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	king_n	parliament_n	1,836	5	6.6012	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45124	The authority of magistrate about religion discussed in a rebuke to the preacher of a late book of Bishop Bramhalls, being a confutation of that mishapen tenent, of the magistrates authority over the conscience in the matters of religion, and better asserting of his authority ecclesiastical, by dividing aright between the use of his sword about religious affairs, and tenderness towards mens consciences : and also for vindication of the grateful receivers of His Majesties late gracious declaration, against his and others aspersions / by J.H.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1672 (1672)	Wing H3669; ESTC R20217	60,044	138

constituted thereby parts of the Church National whereof he is Head no less then the Parish assemblies The matter is all one as if a Parish onely which was too big should be divided into two where I say there is Separation no Schism I will undertake to make it good that the Bishops Consecration of a Church is not necessary to the making the Society that Assembles therein to be a particular Church or part of the National but that the Kings Authority alone is enough for that Relation Nay I know not but the King upon the same account might constitute unmaintenanced Bishops over those particular Congregate Churches if he pleased as well as he hath maintained Bishops over those that have Livings if it were to any purpose at all and for his peoples edification Well now then if any Licensed person shall gather their Congregations in a way of opposition to the Parish Churches which he hath also establisht by denial of them to be true Churches I do account still that all such partaking thereby with the Novatian and the Donatist of old must come under the condemnation of the Fathers and Councels passed upon their error and that is that which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we call Separation If any again shall gather a people in a way of strife pride vain-glory envy contention which are breaches of Christianity when the end of the Commandment is Charity I will account this also being sinfull it does make those conventions Schismatical But if a man shall come honestly and peaceably in the fear of God with prudence and innocency as becomes a Christian to set up one of these Meetings by vertue of the same Authority as the Parish Priest hath his I will desire any that can to shew me now where the sin is to be found If he can shew it me I will consent to him that he shall call all these Meetings Schismatical still upon condition that if he cannot he will pardon them henceforth who do go to these particular Churches by the Kings appointment now parts of the National with the same veneration and regard as to the Parish Congregations We will thank the late ingenuous Author who advised us to take heed that Toleration be not abused and we do shew wherein that care is to be taken that we may not abuse it but when he would have had the Non-Conformist under pretence of not abusing his liberty to take such a course only as not to use it at all though the generality of us do judge they should most glorifie God this way he deserved to be blamed who upon the conviction will perhaps as soon as any be ready to thank God with us if a door so effectual be opened then we may without offence and without Schism joyn our strength in a mutual love and concord for the carrying on the great work of mans Salvation throughout the Nation But are not these Presbyterians very Knaves who stood before on Christs Authority for their Preaching and now take Licenses of the King While their plea was the same with the Apostles that they ought to obey God rather then Man we could bear with them but now we shall never abide them more I pray Sirs good words As Charity always thinketh the best I see this all will still thinketh nothing but evil If it were the duty of the Non-Conformist Minister to Preach before his Majesties Declaration it must be his duty still and if when we have obtained such grace as this is the Presbyterian should not accept it when there is no more doubt of prejudicing our Ministry thereby then the Apostles did theirs when they had leave of the Masters of the Synagogues to say on who would have fallen on the whole party so foully for refractory and perverse fellows as these men It is true we look on Christs Commission to be enough for our Preaching when we judge it for Gods Glory but to Preach in such a place and in such circumstances is we count in the dispose of the Magistrate The Magistrate hath the power of external order and may forbid a man to Preach I say in such a place when he cannot forbid him to Preach or else our Pulpits were our own still for all the Act of Uniformity The Presbyterians take Licenses of the King in reference to the place of their Assemblies Nay this authority of the King in slating these places and Meetings for them does incorporate them as integral parts or particular fellow congregations with those of the Parochial constitution into the Church National united under him as the Supreme Head which is a matter of that great weight and consequence as we have not yet looked about us to bless God enough for it Hereby can the Non-Conformist make his publick acknowledgement which he would have of the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals no less then the Bishop and yet his conscience not be burdened with the Diocesan Truely I know not but his Majesty really hath discerned more for the hitting the business of coagulating his whole people into one Ecclesiastical National society or body under him hereby then any of us were a warre of who could not see before any reason for such proceedings as are taken in this Declaration which we shall approve henceforth with a great deal of satisfaction But did not these men in the late Wars take part with the Parliament and now they submit to the Kings Declaration against an Act of Parliament Be it so The Act of Parliament is against the command of God The King permits what God bids Who should the subject obey but God and the King As for the War I perceive it will still be ript up though against the Act of Oblivion It was not upon the account of Religion it must be first known that it will be owned In the cause of Religion if we be persecuted we may fly Christ allows us but we may not resist The case then I account a singular case It was upon the Militia they began the old King said The King and Parliament was divided that is certain and the question was where the Authority or the most of it did lye some thought in the one some in the other and so were engaged I will speak now once for all that the mouths of these men may be stopped with reason for nothing else will do it There are some have thought thus The Government of this Nation is mixt A mixt Government is where the supreme Authority is not placed purely in the People or the Nobles or the Monarch but mixtly in them all The supreame Legislative power in this Nation lies in the King and his two Houses joyntly not severally as one Corporation says Judge Jenkins or to speak surely as one Parliament The Parliament which is to be one in Law being divided the constitution is broken that being broken the Government is dissolved and the power returned at that season to the people The people being at liberty

many men of sober spirits thought themselves bound to go that way which would most tend to the advancement of Religion And this is the true state of their cause which though I my self in my judgement for my university Oaths sake was otherwise inclined I do humbly offer in Justice for their Apology Onely I must add this that the occasion which happened once that was the Kings own deposing his power of dissolving the Parliament at that time being like never to be again there is no hurt at all in it If after this these men will yet press us further I will return that the state of the case being quite altered the King brought in again and with universal consent into the old constitution here is a wonderful kind of thing fallen out that the Fanatick or Anti-Episcopial party of the Nation are really turning to be the Royalist who are for Prorogative Supremacy in Ecclesiasticals when the Bishops party who have made it hitherto a proverb that without them no King are the men bandy against it for the maintenance of these Acts of Parliament And thus much shall suffice as to the first thing offered by the Prefacer about Popery and the Kings Declaration Sect. 3. I come then now to the other thing that requires our notice which is a matter indeed of great moment and therefore intended by me for the main task of my present engagement and that is his asserting an authority in the Magistrate over the conscience of his Subjects in matters of Religion So he hath expressed it and made it the subject of two other Books and insists upon it still in this Preface I am willing therefore to enter into a dissertation with him about the point for it will be worthy not only of our two labours but of another learned pious studious and worthy Knight who was the Author of the Papers entituled Liberty of Conscience and whom I shall purposely engage with the Prefacer that if it be possible we may all three together will we nill we beat out the right determination of the business As for the Prefacer I must needs say that I take him to be a man of fewer years and quicker parts and of a more flourishing Pen than to be fit at least of himself for the undertaking any such point as this is For either a man must be of a patient complexion that can read over all that is written by others about the subject and then give us the Compendium according to his judgment or he must be able by fixing long upon one thing and inculcating the thoughts of it upon the mind to frame his own notion in such a fore-casting of it through the whole train of its consequences to the end as to make it hold together which is not the work unius Diei or unius liturae to use the expression of the Bishop offer'd to my hand I know that the happiness of the first conceit does much but it is not the nimbleness of the Pen and a torrent of words does the rest Nay rather it is this volubility of the tongue which is Truth 's great Harlot while the handsomness of the expression will be ready still to allure away the judgment from that closer attendance to the dry notion that Controversal points or Cases of Conscience do require which should not therefore be writ in the style of this age For the language particularly of this person I cannot but compare methinks to a like present fashion in the Garments of Women the superfluity of whose dimensions may perhaps make their bodies look more stately but it will trip their heels up besides the cumbersomness if they take not heed to themselves or some other come after to keep them from falling Well! the business this notable eloquent Gentleman hath to do in this Preface is for ought I see really only to abuse the Non-Conformists and so fasten upon them some charge if he could tell what against whom in reference to their loyalty or duty to the Government But the charge being founded at the bottom only upon his first Book or the cause he hath there managed the best way to answer all his parti●ulars wil be to let them quite alone without raking the Dunghill up and to touch only in general upon the foundation There are two passages then I will cite out of this Preface for there are no more I count of that nature which I make my concern All their exceptions relate either to the Power in it self or to the matters of the Command The first are directly levell'd against the very being of Authority and Magistrates of what kind soever according to their general pretences must not dare to put any restraint upon their subjects consciences lest they invade the Divine Prerogative overthrow the fundamental liberties of human nature and undo honest men for their loyalty to God and their Religion Now if this right be claimed without limitation then the consequence is unavoidable That subjects may when ever they please cross with the authority of their Governours upon any pretence that can wear the name of Religion But this being grosly absurd the necessity of a Soveraign power in matters of Religion is granted and all Arguments that prove it in general necessary to Peace and Government are allowed or at least are not contradicted for what ever admits an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction howsoever bounded and limited admits it and that is enough to the first assertion of a supream Authority over the Conscience in matters of Religion Again after eighteen pages farther And they are exhorted above all things to keep their Consciences i.e. themselves free from the usurpation of all human Laws that is in effect they are forbidden to make any conscience of subjection to Princes for it is only Conscience that is capable of the obligation of Laws so that if they be exempt the whole man is at liberty By these two passages it does appear to me that this Ecclesiastical Politician from the beginning of his setting out to the end does run all along in that confusion as it will be hard to bring him to sorts But it shall suffice me to offer two distinctions which alone as I hope may serve to do this work both of drawing him out of his darkness and convincing others thereby of the injury of his accusations Distinguish we then first between the Authority of the Magistrate over his Subjects in matters of Religion and an Authority over the Conscience in any matters whatsoever It is manifest in the very expression of his Title and the customary language of his first Book and of this Preface That he does confound Conscience with the Matters of Religion whereas there are matters of Religion wherein the Conscience may not be concerned and matters wherein the Conscience may be concerned they be no Ecclesiastical matters The second distinction then is between Subjection which refers to the Authority residing in the Magistrate himself and

11. There is one thing yet seems wanting I do speak here to one branch of the main position as false while in things Religious though they could not be known but by Revelation and the world could be governed without them I affirm the Magistrate hath authority and may use his Sword as he may in other matters that is provided they be not against mens Consciences But as to the other branch in things Civil and and Moral which men may know by natural light and in which the Government is more concern'd I have not said whether it be true or false I will proceed therefore and declare that as the Position laid down at first or the worthy maintainer of it goes too low in denying the Magistrate the use of his sword in Religious things which is to be granted I count herein as in other matters to wit upon supposition of both to be not against but according to their Consciences So does he go too high in yielding it in Civils without the same limitation whereof we must be still as tender as of our Eye or of our Salvation I do think also of the two the last is the more dangerous extremity I argue then If the Magistrate may not use force or the temporal Sword in Religious affairs because such things are of that nature as the Conscience is like to be concer'd in them and if it be against their Conscience it is unlawful then when the Conscience likewise is concern'd in Civil things he may not use the Sword neither For if the ground be good in the one it must be good in the other if it will not hold in both it may be denied in either Again the things perhaps are Civil things but the man or men makes a Conscience of them and so the case must be the same to them as if it were in Religion To make a conscience of a thing is to look upon it as commanded or forbidden of God and to go about to perform or avoid it upon that account But to do or leave a thing undone upon the account of the command or prohibition of God is an act of Religion Consequently though the thing be Civil yet so long as a person or persons make a consciscience of it it is all one to them I say as if the things were religious and the authority of the Magistrate can be no more in the one than the other I will propose some instances Doeg accuses the Priests to Saul He hears their cause condemns them as Traytors commands his Servants to do execution upon them they refuse the execution It is against their Consciences Saul here hath no authority over those Servants in this case either to command them to act or to punish them for not acting against their Consciences If they obey him they sin against God Saul might urge here the thing was of Civil concern and if all should do as they did that is question the Judges sentence and refuse to execute it upon pretence of conscience the Government could not stand yet this wont serve they must not act against their Consciences for all that If he falls upon them for it they must bear it but it will be tyranny over them and injury to Heaven the superiority of whose authority over his being the thing in effect they asserted by that refusal You may say this is an instance indeed in Civil things wherein the Magistrate had not authority and consequently when Civil things are imposed against a mans Conscience the case is the same as in Religious But you will add the Consciences of these men was in the right and you would have some instance in Civil things where the Conscience is erroneous I will offer you therefore other instances A Garrison under Scanderbeg is besieged by the Turks it has but one Well in it a Traytor throws in a dead Carrion The Soldiers are under a superstition that the water hereupon is unclean and that they cannot drink it without sin Rather than do so they yield the place otherwise impregnable This instance I once used elsewhere on another occasion let me offer you one more authentick out of the Machabees The Jews are of the general perswasion that they may not fight on the Sabbath Their enemies come upon them on that day on purpose rather than act against their Consciences they suffer themselves all to be slain I will ask now upon this perswasion of these men that the doing these necessary things as drinking that water and defending themselves was sin whether the Captains of those Soldiers could command them to drink or to fight and force them to it Nothing can be pleaded of more moment in any case The whole Government and their lives depend on it and the light of nature might teach them that necessity should take place of their superstition Nevertheless until they had consulted the thing and their Consciences were satisfied of the lawfulness of it that is until they came to find out the substance of what Christ afterward revealed That man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man There was no Captain or Governour I suppose could have power to command them or force them in the case I will descend to an instance frequent in the present Nation It is a Civil thing for any of the King's Courts to grant a Writ for a man to come and give his testimony by Oath to any Cause that is before them I will suppose now that some and that many have received the impression that it is unlawful for them to Swear at all and thereupon they refuse to Swear It may be urged in this case what a civilly evil opinion this is which is both destructive to the Government in the Administration and injurious to particular persons who may be undone in their Estates for want of such an Oath Nevertheless there are many of the Quakers ready to go to prison themselves and lose all their own Estates and we may suppose their Lives rather than they will be induced to swear I ask What will you say now to this case Hath the Magistrate power over these mens Consciences If he hath he may command them to judg otherwise than they do and punish them that they act according to this judgment And if he can command and use his Sword upon them to make them swear he may to make them come to Church and if he was a Papist Magistrate to come to Mass and if a heathen Magistrate to sacrifice to Idols If he have not power over their Consciences and to command them to have other judgments then must he let them alone as generally our Justices have done or challenge an authority to make men act against their Consciences which is to use the power which he hath from God against him If you think there is here some difference between such cases as these and that of the Machabees before it matters little But if you make none between