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	power_n	spiritual_a	1,510	5	6.4164	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61839	Episcopacy (as established by law in England) not prejudicial to regal power a treatise written in the time of the Long Parliament, by the special command of the late King / and now published by ... Robert Sanderson ...	Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663.	1661 (1661)	Wing S599; ESTC R1745	38,560	153

firmiter inhibendo quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent diligunt nullo modo praesumant concilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam pertinent vel quae personam Regis vel Statum suum vel Statum concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quod si fecerint Rex inde capiet se ad Baronias suas c. By which Record together with other the premisses it may appear that the Kings by their Ancient right of Prerogative had sundry wayes power over the Bishops whereby to keep them in obedience and to secure their Supremacy from all peril of being prejudiced by the exercise of Episcopal Iurisdiction XXXV Yet in order to the utter abolishing of the Papal usurpations and of all pretended forraign power whatsoever in matters Ecclesiastical within these Realms divers Statutes have been made in the Raign of King Henry the Eighth and since for the further declaring and confirming of the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastical Wherein the acknowledgement of that Supremacy is either so expresly contained or so abundantly provided for as that there can be no fear it should suffer for lack of further acknowledgement to be made by the Bishops in the style of their Courts Amongst other First by Statute made 25. H. 8. 19. upon the submission and petition of the Clergy it was enacted that no Canons or Constitutions should be made by the Clergy in their Convocation without the Kings licence first had in that behalfe and his royal assent after and likewise that no Canon c. should be put in execution within the Realm that should be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customes Lawes or Statutes of the Realm Then Secondly by the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. all such Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Pre-eminences as had been exercised or used or might be lawfully exercised or used by any Ecclesiastical power or authority was declared to be for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And Thirdly it was also in the same Statute provided that the Oath of Supremacy wherein there is contained as full an acknowledgement of the Kings Ecclesiastical Suprenacy as the wit of man can devise should be taken by every Archbishop and Bishop c. which hath been ever since duely and accordingly performed XXXVI Lastly from receiving any prejudice by the Bishops and their Iurisdiction the Regal power is yet farther secured by the subordination of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Courts to the Common Law of England and to the Kings own immediate Courts For although the Ecclesiastical Laws be allowed by the Laws of this Realm and the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts be by the way of the Civil and not of the Common Law yet are those Laws and proceedings allowed with this limitation and condition that nothing be done against the Common Law whereof the Kings prerogative is a principal part nor against the Statutes and Customes of the Realm And therefore the Law alloweth Appeales to be made from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the King in Chancery and in sundry cases where a cause dependeth before a Spiritual Iudge the Kings prohibition lyeth to remove it into one of his Temporal Courts XXXVII Having so many several ties upon the Bishops to secure themselves and their Regal authority from all danger that might arise from the abuse of the Ecclesiastical Power and Iurisdiction exercised by the Bishops in their Courts by the ancient prerogative of their Crown by the provisions of so many Statutes and Oaths by the remedy of the Common Law the Kings of England had no cause to be so needlesly cautelous as to be afraid of a meere formality the Style of a Court. Especially considering the importance of the two Reasons expressed in the Statute of King Edward as the onely grounds of altering that Style not to be such as would countervaile the Inconvenience and Scandal that might ensue thereupon XXXVIII For whereas it was then thought convenient to change the Style used in the Ecclesiastical Courts because it was contrary to the form used in the Common-Law-Courts within this Realm which is one of the Reasons in the said Statute expressed it might very well upon further consideration be afterwards thought more convenient for the like reason to retain the accustomed Style because otherwise the forme of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be contrary to the form of other Civil-Law-Courts within the Realm as the Admiralty and Earle-Marshals Court and of other Courts of the Kings grant made unto Corporations with either of which the Ecclesiastical Courts had a nearer affinity then with the Kings Courts of Record or other his own immediate Courts of Common Law Nor doth there yet appear any valuable reason of difference why Inconformity to the Common Law-Courts should be thought a sufficient ground for the altering of the forms used in the Ecclesiastical Courts and yet the like forms used in the Admiralty in the Earle-Marshals Court in Courts Baron in Corporation-Courts c. should notwithstanding the same inconformity continue as they had been formerly accustomed without alteration XXXIX If any shall alledge as some reason of such difference the other Reason given in the said Statute viz. that the form and manner used by the Bishops was such as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome besides that therein is no difference at all for the like forms in those other aforesaid Courts were also in use in the same time there is further given thereby great occasion of Scandal to those of the Church of Rome And that two wayes First as it is made a Reason at all and Secondly as it is applyed to the particular now in hand First whereas the Papists unjustly charge the Protestant Churches with Schism for departing from their Communion it could not but be a great Scandal to them to confirm them in that their uncharitable opinion of us if we should utterly condemn any thing as unlawful or but even forbid the use of it as inexpedient upon this onely grouud or consideration that the same had been used in the times of Popery or that it had been abused by the Papists And truly the Puritanes have by this very means given a wonderful Scandal and advantage to our Adversaries which they ought to acknowledge and repent of when transported with an indiscreet zeal they have cryed down sundry harmeless Ceremonies and customes as superstitious and Antichristian onely for this that Papists use them Whereas godly and regular Protestants think it agreeable to Christian liberty charity and prudence that in appointing Ceremonies retaining ancient Customes and the use of all other indifferent things such course be held as that their moderation might be known to all men and that it might appear to their very Adversaries that wherein they did receed from them or any thing practised by them they were not thereunto carried by a Spirit of contradiction but either cast

the exercise thereof but even in the very substance of the Power it selfe as namely that of external jurisdiction coercive are by the Laws declared and by the Clergy acknowledged to be wholly and entirely derived from the King as the sole fountain of all authority of external Iurisdiction whether Spiritual or Temporal within the Realm and consequently not of divine right Other-some although the substance of the power it self be immediately from God and not from the King as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet are they so subject to be inhibited limited or otherwise regulated in the outward exercise of that power by the Laws and Customes of the Land as that the whole execution thereof still dependeth upon the Regal Authority And how can the gross of that Power be prejudicial to the King or his Supremacy whereof all the parts are confessed either to be derived from him or not to be executed without him XIII Fifthly that if Episcopacy must be therefore concluded to be repugnant to Monarchy because it claimeth to be of divine Right then must Monarchs either suffer within their dominions no form of Church-government at all and then will Church and with it Religion soon fall to the ground or else they must devise some new model of Government such as never was yet used or challenged in any part of the Christian world since no form of Government ever yet used or challenged but hath claimed to a Ius divinum as well as Episcopacy yea I may say truly every one of them with far more noise though with far less reason then Episcopacy hath done And therefore of what party soever the objectors are Papists Presbyterians or Independents they shew themselves extreamly Partial against the honest Regular Protestant in condemning him as an enemy to Regal Power for holding that in his way which if it be justly chargeable with such a crime themselves holding the very same in their several wayes are every whit as deeply guilty of as he XIIII Lastly that this their partiality is by so much the more inexcusable by how much the true English Protestant for his government not onely hath a better title to a Ius divinum then any of the other three have for theirs but also pleadeth the same with more caution and modesty then any of them do Which of the four Pretenders hath the best title is no part of the business we are now about The tryal of that will rest upon the strength of the arguments that are brought to maintain it wherein the Presbyterians perhaps will not find any very great advantage beyond the rest of those that contest for it But let the right be where it will be we will for the present suppose them all to have equal title and thus far indeed they are equal that every one taketh his own to be best and it shall suffice to shew that the Ius Divinum is pleaded by the Episcopal party with more calmeness and moderation and with less derogation from Regal Dignity then by any other of the three XV. For First the rest when they spake of Ius Divinum in reference to their several waves of Church-Government take it in the highest elevation in the first and strictest sense The Papist groundeth the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs command to Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Princes also as well as others to submit to him as their universal Pastor The Presbyterian cryeth up his Model of Government and Discipline though minted in the last by-gon Century as the very scepter of Christs Kingdome whereunto all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it as unalterable and inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments are The Independent Separatist also upon that grand principle of Puritanisme common to him with the Presbyterian the very root of almost all the Sects in the world viz That nothing is to be ordered in Church-matters other or otherwise then Christ hath appointed in his Word holdeth that any company of people gathered together by mutual consent in a Church-way is Iure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such rules as it shall judge agreeable to Gods Word without dependence upon any but Christ Iesus alone or subjection to any Prince Prelate or other humane person or Consistory whatsoever All these you see do not onely claim to a Ius Divinum and that of a very high nature but in setting down their opinions weave in some expresses tending to the diminution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Princes Whereas the Episcopal Party neither meddle with the power of Princes nor are ordinarily very forward to press the Ius Divinum but rather purposely decline the mentioning of it as a term subject to misconstruction as hath been said or else so interpret it as not of necessity to import any more then an Apostolical institution Yet the Apostles authority in that institution being warranted by the example and as they doubt not the direction of their Master Iesus Christ they worthily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory as that they would not for a world have any hand in or willingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards much less bind themselves by solemn League and Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of that Government but rather on the contrary hold themselves in their consciences obliged to the uttermost of their powers to endeavour the preservation and continuance thereof in these Churches and do heartily wish the restitution and establishment of the same wheresoever it is not or wheresoever it hath been heretofore under any whatsoever pretence unhappily laid aside or abolished XVI Secondly the rest not by remote inferences but by immediate and natural deduction out of their own acknowledged principles do some way or other deny the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical either claiming a power of Iurisdiction over him or pleading a priviledge of Exemption from under him The Papists do it both wayes in their several doctrines of the Popes Supremacy and of the Exemption of the Clergy The Puritances of both sorts who think they have sufficiently confuted every thing they have a mind to mislike if they have once pronounced it Popish and Antichristian do yet herein as in very many other things and some of them of the most dangerous consequence symbolize with the Papists and after a sort divide that branch of Antichristianisme wholly between them The Presbyterians claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute spiritual Iurisdiction over Princes with power even to excommunicate them if they shall see cause for it as the Papists challenge to belong to the Pope And the Independents exempting their Congregations from all spiritual subjection to them in as ample manner as the Papists do their Clergy Whereas the English Protestant Bishops and Regular Clergy as becometh good Christians and good Subjects do neither pretend to any Iurisdiction over the Kings of England nor withdraw