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
A85088	Two treatises The first, concerning reproaching & censure: the second, an answer to Mr Serjeant's Sure-footing. To which are annexed three sermons preached upon several occasions, and very useful for these times. By the late learned and reverend William Falkner, D.D.	Falkner, William, d. 1682.; Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.; Sturt, John, 1658-1730, engraver.	1684 (1684)	Wing F335B; ESTC R230997	434,176	626

he saith In other Regions upon the inspection into some certain causes temporalem jurisdictionem casualiter exercemus we casually exercise temporal jurisdiction And yet this is he who declared that Canon above mentioned in the Council of Lateran and practised the power of deposing in Germany and in other places even in England against King John 7. Papal claims have been mischievous Concerning this claim of Papal Soveraignty and the deposing power I shall observe three things First That it hath been very mischievous to the Christian World and hath been the cause of many Wars and intestine broils especially in Germany and Italy and hence hath proceeded very much blood-shed and very many rebellions When (o) Mar. Pol. in Hen. p. 358. Gregory the Seventh and then (p) Ursperg ad an 1102. Vrbane the Second and Paschalis the Second had undertaken to excommunicate Henry the Fourth the Emperour and to depose him and declare against his Subjects paying him any allegeance first Rodolphus of Saxony was set up against him who perished in his undertaking after which Henry the Fifth his own Son engages in that (q) U●sp p. 257 261. Parricidale bellum as Vrspergensis calls it to fight against his own Father and Soveraign And in the time of divers succeeding Emperours there were frequent deposings and thereupon Civil Wars and almost continual broils hence arose the long remaining high animosities and fierce contests in Italy and some adjacent parts of the Empire between the faction of the Guelphs who adhered to the Pope and the Gibelines who closed with the Emperour In this period of time for many ages sometimes the Emperour and sometimes the Pope were taken Prisoners or forced to escape by flight and reduced to great extremities and the Countries in the mean time were miserably harrassed which were the Seat of these Wars And in these foreign Princes were frequently engaged some on the one side and some on the other even so far as sometimes to take in both the English and French The particulars of these things or the effects of the like proceedings in some other Kingdoms would be too large to be here inserted And besides these things divers secret Conspiracies of Subjects against the lives of their Princes have been the effect of these Romish Principles in contradiction to that honour and reverence which Christianity requireth to be given to them Nor have such evil attempts been made only upon the lives of Protestant Princes but of such also who have adhered to the Romish profession both before and since the Reformation 8. But I shall here take notice that even those persons who were set up in prosecuting this deposing power the promoters of them have smarted by them where it did take effect as very often even before the Reformation it was of no force besides other troubles they were engaged in they oft fell themselves under the like Sentence of the Bishop of Rome and sometimes into great calamities thereby Here I might instance in those two I lately mentioned The Emperour Henry the Fifth who rose up against his Father against whom the Bishop of Rome had declared his Sentence of deposition did prevail against him and took him Prisoner but behaved himself very unworthily towards him and kept him in Prison till he died and Reigned after him But he himself fell under the sentence of Paschalis the Second and was involved in War thereby but he overcame the Pope and took him prisoner But he died Childless having no Issue to succeed him in the Empire which was then Hereditary (r) M. Pol. p. 367 368. and this was by many in that age accounted Gods just judgement upon him who had acted so unchristianly and undutifully against his Father And after his death the Empire came to the Saxon line 9. But I shall particularly take notice of Frederick the Second who was substituted Emperour in the place of Otho who was deposed He made many Laws in favour of the Church and encreased its wealth and revenue and was (ſ) Avent l. 7. p. 525 535. Nic. de Cusa as Historians relate concerning him an excellent most wise and flourishing Prince Yet he was both excommunicated and (t) M. Pol. in Honor. in Fred. deposed by Honorius who had Crowned him And this Sentence was again renewed by Gregory the Ninth who succeeded Honorius in three several Bulls of deposition (u) Avent P. 537 538. In the first of these in the courtship of Rome he declared the Emperour to be a Beast and in the last of them to be an Heretick but whatever great words were used (*) Chron. Ursperg p. 337. Vrspergensis who was an Abbot at that very time declared that it was pro frivolis causis falsis upon trifling and untrue grounds and occasions And against this Frederick did Innocent the Fourth erect the Banner of the Cross as against the Turk and denounce the Sentence of deposition in the Council of Lions to the astonishing terror of them who heard it Amidst these Circumstances his own Son Henry whom he had designed his Successor and had declared him so rose up in rebellion against his Father and being condemned of parricide by (x) Avent p. 533. the Sentence of seventy Princes was imprisoned and not long after died in Sicily And when Frederick had encountred with various difficulties after his flight into (y) M. Pol. p. 399. in Fred. Apulia he there died in distress and misery And this was the kind requital he met with for his affection to the Pope and interesting himself in his quarrel against the preceding Emperour 10. Secondly I observe that the pretended pleas for this Papal power are very vain Many of these and the most considerable I have examined (z) Christ Loyalty B. 1. ch 6. B. 2. ch 1. Sect. 1. Observ 2. The vain pleas for Papal power otherwhere But here I shall take notice of some things urged by Innocent the Third in a decretal Epistle which hath been confirmed by Gregory the Ninth and other Romish Bishops since And it is strange to see how extravagantly impertinent these proofs are For an evidence of the Popes chief decisive power in the highest matters of right he reserreth to Deut. 17.8 9 10 11 12. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement thou shalt get thee to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judge And thou shalt do according to the Sentence which they of that place shall shew thee And then he tells us (a) 3. Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13. quia Deuteronomium lex secunda interpretetur that because the word Deuteronomy signifieth a Second Law it is thence proved that what is there determined must be observed in the time of the New Testament and the Apostolical See is the place which God chùseth Now the proof is much alike that Rome is

here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may

detection of his falshood that they are not agreeable to Tradition and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori § 1 2. HE propounds How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any and tells us he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse But he saith the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless for if they had not faulted the Rule but only pretended men had failed it they might have deluded the World with some colour that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly but if they fault the Rule they judge Tradition ever stood our friend and would overthrow them else they had no more efficacious way to ruine us than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times when they pretend we fell might be easily discovered To answer this its requisite first to understand the meaning Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever I conceive signifies thus much whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation in the same way as they were thence delivered and also whether they have effectually performed this And if this could be proved Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith The proof of this is highly necessary when he hath to do with Protestants because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition because they know it such as cannot be probably expected to be long held to nor can ever be demonstrated or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists relie on we delude not but with truth and evidence assure the World that we desert them only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness it is not necessary for us to know or declare since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors partly by the writing of Fathers who shew what Doctrine they received and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles Now when we give evidence that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose and some Renouncers may be manifested yet since neither Protestants nor Papists can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations and whatever may be known by History upon the Principles of this Discourser must not be believed especially since this is neither the only way nor the best way to shew Primitive Doctrines disowned I may well conclude that the proposal it self is both needless and unreasonable Will this Authour assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers was a Tradition truly derived from Noah unless the person or persons can be named to him who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses until the Authours of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out or could not our Saviour and his Apostles condemn such Traditions unless they first declared the Authors of them Doth he think it would be reason or madness if a temperate man in a sick state should say to his Physician I am sure I was in health and have indeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in and therefore until I can have evidence given me what time and by what act my Distemper began I will not be perswaded but that I am still in health Or if an house that was once firm and strong now is cracked or decaied or burnt down can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned and by what means and when it was set on fire and by whom And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down or in its ashes think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decaied or burnt if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these in purchasing such houses and therefore I have the more reason to suspect that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times by which he interprets himself to mean times which had a vicinity to the Apostles as if Protestants did indeed grant that Popery as it now is was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles whereas this Discourser cannot but know that Protestants do generally assert that though some corruptions might creep into the Church soon after the Apostles daies yet in the chief points of Controversie between Protestants and Papists we do assert that for the first six hundred Years the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions and in many things very long after and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original § 3 4 5. He tells us That such is Gods goodness that the Rule of Faith hath that in it which obligeth the generality not to desert it That Tradition is actually indefectible he undertakes to demonstrate à priori from proper Causes and à posteriori from a now-a-daies experienced effect His grounds for the former are these First the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled in the hearts of great multitudes in several parts of the World Secondly this Doctrine was by all those believed to be the way to Heaven and the deserting it the way to damnation whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable ingaged them to adhere to it Thirdly hopes and fears strongly applied are causes of actual will Lastly this was feasible the things were knowable and within their power Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition I now come to examine these four grounds Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly setled in multitudes and very great numbers that is so much of the Christian Doctrine as was requisite for them to know or all the great and most necessary Christian truths but that all matters of Faith or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles was firmly fetled in all the faithful can never

exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to

given also (b) B. 2. ch 1. Sec. 1. n. 4 c. sufficient evidence and the same hath been done at large by others The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter who concerning the Kingdoms of the World and the glory of them said Luk. 4.5 6. All this is delivered unto me and to whomsoever I will I give it and it hath also a parallel title which bears it self up upon confident usurpation vain boasting and false pretences Yet they who are thorough Papists must acknowledge this 4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal but besides the Censure they generally undergo from their own party they are put to hard shifts when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions with the publickly received Constitutions of that Church For instance sake I shall take notice of the Council of (c) Concil Lateran c. de haeset Laterane concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea as for any other thing which declares that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholicks if he neglect to purge his Country of Hereticks Here it is first pretended Of the C●uncil at the Lateran that this was not declared by that General Council but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up and that there were no Constitutions or Canons made in that Council And yet in the Decretalia of Gregory the Ninth who was Pope about twelve years after that Council this very Constitution is inserted into the (d) Decret l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommunicamus Canon Law as being established by Innocentius in a General Council And from the Authority of that Council Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church And what goes under the name of this Council is acknowledged to have the Authority of a General Council both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent as hath been observed by the (e) Of Popery p. 48-51 Bishop of Lincoln 5. But it is further said by them that the Canon of Lateran concerneth (f) Shel l dons Reasons for Allegiance p. 41. not Sovereign Princes but only some feudatory Lords in Italy and some parts of the Empire And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted by the last clause of that Constitution eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them they note that there is an (g) Constit Frederic● n. 7 Imperial Law established by Frederick the Second much to the same purpose with this Canon to make void the rights of such Lords as purge not their Lands from Hereticks and that therein this clause is annexed that this same Law shall be observed against them who have-no Chief Lords But say they it cannot be supposed that the Emperour would enact a Law which might make void his own Imperial Dignity and forfeit his Empire Now in this Constitution of Frederick there is no express mention of any right of disposing Dominions devolving it self upon the Bishop of Rome but it may be considered how much this Emperours interest and that of the Church and See of Rome were at this time linked together For his possession of the Empire much depended on the Popes authority for (h) Mar. Polon in Oth. p. 394 395. Ursperg p. 326 327. Ave. t●● Ann. Boio 〈◊〉 p. 519. Innocent the Third having excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperour some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick to advance him to the Empire and the Pope closeth with this design and encourageth both him and them And therefore this clause concerning the advancing the interest of the Church and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion of what force or validity soever it be both tended to assert Fredericks own right and jointly to gratifie the Romish See And this Law was confirmed by him in compliance with the Pope (i) Constit Fred. in Praef. on that very day in which he received his Imperial Diadem from Honorius the Third who succeeded Innocentius And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius and ratified (k) ibid. in fin by him with a severe Curse against them who should act any thing against it and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth and seems to be framed by the Popes order from this clause in the Preface Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat voluntate 6. And yet if this were true that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing only Emperours and Kings must be submissive to the Pope of such Principalities which belong to inferiour and dependent Lords this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Princes to be derived from them and to depend upon them And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies contains such things concerning Emperours and Kings as when occasion serves may be made use of to infer subjection and dependance Thus we are told (l) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Emperour must implore the favour of the Apostolical See and offer himself ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Romanae Ecclesiae praestanda to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome and must humbly desire Unction Consecration and the Imperial Diadem And the Pope after examination of the Election and considering the fitness of the Person doth grant him his grace and favour and doth eum nominare denunciare assumere declarare Regem Romanorum Nominate authoritatively pronounce receive and declare him to be King of the Romans and to be fit and sufficient to receive the Imperial Dignity And in this manner it is there said that divers Emperours have addressed themselves to the Pope some of which are there particularly named And if any King shall come to Rome (m) l. 1. Sect. ●3 c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there he is to carry the Popes train and to pour out water for his hands and to carry up the first Dish to his Table and serve the first Cup in other Collations which things with others mentioned in the same Book carry in them fair appearances of doing homage And some of the Romish Bishops which have somewhat more than others complemented Secular Authority in some of their notions have yet in their practice acted as much against them as any others So did Innocent the Third who acknowledged (n) Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervenegabil●m Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit that a King is to own no Superiour in temporals and therefore speaking of his own Authority besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church