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	ecclesiastical_a	person_n	2,380	5	5.2603	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A80836	[Analēpsis anelēphthē] the fastning of St. Petrrs [sic] fetters, by seven links, or propositions. Or, The efficacy and extent of the Solemn League and Covenant asserted and vindicated, against the doubts and scruples of John Gauden's anonymous questionist. : St. Peters bonds not only loosed, but annihilated by Mr. John Russell, attested by John Gauden, D.D. the league illegal, falsly fathered on Dr. Daniel Featley: and the reasons of the University of Oxford for not taking (now pleaded to discharge the obligations of) the Solemn League and Covenant. / By Zech. Crofton ...	Crofton, Zachary, 1625 or 6-1672.	1660 (1660)	Wing C6982; ESTC R171605	137,008	171

and Archbishops of the essence and formality of the true Reformed Protestant Religion Will not the assertion thereof tend more to Schism than Scotlands supposed making their Discipline and Government the mark of a true Church As denying the Reformed Churches beyond the Sea to have attained to the true Reformed Protestant Religion which yet they handed over to us But what reason had these Gentlemen of Oxford to understand the Doctrine of the Church of England in such a latitude when the sence of it is limited by them who were then known to be Legislators and a power sufficient to prescribe an Oath unto which themselves subjected and were the best expositors thereof viz. the House of Commons who thus declared Whereas some doubts have been raised concerning the meaning of these words The true Reformed Protestant Religion expressed in the Doctrine of the Church of England against all Popery and Popish innovations within this Realm contrary to the same Doctrine This House doth declare that by these words was and is meant only the publick Doctrine professed in the said Church so far as it is opposite to Popery and Popish innovations And that the said words are not to be extended to the maintaining of any form of Worship Discipline and Government nor of any the Rites and Ceremonies of the said Church of England By which these Gentlemen might have understood 1. The Realm and Church of England were two different Subjects the one professing Doctrine in the other wherein also there was Doctrine tending to Popery and Popish Innovation 2. There were in the Doctrines professed by the Church of England some adjuncts of Rites Ceremonies Government or some special order of Worship which might need Reformation and were not view'd to be maintained So that according to this sence of them who prescribed both there is more of consistency than contradiction between the Protestation and Solemn League and Covenant So that the manifest perjury they feared hath not so much as a seeming ground And as for the supposed contradiction of this Branch of the Covenant unto the Oath of Supremacy it will on examination vanish as an apparition a thing which so seemed but cannot be so proved For if they will not hiss me out of their Schools I will grant them their Proposition in the Oath and assumption in the Statute by them quoted and yet find a way to avoid the conclusion because a meer non sequitur on their premises and this if they will have the Argument logically resolved by denying the consequence of their major Proposition for I will grant unto them that the Oath of Supremacy doth bind us to our power to assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Highness his heirs and successors or united and annexed unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm And assume with them That the King had the whole power and Authority for Reformation Order and Correction of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms c. and yet deny the sequel viz. That we may not endeavour in our places and callings to reform Religion For the defence of the Kings power is no way repugnant with the duty of our particular capacity I hope a Minister may by his preaching or a Divine by his disputation in the Schools endeavour the correction and Reformation of Error and Heresie Schism or Superstition and yet not intrench on his Majesties Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so interfer with their Oath of Supremacy Yea in reference to judicial and authoritative Correction and Reformation which we will suppose can only be done by the King mens endeavor may be in their places and callings by Counsel Proposal Remonstrance Petition Supplication and the like to procure His Majesties consent and authority to reform Religion in the Kingdom of England in Doctrine Worship Discipline and Government and then Sir where is the Contradiction Yet Sir if I were to dispute with a single though Senior Sophister of Oxford I would deny both Propositions the major as to its sequel or consequence as before and the assumption as that which the Statute doth not prove viz. The whole power of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for Correction and Reformation is annexed to the King and Imperial Crown of this Realm For the power by that Statute is special and particular not general and universal as themselves have cited it is viz. such Jurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Preheminences Spiritual or Ecclesiastical as by any c. and as the Statute proceeds Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for Visitation of any Ecclesiastical State or Persons and for Reformation c. So that the power given to the King is such a powor as Bishops Cardinals or Popes had used not such as Parliaments who ever retained a Jurisdicton in themselves over both Church and Crown enjoyed and exercised This power was purely executive not Legislative over persons and particular Societies not over the Kingdom and whole Realm I presume the Gentlemen of Oxford were not ignoront of the power and Legislative Authority which the Parliaments of England ever held over their Bishops and the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical estate of this Land tying them in all their administrations of Discipline and Government to the Customs and Statutes of this Realme as they may read at large in the Statute of the Submission of the Clergy 25. Hen. 8.19 wherein they confess many of their Canons and Constitutions be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm whereby they did not only Restrain the exorbitancies and from time to time Reform the abuses of the Church but also extend the Prerogative and Jurisdiction of the King as in that Statute 1 Elizab. and Limit Restrain and Repeal it as in the case of this individual specifical power granted in the words of the Statute quoted by the Statute 17 Caroli entituled An Act for repeal of a branch of a Statute 10 Elizab. concerning Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical which clause repealed is part of this very recited Paragraph and immediately annexed unto and dependent on this very grant of power and authority Nor are these Masters and Scholars of Oxford insensible that there is a vast difference between Executive and Legislative power and authority and that as no Ecclesiastical persons did ever enjoy however the Pope and his Bishops did contend for it so no King of England did ever pretend or lay claim unto the Legislative power further than allowed by Act of Parliaments who were ever Dictators of a general Reformation in the Land Church and Kingdom as at this time in the Reformation covenanted Nor can they be ignorant that it is very bad Logick from such Jurisdictions and Specifical Executive Authority to infer that the whole power of Reformation is so in the King that the Parliament may not propose or the people covenant in their places and callings to endeavor a Reformation

expression of their affection only wishing it may have its dependance on right Reason yet confess petitioning is every mans liberty And for the fourth and fifth That they held their livelyhoods by such titles and were sworn to preserve the immunities liberties and profits of the same I only say they held them at the pleasure of the Parliament whose power is over the enjoyments of all persons and publick much more particular societies against whose Laws no Domestick Laws or Oaths could bind and so their plea in this amounts to no more than what might be said for the Monasteries and Abbies which I presume they will not say were wickedly demolished unless they prove Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters to be built on a better foundation which I would not advise them to seek in the Statute of Carlile repeated in the 25. Edw. 3 d. in which they are conjoyned Their fifth exception is In respect of their Obligation by Oath and Duty to the King Oxford Reasons fifth Exception to the 2d Article of the Covenant and therein their dissatisfaction doth arise from the Oath of Supremacy Coronation Oath The benefit this Government brings unto the Kings Honour and Estate The ●greeableness of this Government to the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom Unto which I answer briefly That the Oath of Supremacy doth acknowledge the King to be the only Supreme Governour in all Ecclesiastical Causes and over all Ecclesiastical persons and that by the Oath of Supremacy and the protestation of the fifth of May they and we were bound to maintain the Kings Honour and Estate and Jurisdiction we freely grant but in swearing to endeavour the extirpation of this Government by Arch-bishops Bishops c. I see not the danger of disloyalty or injury to the King or double perjury to our selves or contradiction to the Parliaments declared and professed knowledge that the King is entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Laws as well as Temporal and therefore wish the nature of the Kings Supremacy may be well considered That the King is Supreme Head and Governour of the Subjects distributively or particularly considered no sober man will deny or that he is the Supream and Topmost Branch and Apex of all that Honour Power and Authority with which the Collective Body of the Nation the three Estates in Parliament Assembled in respect of which the Lords and Commons Methodiet Majestatis causa apply themselves unto Him under the Title of Our Soveraign Lord no Regular man will deny and that he is Supreme in all Exhibition and administration of Justice so that the Judges are by and from Him and in His Name and Authority and so all Submission Honour and Acquiescency in Judicial Proceedings is to Him no good Statist or Civilian will deny and that He is Supream Head and Governour in things Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Ratione objecti or circa Ecclesiam the Executive Administration about not in the Church within His Dominions in opposition to all Papal and Forraign Power no Free-born Subject Good Christian or Protestant will deny but that He is so Supream as to have in Himself sole Legislation to the Church in things Political but belonging to the Church such as is the publick National profession of Christian Faith in such a Form and Method of Articles such a National uniform and publick method and order of worship and such a National Discipline and Government of all the Churches within His Realm so as that the People in Parliament Assembled may not debate consult conclude concerning them and sedente Parliam●●to put in execution by present supersedeas of former Acts and by present Votes and Orders of Restriction and Regulation as in other Affairs of the Nation I think no Loyal Subject Wise Politician Good Statesman or True-born English-man will affirm for that the Supremacy of the King is affixed by the power of Parliament and in all Writs of Summons they are called to consult the ardent Affairs of the Church no less than of the Civil State and the thirty nine Articles Form of Common Prayer and the Government of the Church lay claim to Acts of Parliament for their Civil Sanction and the Parliament in the Remonstrance of December 1641. owned and cited by these learned men do declare the King entrusted with the Ecclesiastical Law to regulate all the Members of the Church of England by such Rules of Order and Discipline as are established by Parliament and the very Statute enjoyning the Oath of Supremacy and the Admonition of Queen Elizabeth in Her Injunctions appointed by Statute to be the Exposition thereof doth oppose the King to the Pope and * That is to say under God to have the Sove aignty and Rule over all manner of persons born within her Majesties Dominions or Countries of what Estate soever Ecclesiastical or Temporal as no Forraign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them Admon Enacted to expound the Oath of Supremacy quinto Elizab. primo Forraign power not to the Parliament and makes Him the executor of all Jurisdiction Superiority and Preheminences by any Ecclesiastical power or authority which heretofore hath been and may be lawfully exercised which was always directed by power of the Parliament of England And I remember the Lord Chief Baron Bridgeman in his late learned Speech concerning the Kings Supremacy unto the late condemned Traytors at the Old Baily did declare the King to be Supream that is beyond the Coercive power of His people but not to have the Legislative power in His own Breast so as to Rule at His own Will and the known Estate of England is to be Ruled and the Coronation Oath binds the King accordingly in all Ecclesiastical and Civil Affairs by such Lawes quas populus elegerit as the people shall choose so that His Majesties Supremacy is not denied when His Prerogative amplified by the Statute of 1 Elizabethae Ca. 1. is contracted and abridged by the Statute of Caroli 17. Or when the Parliament do see good by their Votes Resolves Orders or imposed Oaths to alter or extirpate the Government which the King was empowred to execute and administer His Supremacy being purely executive and that subject to the Legislation of Parliament upon which account the Peoples Oath of maintaining the Honour Estate and Jurisdiction of the King may be voided as to this and that particular mode and thing and yet the Parliament not take upon them to absolve the People from that obedience they owe under God unto the King nor is the limitation of the exercise of Supremacy as to this or that particular and in this or that species inconsistent with or destructive to the Kings Supremacy rightly understood And on these Considerations let it be observed that the Kings Coronation Oath to grant keep and confirm the Laws Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King Saint Edward and preserve to the Bishops their Churches all Canonical priviledges c. which

Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord and Saviour are all mysteries or matters of reverence esteem and admiration to the Church to be duly and distinctly considered yet under correction of better judgments the several holy dayes appointed to the memorial of them is in my thoughts no less irrational than irreligious I say irrational because though some of them be great Mysteries yet they are not simply and in themselves mercies to the Church but as they relate unto and center in the work of M●●●●edemption to which they do relate as several distinct act●●● that compleat and individual Blessing or Mercy and right reason doth direct commemoration of all the parts in the mercies by them perfected and compleated Irreligious it seems to me as without any divine Warrant nay redundant to Gods own institution who hath appointed the first day of the week as the day for the commemoration of the worlds Restitution by mans Redemption If this be the cause of the change of the Sabbath as we have been commonly taught doth it not supersede the appointment of the Church God doth not mediately what he doth immediately or by Commission what is done in his own person I well know some in their Contests for Holy-dayes make the Sabbath changeable at the Churches pleasure and if these several acts of Redemption be commemorated in their distinct holy-dayes I see not how we can avoid a return to the Jews Sabbath for the fourth command must needs be moral and this method takes away the reason of the alteration of the day Now Sir if the holy daies the foundation be Superstitious sure Oxford will not say the superstructure or Solemn Special service is agreeable to the Word of God! Fifthly Again Sir will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say the very order and method of the Common Prayer is agreeable to the Word of God How do they ground their perswasion concerning the Versicles Popular Responds Intermixtures Abbreviations Abruptions and stops and present postings on again with a Let us pray wenn nothing but prayer is in hand that they are agreeable to the Word of God So do the very Papists Antiphonae responsoria versiculi ejusmodi minuta non videntur necessaria impediunt enim cursum piae utilis lectionis Spalat l. 17. c. 12. Art 96. Versiculos responsoria capitula omittere ideirco visum est quoniam legentes saepe morentur Card. Quignonius I observe the first Compilers of this Book to leave a blot on this method by taking away many Verses Responds Anthems and the like which did interrupt the duty of reading the Scriptures together and that for this very reason but à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The number is not only to be abated but all things of this nature obstructive to and inconsistent with the Solemn and serious entire performance of any particular Act or Duty of Religion ought to be abolished Doth the VVord of God allow mute service or private devotion in the publick Assembly What warrant is there in the publick service of the Church for a silent space of time that the secret prayers of the people may be sent to heaven as is directed at the Ordination and Consecration of Priests and Bishops The reason therein declared is That Jesus Christ prayed all night before He sent out His Disciples and the Church of Antioch prayed when they sent out Paul and Barnabas but they do not tell us whether Christ were in an Assembly when he prayed alone or whether the Church of Antioch had a silent pace in which they secretly prayed nor whether the prayer of the one or of the other were mental or vocal but I observe it was joyned with Fasting in which our order agreeth not whilst any Sunday or Holy-day and a short space thereof will be an opportunity sufficient for such a work VVhat Text of either Old or New Testament allots to the people other portion of publick prayer save to say Amen 1 Cor. 14.15 In respect of which prayer is prescribed to be in a known tongue to their understanding How shall we make the peoples vocal responds salutation supplication for mercies deprecation of miseries meerly and only recited by the Ministers agreeable to the Word of God Exposition of the Liturgy p. 40. Must it be by the salutation of Boaz and his Reapers or Mary and Elizabeth to which Dr. Boyes referreth it it must then be proved that Boaz was in the publick Assembly and cele ' rating divine service and so for Mary and Elizabeth and that it was not a civil complement expressed in Religious words on an occasional meeting each with other as becomes Christian friends and that such pieces of civil respect witnesssing reciprocal affection are parts of Solemn Worship to pass between the Pastor and People in the celebration thereof I shall not deny sighs and short ejaculations to be ardent expressions of the mind and affection and find acceptance with God but question the suitableness thereof to standing solemn and publick Worship I yield to Dr. Boys that the Publican did affectionately dart out his Lord be merciful to me a sinner and the Woman of Canaan her Have mercy on me O Lord and blind Bartimeus O Son of David take pity on me But by his leave I must say these were personal not publick occasional not fixed ordinary Worship extemporary on the occasion not premeditated much less prescribed nay I will grant what he saith Augustine Reports of the Christians in Egypt and which History mentioneth of other Churches Yea I could be easily convinced that in the very first Age of the Gospel many Christians did in the Assembly utter their short expressions and darting prayers preces raptim quodammodo ejaculatas But yet it would be noted they were ejaculations personal expressed in a sacred rapture on the sudden ebolition of the Spirit which without doubt wrought in prayer as in Prophecy and in Psalmes the heat whereof required the Apostles restriction and regulation 1 Cor. 14. affection leading into confusion and so can be no warrant for such premeditated ejaculative expressions to be prescribed in set and publick prayer wherein all things by a Rule restraining this very method under the fervency of the Spirit Let all things be done decently and in order are to be regulated that therefore might be admitted and exercised in the Church and acceptable to God in private and personally expressed or on the immediate ebolition or boyling up of the Spirit and in the heat of affection in the infancy of the Church which will not be so in the publick and prescribed prayers of the Church in her Adult estate in which she must appear more serious and composed and so will not render this Order of Worship agreeable to the Word Sixthly Will the Masters and Scholars of Oxford say that the Rites and Ceremonies annexed to the Worship of God are agreeable to the Word of God viz. The Cross

their certain assurance in matter of Fact be any better bottomed than their think so in point of Divine Right I know not what might be their undoubted testimony of ancient Records and later Histories for they mention none and therein their faith must be unto themselves but by such Ancient or Modern Histories as I have observed it is very difficult to find this Form of Government which must relate unto that to be extirpated by the Covenant or else it is vain to have been either universal or uninterrupted in all Kingdoms that have been called Christian for half fifteen hundred years for if they account backward from the time of their writing they will find a violent interruption and indeed extirpation of this Form of Government by Christian the King of Denmark in the year 1537. as contrary to Christ his Institution and then they will lose more then one of their fifteen hundred years without interruption and that in a Kingdom called Christian and this Sir was to sense whatever it was to reason a more considerable opposition than that of Aerius not to mention the interruptions and extirpation in Scotland which I presume may be to them of little weight that people in their eye scarce appearing Christian And if they will account forward from the Nativity of our Lord their fifteen hundred years of universal uninterrupted Episcopal Government by Arch-bishops Bishops Deans Deans and Chapters will rise very heavily for let it be considered that the division and distribution of Churches into Parishes and Diocesses came not into the world for more than two hundred and sixty years Polid. Virg. Invent l. 4. c. 9. and untill that time small Towns and Villages had their Bishops and all Bishops were before and after that chosen by the people not by their Princes and so long there could be no Metropolitan Archiepiscopi vero su Hibernia nulli fuerunt sed tantum se invicem Episcopi consecrabant donec Johannes Papyrio Romanae sedis legatus ad venit Hic 4. Pallia in Hiberniam portavit Archiepiscopal seat nor Cathedral Episcopal Diocess And will they give an Irish man leave to tell them that Saint Patrick sent into Ireland by Eleuth rius more than two hundred years after Christ did consecrate as many Bishops as he did constitute Churches in that Kingdom three hundred and sixty five of each and that from his time to the coming in of Johannes Papyrio the Popes Legate Anno 1152. Girald Cambr. Topograph Hiber destinct 3. cap. 17. Vid. The Religion professed by the Ancient Irish in an Epistle to the late Primate Usher by Sir Christopher Sipthorpe Knight pag. 58. there were no Arch-bishopricks in that Kingdom and yet it was called Christian and if the instance may not offend them I would mind them that Bishop Usher the late Primate of Armagh in his Treatise De Primordiis Ecclesiarum Britannicarum pag. 800. doth affirm out of John Major De Gestis Scotorum That in ancient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian Faith by the Priests and Monks and had no Bishops before the coming of Palladius into their Countrey and after that Palladius made Bishops they had no Diocess untill Malcolme the third King of Scotland but every Bishop did exercise his Episcopal Function wherever he came who citeth also John Fordon Scotichronicon lib. 3. cap. 8. on the same account so that then we shall not find this Form of Government by Diocesan Bishops Cathedral Churches and by Arch-bishops to have been received in some Kingdoms half fifteen hundred years and what then becomes of the assurance of these learned men Moreover though the opposition of Aerius seem in their eye on inconsiderable one yet it is such as stated a principle which being once admittee as it cannot be denyed and obtained but liberty to be improved to the direction of the Government to be practised will subvert the foundation and pull down the superiority of Arch-bishops Bishop Deans and the like for if all Ministers Presbyters and Bishops be of the same order office and authority we cannot but infer Who are ye that advance your selves in the house of God and Lord it over your Brethren and Gods heritage and notwithstanding that this principle be clouded by the occasion on which it was divulged by him the mans discontent we must say that Discontent is a better Dictator than Judge and God knoweth how to make mens grudges grind out the knowledge of his truth mind and will I hope it will be deemed but a poor defence of the Popes Supreamacy in England to say that King Henry the eighth in a discontented humour did cast it off and was for it excommunicated and here the Reason is the same a great noise is made and advantage taken that Aerius was reputed an Heretick for affirming the parity of Presbyters with Bishops and yet Sir it would be well noted by whom and by what authority he was branded as an Heretick it was not by any Council or Primitive Fathers but by one only man Epiphanius though to be Reverenced in the Church yet by this administers little cause of regard I think many in Oxford will be loth to have Arminian notions more opposite to the grace of God than Aerius notions to good order publickly damned as Heresie which yet were condemned by the Synod of Dort and though that were not a general Council it wins more Authority than the censure of Epiphanius Saint Augustine therefore repeating the opinion of Aerius as recited by Epiphanius doth more modestly denominate it Proprium Dogma August de haeresibus cap. 53. and others repeating the Heresies of Aerius make no mention of this among them nor indeed was there Reason if in the Council of Trent Michael of Medina were deservedly chidden for saying History of the Council of Trent p. 591. Hierom and Austin fell into the Heresie of Aerius and affirmed the degree of a Bishop was no greater than the degree of a Priest I hope that is not Heresie in Aerius which is Orthodox in Austin Jerom and others truly Sir I think the ingenuity of the Masters and Scholars of Oxford might have led them to have considered and indeed publickly contradicted * Collected by Mr. William Prynne as an Appendix to his unbishoping Timothy and Titus the Catalogue of testimonies in all Ages evidencing Bishops and Presbyters to be one equal and the same in Jurisdiction Dignity Order and Degree whereby in five several squadrons Christ and his Apostles Ignatius Policarpus Anacletus Justin Martyr and many of the ancient Fathers Peter Lombard Gratian Hugo Cardinalis and many other Canonists and Schoolmen the Waldenses Alphonsus Castro Gersomus Bucer and a multitude of Forraign Divines and Churches our own Sedulus Anselme Beda Occham Fulk Juel Reynolds Whitaker and almost who not in every place and age are produced as thinking the same thing which in A●rius is called Heresie for certainly so general a consent to a