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	jurisdiction_n	power_n	1,683	5	4.9363	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

Supreame head of the Church which title being taken from the Pope and giuen to the King seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church Secondly Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester affirmed at Ratisbon that it was lawfull for the King to forbid eating of flesh vpon this or that day to forbid Priests to marry to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence of which anon And in that sense onely did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie in this point taking it to be all one with the Popes What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King I neither know nor haue now leasure to seeke But if they haue done any thing whereby it may iustly be suspected that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke they haue gone beyond their bounds and shall neuer haue eyther approbation or excuse by my defense As for the Ministers and people which doe not yeeld to subscription and conformitie I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation To which purpose I desire it may first be obserued that they acknowledge both by word and writing and that ex animo not like you Papists with I know not what aequiuocations that the Kings Maiestie vnder God is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall that no forraine Prince person state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within his Maiesties said Realmes dominions and countries according as the statute agreeablie to the law of God requireth Secondly they professe with the rest of their Fathers and brethren Protestants that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund or forbid in all matters whatsoeuer necessarie or indifferent and that in both these he is to be obeyed vpon conscience Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God we are wholy of one minde About the matters in question there are these two differences Whether they be indifferent or no whether supposing them to be indifferent they may be commaunded and done in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many and to be an occasion of stumbling and destruction to many a one for whom Christ hath dyed And these are the reasons why they dare not as they say approue some things in our church by subscription and practise otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse but a desire to yeeld if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie either by attributing that to any forrain potētate or prelate or any presbytery at home which lawfully belōgs vnto him or by denying his authority in things indifferent Concerning the authoritie of Bishops it is not an essentiall point of faith and besides the best protestant diuines holde that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church to be framed as the ciuill estate may beare it and therefore it is not denyed I thinke that there may be a Presbytery but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches is not a confounding of Christs church but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine wherein a man may be sound and yet faile in some parts of obedience If therefore by not obseruing you meane not thinking it lawfull to obserue or appoint holy daies I say it is no essētiall point of faith to doubt of or deny this authority though the Puritans generally hold such deniall to be an error If it be your meaning to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies I dare be bold to say that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them then any Papist doth the Lords day or Sunday which I auowe both of Ministers and people That it is vnlawfull for the church or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men vpon iust occasions it is a foule error for any man to hold but not against any essentiall point of faith required to the being of a christian either in truth or profession Both Protestants Puritans agree generally about this point as for the weekly fish daies Lēt the 4. ember weeks our church and state disclaime the appointing of them for any vse of religion and keepe them only as meanes to prouide for the encrease of cattell and mainteinance of shipping Mariners Fishermen and Fishmongers Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith nor blasphemy on the one part or other as I haue s●ewed before in the fourth article This makes no difference betwixt Protestants Puritants because many on either side are of this opinion many of the contrary Of this I say as of the former that taking it in such a sense as this Papist doth it is no essentiall point of faith but in the true meaning of the article it is for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion as a substantiall point to hold that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead both for soule and bodie Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion betwixt Protestants and Protestants Puritans and Puritans and therefore it is fondly and falsly set downe as a point of dissent betwixt protestants and Puritans The like answere is to be made to this also saue onely that it may be doubted whether any Protestant agree with the Papists in this point or no generally I am sure the Puritans and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter To hold that Christ is God of God the naturall sonne of God coessentiall Coēternall to his father is a matter of necessitie at the least so that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion But for my part I dare not affirme that the distinct knowledge of all such points is of necessity to saluation And surely sauing other mens better iudgment I am of opinion that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed which seeme to shut all men out of heauen that beleeue not those articles of the Creed are to be vnderstood of some of them onely or of the Contrary to the truth The holy and learned man spake according to the occasion the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true and false Christians But of these three last points see The fourth Article Thus much of the maine differences which this Papist ●oats now followe the petty ones as hee calls them The first whereof is as true as the former seauen For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne by our ioynt consent to the articles of Religion 1562. according to