Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	king_n	people_n	power_n	15,452	5	5.2145	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77210	An appendix to my humble petition, lately presented to the most honourable courts of Parliament wherein I did but lightly touch upon the point of consecration: now because as I conceive, the Kings supremacy is therein denied, I humbly crave leave further to clear up this point.	Brabourne, Theophilus, b. 1590.	1661 (1661)	Wing B4088B; ESTC R211119	2,159	1

An Appendix to my humble Petition lately presented to the most Honourable Courts of Parliament wherein I did but lightly touch upon the point of Consecration Now because as I conceive the Kings Supremacy is therein denied I humbly crave leave further to clear up this point Of a Bishops Consecration to his Office THe Office of a Bishop as I humbly conceive is a mixt office partly divine and partly humane or Civill It is Divine as concerning the Administration of the Word and Sacraments It is Humane as concerning the use of their coercive power in the Church For 1. They receive authority to excercise a coercive power by Commission from the King and therefore it is humane 2. It cannot be proved to be Divine and therefore it must be humane 3. I prove it is not Divine because Christ forbade his Apostles and in them all the Clergy to exercise authority Mat. 20.25 26. And St. Peter forbade it saying Not as though ye were Lords over Gods heritage or people 1 Pet. 5.3 So that this Jurisdiction Authority and Coercive power is not divine because Christ forbad it 4 Coercive power in the Church hath been used by Kings Princes and Rulers Ezra 10.8 1 Kings 2.27 And therefore it is not divine but humane A Bishop was ordained a Minister before he was consecrated and made a Bishop and when he steps above the Ministry into the office of a Bishop then De novo he takes upon him the office to rule and exercise authority and his coercive power over an whole Diocess If then he preach and administer the Sacraments which few of them do or do as other Ministers constantly then he preacheth not as a Bishop but as a Minister And when he ruleth over a Diocess he ruleth not as a Minister but as a Bishop Whereby it appears that the office of a Bishop as he is a Bishop i● onely to rule and exercise a Coercive power and this power is an humane or Civill thing Hence it follows That being this Authority is humane it must be of and from the King and must be derived from the King who is supream in Authority in or over the Church The King derives his authority and supremacy from Christ 1 Pet. 2.13 But Bishops like other Magistrates must derive all their authority not from Christ immediately but from the King Wherefore if the King may have his right Bishops must be consecrated onely in the Kings name not in Christs name for this is to derive from another and higher power than the King and to make themselves next unto CHRIST and equall to the KING for the King onely is next unto Christ but Bishops are now consecrated by authority of Christ and the holy Ghost immediately and Peters keys not in the name of the King whereby they deny the Kings authority and supremacy in the Church in their consecration as I conceive it I have formerly wrote in defence of the Kings Prerogative and Supremacy and here added this as being more full and more cleer Object 1. But Bishops may say We have authority from the King to exercise our Coercive power and therefore we acknowledge the Kings Authority and Supremacy I answer 1. By distinguishing between an office and the exercise of that office If therefore you own the Kings Supremacy in the exercise of your office yet it followeth not that thereby you own it in your office and in your Consecration to your office It is evident that you deny it in your Consecration because you refuse to consecrate in the Kings Name and do all in the name of another and higher power 2. Your authority from the King to exercise your office doth not imply the Kings Supremacy thereby indeed you acknowledge the Kings Authority but not his Supremacy 3. As far as I can see you acknowledge neither the Kings Supremacy nor his Authority in your office nor in the exercise of it For in your Courts you issue out all Citations Processes Summons and Excommunications not in the Kings name but in your own names 4. Supposing but not granting that in the exercise of your office the Kings Supremacy is by consequence implied why then do you not in expresse words do it also but refuse to do it in the Consecration to your office For both the office and the exercise of it are wrought to be from the same hand and power Object 2. Again Bishops may say We took the Oath of Supremacy at our Consecration and therefore we own the Kings Supremacy I answ 1. You took this Oath indeed at your Consecration but not in your Consecration before it but not in it for about a quarter of an hour before Consecration this Oath is taken but in Consecration it is not nor any words expressing or implying the Kings Supremacy And yet all Magistrates in the Kingdome who exercise a Coercive power do besides the Oath of Supremacy take also a Commission in the Kings name as deriving their Authority from him and so should Bishops do in Consecration 2. Bishops a little before Consecration do swear that the King is supream in Authority but presently after in their Consecration they deny it for they refuse to name the King or own his Supremacy For they are Consecrated in the name of another and higher power than the King as in the name of Christ the holy Ghost and as by the authority of Peters keys Suppose a Judge high Sheriffe or Mayor of a City who after they have taken the Oath of Supremacy should refuse to take also a Commission for their office in the Kings name and will derive their Authority from some other or higher power as from the Emperour of Rome or Germany would not this be a deniall of the Kings Authority and Supremacy It will not excuse the matter to say we first took the Oath of Supremacy and can the like excuse Bishops from denying the Kings Supremacy in their Consecration My humble Petition therefore is that if it may stand with your Honours wisdome this Consecration may be altered and changed into a Commission in the Kings name like as it is with all Magistrates who exercise a Coercive power under the King Your Honours humble and dutifull Servant THEOPHILVS BRABOVRN