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	church_n	king_n	2,752	5	4.0125	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45154	A reply to the defence of Dr. Stillingfleet being a counter plot for union between the Protestants, in opposition to the project of others for conjunction with the Church of Rome / by the authors of the Modest and peaceable inquiry, of the Reflections, (i.e.) the Country confor., of the Peaceable designe.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.; Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.	1681 (1681)	Wing H3706; ESTC R8863	130,594	165

to appear above board and to let us know whether he will set up also for that notion and defend his Defender Mr. Baxter is a man who understood Politicks and stated what he understood but the Doctor was at the present raw and put into his arguing he did not know well what that is the truth on 't and forasmuch as this man hath undertaken to interpose between shame and the Doctor I will tell them both plainly the Doctor may be ashamed to put in a fourth Term into his Argument and this man truly takes the shame on him by bringing in a fifth also That which Mr. Baxter said was this That every proper Political Church must have a Constitutive Head and the Doctor both leaves out the words Proper Political and brings in the term Visible Therefore the Catholick Church says he must have a Constitutive Visible Head The Interposer now to take off this shame from the Doctor hath taken the right course I say for he comes and does worse and that is puts in a fifth term also into the Argument If every Church when he should say every Proper Political Church only if he speaks to Mr. Baxter must have a Visible Subordinate Constitutive Head then must the Catholick Church have such a one But that having no such a one a National Church as well as the Catholick may be without a Constitutive Head This is the Reasoning in the summ I say in the sum for it is no matter for more of his words that puts me and Mr. Baxter as he says at such a loss as is irrecoverable And does he not indeed take off the shame from the Doctor by taking it thus upon himself Suppose another should put a sixth term into the Argument and argue If no Church can be a true Visible Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head then cannot the Catholick Church visible be a true Church without a Visible Subordinate Monarchical Constitutive Head Who could doubt now any longer but Mr. Baxter must yield to a plain Confutation or bring in the Pope presently without remedy But did Mr. Baxter I pray lay down the Proposition from which this Consequence by this means is indeed made unavoidable No you will say this were to wrong Mr. Baxter to put in the term Monarchical and would spoil this mans Goverment by Consent quite I say likewise that this Author wrongs him to put in this term Subordinate and the Doctor by putting in the term Visible Mr. Baxter hath neither of these terms in his Assertion and if you cannot argue from what he hath said that the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church Visible you cnanot argue from him that it hath any Subordinate Head or Visible but a Constitutive Head only whether Visible or Invisible It is nothing else but the Fallacy whereby the Opponent puts in more into the Argument then is granted by the Respondent which I think we called at the University Fallacia plurium interrogationum vel dictionum for whether the diverse things are interrogated or argued the Paralogism is the same that hath made all this pother as this man phrases it which seeing it is on their side I will give over any farther persuit of this Chapter There is one thing only and that is the main thing not to be omitted The Dean in his Determination of this point does hold that Consent is sufficient to the making a National Church understanding by that Consent a Consent to be of it The Deans Defender holds the Church to be a Government by Consent meaning by it the Consent of the Bishops These are two contrary things the one making the Church not Political and the other makes it an Aristocracy and yet intends to justifie the former But neither of them are in the right The Church of England is not a Church by Consent onely without a Head nor a Government by Consent by the Colledge of Bishops but it is a Political Church with a Constitutive Regent part which is the King according to my Papers That the King is the Head of it appears by the Statute that declares him Head of the Church as it is called the Church of England It appears by other Acts that give him the same Supremacy the Pope usurped It appears by the First Fruits and Tenths of all Benefices given him as the Supream Head of the Church It appears by Cromwell who was made Henry the Eigths Vicar General and Vicegerent and sate in the Convocation as Personating the Head of it It appears by this Reason of my Book Where the Rights of Majesty are there must the Headship be placed Legislation and the Last appeal belong to him It is the King gives Authority to the Canons in so much as when a Law cannot pass without a Parliament the Canons becomes valid by the Kings own Ratification And there can be no Appeal in any Ecclesiastical cause from the King Again it appears most unanimously by the Ministers Prayers every Sunday giving him the Title of Supream Head and by the Oaths of Supremacy and Alleigance If the King be not the Head accordingly then must the Clergy generally be both Lyars and Perjured Persons From this truth then which is beyond opposition it follows that a National Church is of Humane appointment and not of Divine right that is indispensible It follows that it belongs not to the Essence of the Church of Christ to be National but that this is a consideration accidental to it It follows that such a Church may receive its Constitution at first and a new form or mould at any time as is most convenient to the State and most conducive to the glory of God in the good of the People It follows that a Reformation of the Government of our Church by the introducing some such new form into it as shall be more conducive to the ends of Holiness and Peace than the present Form does were a most desireable thing and fit to be tendred to the Wisdom of Parliament It follows finally that seeing the model that is hammering by this Author is proposed as strictly of Divine Right which is therefore the most direfull Schismatical Scheme that can be proposed in regard to Dissenters excluding them thereby out of the body of Christ and consequently from salvation besides dangerous to the Supremacy of the Magistrate and unanswerably faulty in many respects so that it cannot be received or indured it is fit that a model more agreeable to the power which is proper to Kings and less exceptionable in regard to the Conscience of the Subject were exhibited in the room of it and if it be such as would make the Prelates onely the Kings Officers to execute under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings as this Author so well expresses it p. 275. so as the Nonconformist and Conformist may share I shall not for the dislike of any one or two men or party who are designing an Antipodes

Church which he himself takes to be such a Union But he cannot tell he says p. 561. why it is Accidental to the Church of Christ to be National any more then to be Universal or Patriarchal and Metropolitical any more then Universal but when I tell him that the Body of Christ which is his Church may subsist though there were never a Patriarch or Metropolitan in the Earth I hope he can see if he will how the consideration of the Church as Patriarchal or Metropolitical and so National must be Accidental to it And as for Christs command of planting Churches p. 16. in the whole world and so in Nations and Cities and Towns requiring Unity and Communion every where among Christians it may warrant the Combinations of Patriarchal Metropolitical National Diocesan and Parochial Churches to this end if he please provided only that these forms be held Accidental forms according to humane prudence and not the Essential form of the Church of Christ according to divine institution To the question whether a National Church be Political he offers something p. 562. and says the Dean in his Opinion hath answered with great Judgment in his denying any necessity of a Constitutive Regent part to be Essential to a National Church But I will make it appear that either the Dean or his Defender do speak here with little Judgment It is the Notion this Author hath proposed to publick consideration that the Bishops in every Nation are to Govern the Church by consent that is as Colleagues per litteras formatas when they convene not and when they do by their Canons in a Convocation This he makes throughout his Book to be of Christs appointment holding Episcopacy to be Jure Divino with others of his party If this then be true this Author hath found out a Constitutive Regent part yea an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Regent part of the Church in every Nation where there are Christians and Bishops And when he hath found out a Head for the Doctor how can he thus applaud the Doctors answer that denies the Church to have one or sayes there is no necessity of any When he does prove it to be a Church Political and the Doctors answer includes a denyal of it to be so how comes this man to be so full of reverence here with these words in his mouth To this the Dean answers in my poor Opinion with great Judgment and Consideration It is with great Judgment indeed is it not that the Dean hath given up the Cause of the Bishops And with great Judgment is it not that this man hath assumed the Prerogative of the King to their Colledge Let him take heed least he bring himself into question Many Churches Associated for mutual help and concord are a Church only in a loose sense but those that are constituted of one Regent and subdite part are Churches in a Political proper sense It is no body Political without one common Governour Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical Thus says Mr. Baxter p. 563. Unto which says this Author Herein does his strength p. 564. consist Answ I acknowledge it does and what hath he to weaken it I will Transcribe what he says If we deny this that though a National Church be one body yet it is not such a Political body as he describes which differs from secular forms of Government by that ancient Canon of our Saviour It shall not be so among you the controversie may be at an end and a National Church may be one body in an Ecclesiastical though not in a Civil Political sense This is the help the Dean must expect from his Defender and if the Doctor be not ashamed of his own answer for this desense sake I know not what should put any man to shame This man tells me in his Preface he will interpose between the Dean and shame in this Controversie Upon this account therefore I will take leave to tell him that he does here manifestly betray a raw ignorance which ought to shame him He understands the term Political to be Commensurate with Civil as if a Government Ecclesiastical could not be Political as well as a Government Civil that is as if a Church could not be Political as well as other Societies He does yet discover the same more then by words for he hath found out a Head for the Church which is Aristocratical and yet thinks the Church cannot be Political unless it have some Head that is Personal or as if a Head Collective were not One Head as vvell as one that is Monarchical This man vvho hath interposed betvveen shame and the Doctor must take shame upon him seeing he calls upon me to do my part honestly in the same place I say this man hath found an Ecclesiastical Constitutive Head of the Church and that of Christs own Institution if he understands what he drives at and yet he and the Doctor will not allow the Church of England to be Political I will advise him to consult with Bishop Gunning and the excellently learned and yet humble Mr. Dodwell who are living seeing he hath not taken his Notions from Bramhal or any other who are dead as I conjecture that he may be instructed better before we hear any more from him Mr. Baxter indeed understands himself throughly and tells us Association of Churches for Concord gratia Unitatis are no proper Churches But an United Colledg of Bishops for government gratia Regiminis is a formal Ecclesiastical Head about which was the Original Question And this this bold and herein but half informed Author who will interpose between shame and the Doctor doth not understand neither and as soon as he hath read this will he own the shame he hath taken upon him Above all is there any man unless so forward a one would ever have produced that saying of our Saviour If shall not be so among you for the proving a National Church to have no Head or that the Churches of Christ must not therefore be Political I shall not be blamed I hope therefore if I say now again what I said to the Doctor That if this man be not ashamed for himself and the Doctor I must be ashamed for them both If we deny this says he the Controversie were at an end Well but when it cannot be denyed we must look farther P. 565. We grant says he a National Church is a Political Society for Government by consent without Superiority is Government I grant too Church Governours united and governing by consent are the Pars Imperans and the people submitting to such Government in obedience to the Commands of our Saviour are the Pars Subdita and all this is true without a constitutive Kegent Head I Answer if he grants or rather asserts thus much a Government by consent understanding by it the Episcopal Colledg or Cyprians One Episcopacy as the Governing part and the People by the Law of Christ subdite to it then hath he found

of Rome's Authority Upon which Submission of the Clergy the King gave unto the said Bishops the same ample Rule that before they had under the Pope over their Inferior Brethren saving that the same Rule was abridg'd by Statute by this Parenthesis following that is to say without offending the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm in the latter end of the Statute it was added That whosoever offendeth in any one part of that Statute and their Aiders Counsellers and Abetters they did all fall into the penalty of the Praemunire And after I had recited this Statute in the Parliament-House I declared that in King Henry the 8th's days after this there was no Bishop that did practise Superiority over the Inferior Brethren And in King Edward's days the said Bishops obtained a Statute whereby they were Authorized to keep their Courts in the Kings Name the which Statute was repealed in Queen Maries days and was not revived in her Majesties time that now is whereupon it was doubtful to me by what Authority the Bishops do keep their Courts now in their own Names because it is against the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England that any should keep a Court without sufficient Warrant from the Crown Whereupon I was answered that the Bishops do keep their Courts now by Prescriptions and it is true that the Bishops may Prescribe that King Henry the 8th gave them Authority by the Statute of the 25th of his Reign to have Authority and Rule over their Inferior Brethren as ample as they had in the Popes time For this was no special Warrant for them to keep their Courts by and that in their own Names And yet they have none other Warrant to keep their Courts as they do now in their own Names to my knowledg And this was the Cause that made them obtain a Statute in King Edward's days to keep their Courts by in the Kings Name Now it is a strange Allegation that the Bishops should claim Authority at this present to keep their Courts in their own Names as they do by Prescription because the Statute of 25. doth restrain them generally from offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown of England and the Laws and Customs of the Realm And no man may justly keep a Court without out a special Warrant from the Crown of England as is aforesaid And the general Liberty given by King Henry the 8th to the Bishops to Rule and Govern as they did in the Popes time is no sufficient Warrant to the Bishops to keep their own Courts in their own Names by Prescription as I take it And therefore the Bishops had done wisely if they had sought a Warrant by Statute to keep their Courts in the Queens Name as the Bishops did in King Edward's days in which time Archbishop Cranmer did cause Peter Martyr and Bucer to come over into this Realm to be placed in the Two Universities for the better Instruction of the Universities in the Word of God And Bishop Cranmer did humbly prefer these Learned men without any challenge to himself of any Superior Rule in this behalf over his Inferior Brethren And the time hath been that no man could carry away any Grant from the Crown of England by general words but that he must have special words to carry the same by Therefore now the Bishops are Warranted to carry away the keeping of their Courts in their own Names by Prescription it passeth my understanding Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their inferior Brethren lately to be by Gods Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supreme Government If this be true then 't is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury that now is do recant and retract his saying in his Book of the great Volume against Cartwright where he saith in plain words by the name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is Gods own Institution which saying doth impugn her Majesties Supreme Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly For Christ truly and plainly confesses John 18.36 That his Kingdom was not of this world and therefore he gave no worldy Rule or Preheminence to his Apostles but the Heavenly Rule which was to Preach the Gospel saying Ite praedicate in omnem mundum Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit qui non crediderit condemnabitur Go and Preach in all the world whosoever shall believe and be baptized shall be saved but he that will not believe shall be condemned Mar. 16.16 But the Bishops do cry out saying That Cartwright and his Fellows would have no Government c. So belike the Bishops care for no Government but for worldly and forcible Government over their Brethren the which Christ never gave to his Disciples nor Apostles but made them subject to the Rule of Princes who ought not to be resisted saving that they might answer unto Princes that they must rather obey God than men Act. 5.29 And yet in no wise to resist the Prince but to take up the Cross and follow Christ So far Sir Francis Knolles Discourse in Parliament concerning the Episcopacy c. But to return I would fain know why we may not think honourably of good beginnings even when we cannot approve of such as put a stop thereunto Is the Episcopacy of King Edward so much the same in all respects with the present that whoever dissents from this must thereby cast a reproach on that Surely the Dean won't say so after so many Months consideration 6. There is an admirable distinction insisted on which will bring off the Dean without all doubt viz. There is a Popish and a Protestant Episcopacy But where lies the Difference What Difference is there between our present Episcopacy and that in Henry the 8ths time Is not the Episcopacy so far as 't is an Episcopacy the same What is there Intrinsecal to this Episcopal Constitution that differs from that Whence if that be Popish why may not this seeing 't is the same with that be in like manner so That Henry the 8ths Episcopacy was Popish Bishop Bramhall hath evinced in proving that the Papists begun the Separation from Rome In fine Let our Author tell me the Difference between Queen Maries Episcopacy and Queen Elizabeths Episcopacy on her first entring the Throne Is not the Episcopacy now the same with that at the Reforming the Liturgy by Act of Parliament and was not that Episcopacy the same with Queen Maries The only specifying Difference that can be suggested is that though the Episcopacy as such is the same and the Persons in both may be the same yea and their Principles for so it hath been in King Henry the 8th King Edward the 6th Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth yet the outward profession of the Bishops is not the same But is