds many thousands of the people took in with the Parliament some help them with money others with their persons and swords but would not take in with the King for feare of Popery and for feare they should be still under the tyranny of cruell Bishops the which to conscientious men was more intollerable than monethly Taxes or illegall Monopolies of old Thus the King lost the hearts of his Subjects because they saw themselves in a desperate case For it was grown into a proverb no Bishop no King 3. Many who have read my former book of this subject say that I am an Erastine but they are such as know not the opinion of Erastus I have seen his book which was anciently a dispute between reverend Beza and him about Excommunication Now Erastus held it to be no Ordinance of Christ but a figment of mans brain but I differ from him and hold it to be an Ordinance of Christ I

Hezekiah and Josiah commanded the Priests and Levites and so I come to prove the point 1. The censure and punishment of Excommunication must either belong to the Bishop or Minister or to the Magistrate But it belongs not to the Bishop or Minister as I have abundantly proved before Therefore it belongs to the Magistrate 2. The Princes and Elders in Ezra's time commanded the people to come to Jerusalem to take the Covenant and threatned those that refused with excommunication or separation from the Congregation or Church Ezra 10.3.7 8. whereby you see that excommunication was in the power of the Magistrate 3. King Solomon degraded Abiather the Priest from his spirituall office which was a spirituall punishment 1 King 2.27 Now if Kings and Magistrates will imitate Solomon then they must excommunicate scandalous persons Solomon put off the Priest from medling in holy things so should Magistrates cut off scandalous sinners from the communion of Saints at the Lords Table and from medling with these holy things 4. If the Magistrate may command spirituall duties then he may inflict spirituall punishment for neglect of them as in Excommunication He that may command a duty hath power to punish the neglect of it or else he hath no power to command to command without a coercive power to compell is but an image or scare-crow But the Magistrate may command spiritual duties 1 Chron. 16.7 2 Chron. 35.15 2 Chr. 29.1 4 5. 2 Kings 23.4 And therefore the Magistrate may inflict the spirituall punishment of Excommunication 5. Excommunication is a punishment and so called by all men and so it is called in Scripture 2 Cor. 2.6 and a punishment is a revenge Now to punish and revenge is proper to the Magistrate for he is the Minister of God to punish and to take vengeance on him that doth evill Rom. 13.4 Wherefore the censure of Excom upon the scandalous sinner belongs to the office of the Magistrate 6. The severall acts of authority used in Excom belongs to Magistraticall power as to summon into Court and to examine witnesses against one and to examine the person complained on And without these precedent acts there can be no Excom Now to whom belongeth these acts to him belongeth the censure of Excom that is to the Magistrate By these particulars it appears that by the Word of God the Bishop in his Consistory doth usurp the Magistrates office Quest 10. Do Bishops devest the King of his supremacy I answer yes and thus I prove it 1. It is clear by the Word of God as hath been proved that Bishops do usurp the Magistrates authority and office Now he that usurps the Magistrates authority he usurps the Kings authority for the Magistrates authority is the Kings and he that usurps the Kings authority in causes Ecclesiasticall he denies and devests the King of his supremacy in causes Ecclesiasticall For if you deny him authority you devest him of and deny his superiority and supremacy in authority If a Master gives his servant five pounds to dispose of by his order and the servant be robbed of it by the way not onely the servant is robbed but his Master also and then his money being lost he can exercise neither authority nor superiority over it So it is if a Bishop takes from the Magistrate the Kings authority with it he takes the Kings superiority and supremacy in Ecclesiasticals But Bishops will say they had the Kings Commission for it and the King gave them this authority But say I Christ forbad them to take it Mat. 20.25 and 1 Pet. 5.3 Secondly they say the King gave it them and so doth a true man give his purse to a Thief but it is out of fear So these Kings afore-time gave their authority to Bishops but they got this gift by fraud For the Pope perswaded Kings that the Key of Discipline and Jurisdiction was a Legacy left by Christ first to Saint Peter and so to his successors Mat. 16.19 which is false and more then can be proved Besides Christ forbad the Pope and Bishops to exercise Lordly authority Mat. 20.25 1 Pet. 5.3 Now as the Pope so did those Bishops falsly plead that Legacy and so got it by fraud and subtlety wherefore as I conceive the gift of those Kings and their Commissions was a nullity Cromwell of late got off the Kings head by force and thus Bishops got away those Kings regall authority in the Church by fraud and subtilty Would it not grieve a man to see his friend cheated of his money at Dice And how can it but be grievous to a loyall Subject to see his Kings just and Royall prerogative wrested out of his hands by the wit of Bishops In King Henrie the 8. the Bishops of England took an Oath to the Pope whereupon the Lord Cromwell then informed the King of it saying that he was but half King and his subjects but half-subjects to him As I conceive that the King was King but over the bodies and Bishops were Kings over the souls of the people so they fell into a premunire which cost them 100000. pounds The Bishops in those dayes could not by flattery and subtlety perswade the King and his Council that St. Peters keyes did hang on the Popes girdle or on the girdle of English Bishops he would not be so cheated of his supremacy for they got it by fraud 2. The Pope holds his office Jure Divino so did those Bishops and so do our Bishops for all these plead for Peters keys and such like Scriptures Now though our Bishops take a commission from the King and say he is supreme yet they hold a higher commission namely from God and Christ and the Scriptures How then can the King be supreme in causes Ecclesiastical for Bishops have a commission higher then the commission which they have from the King And how can he be next under Christ when the Bishops have gotten the higher Commission The King may be supreme over the State but Bishops are next to Christ and supreme over the Church and in causes Ecclesiasticall for they say they have an immediate commission from Christ If so their commission from the King must be an inferiour commission 3. If a Bishop hath this Lordly authority to Excommunicate then if he makes conscience of his office he must do justice to and upon all men rich and poor noble and ignoble even to the K. as well as to the pesant God is no respecter of persons a Bishop must not be partiall Now if a King be subject to a Bishops Court and the Bishops there sits as Lord and Judge over him where is the Kings supremacy in Ecclesiasticals Notwithstanding Bishops consciences and doing of justice I know they dare not summon the King into their Consistory Yet I know and they know too that by their principles and the power of Peters keyes which hang at their girdle as they make the world believe they are bound to make no scruple

of them are Ecclesiastical persons of and belonging to this Church As the Magistrate and people are a Church so they are a Church of Christ for they are all Christians professing Christ and faith in Christ and they are also a Church of God for their authority is of and from God Rom. 13.1 and they assemble in their Hall to serve God The Magistrate by ruling for God and in his place the people to be ruled by God and his righteous Lawes The Magistrates Court therefore being a Church of God why should any say or think that it is an unfit place for the censure of Excommunication may it not soon be as fit a place as the Chancellours or Bishops Consistory Another quest of these two Churches which is greater Papists say the Clergy Church so they say Bishops too for they say Church and State but we ought to give priority and superiority to the State and say State and Church For Moses commanded Aaron and so did Kings the Priests to speak otherwise giving priority to the Church is popish and tending to a denyall of the Kings supremacy Quest 5. Being the Magistrate is no Divine how can he know who is fit or not fit to be excommunicated I answ How can two or three Lay-Elders know who is fit and who not being they are no Divines And how can the Bishops Chancellour know who is fit and not fit for he is no Divine 2. As for scandalous sins as adultery drunkenness swearing and such like being all matters of Fact the Magistrate knows them as well as the Bishop or Minister for the Magistrate doth daily punish these sins in his Court. As for fundamentall doctrines being none are such but onely such as are clearly laid down in Scripture and being they are daily preached on by our Ministers the Magistrate is not ignorant of these Or if he be God hath ordained the help of the Minister by way of counsel and advice but still so as the power and authority as Judge to passe censure is still in the Magistrate as you may read Deut. 17.8 9 10 11. As for points disputable not cleerly revealed in Scripture I hold that no man is to be excommunicated for these for if he be the innocent may be punished as soon as the wicked And therefore the Magistrate needs not meddle with such points but onely with sins clearly revealed to be sins as incest 1 Cor. 5.1 c. and by like reason swearing drunkennesse and the like Whereas I said the Magistrate may take the advice of the Minister c. I mean his advice in a fundamentall doctrine which is very cleerly a sin in Scripture for else he may give wicked advice But as for a doubtfull and disputable controversie wherein Scripture is alledged on both sides it is not safe for the Magistrate to condemn either side upon advice of the Minister for a Church may erre a Councell may erre and 10. or 12. Ministers may erre too Suppose therefore a point comes before the Magistrate which commonly is holden to be an error or heresie where will the Magistrate finde among the Clergy competent and fit Judges to determine it for the Clergy hold the common opinion Now if the Magistrate call in to his help and advice ten or 12. of the Clergy will they not all advise for their own opinion and then they will be incompetent and partiall Judges Do you think they will justifie the accused party and condemn themselves I dare say it that all the Bishops in England will condemn this book if not before they see it But the Law permits no man to be a judge or a witness in his own cause when the Clergy gives judgement of a cause commonly holden by others and themselves to be an errour or heresie they are like the High Court of Justice all or the major part came thither with a resolution to make an end of the KING before they rose Quest 6. Is the King next under Christ supreme head of the Church Answ This question is out of question with me but being I hear of some Ministers beyond Sea offended at this Title and have read of some in England of like opinion I shall here prove the point and first by the Laws of our Kingdome and then by the Scripture 1. The Laws of our Kingdome do give unto our King this just and Royall title to be supreme Head under Christ over all persons and in all causes Ecclesiasticall or spirituall wherefore the King is supreme haad of the Church and therefore all good Subjects must acknowledge him so to be Rom. 13.1 2. I have before proved out of the Scriptures that King Hezekiah David and Josiah were Rulers and Governours over the Church and in Church-matters 2 Chron. 31.2 1 Chron. 16.7 2 Chron. 35.1 c. 2 Chron. 35.15 2 King 23.4 Now those godly Kings were supreme in authority for there was none above or before them It was prophesied of that in time of the Gospel Kings should be our nursing Fathers Isa 49.22 23. Now in our dayes though we have many Magistrates of high authority yet none of them can or will challenge the supremacy but the King onely 3. See a pregnant Text for it 1 Pet. 2.13 Submit your selves c. unto the King as unto the supreme So supremacy is the Kings just Title Now being it is so why do Bishops say and write Church and State as if the Church and Bishops were above the King where is then the Kings supremacy Quest 7. Doth the punishment of Excommunication belong to the office of a Bishop and his Chancellour or to the Minister and his Lay-Elders I answer negatively This office belongs not to any Lay-Elder who is not a Magistrate of the Common-wealth nor to any Chancellour who is a Lay-man and no Magistrate the contrary I expect to see Bishops or Ministers to prove if they can And I answer concerning Bishops or Ministers alone without their Elders or Assistants and I deny also that this office doth belong to a Bishop or a Minister The contrary lyes upon both of them to prove if they can In the mean time I thus prove against them 1. Excommunication is a punishment so confessed by all men and so called in Scripture 2 Cor. 2.6 and a punishment is a revenge or taking vengeance on them that do evill Rom. 13.4 Now Bishops and Ministers may not punish and revenge For this belongs to the Magistrate Rom. 13.4 not to a Bishop or Minister St. Paul saith a Bishop must be no striker 1 Tim. 3.3 Now I know not why a Bishop may not as well strike with his hand or fist as punish and take vengeance on any man by Excommunication Their distinction of corporall and spirituall punishment will not help them as you shall see in the next quest 2. The office of the Magistrate is to summon into his Court these scandalous sinners the adulterer swearer drunkard and the like and in his