Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	power_n	spiritual_a	temporal_a	2,514	5	9.1751	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69685	The Case of the Earl of Argyle, or, An Exact and full account of his trial, escape, and sentence wherein are insert the act of Parliament injoining the test, the confession of faith, the old act of the king's oath to be given at his coronation : with several other old acts, made for establishing the Protestant religion : as also several explications made of the test by the conformed clergy : with the secret councils explanation thereof : together with several papers of objections against the test, all framed and emitted by conformists : with the Bishop of Edinburgh's Vindication of the test, in answer thereunto : as likewise a relation of several matters of fact for better clearing of the said case : whereunto is added an appendix in answer to a late pamphlet called A vindication of His Majestie's government and judicatories in Scotland, especially with relation to the Earl of Argyle's process, in so far as concerns the Earl's trial.	Stewart, James, Sir, 1635-1713.; Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691. Vindication of His Majesties government, and judicatories in Scotland.	1683 (1683)	Wing C1066; ESTC R15874	208,604	158

whatsoever were throughly convinced of the doctrine and duty of their obedience to the Supreme Powers otherways as they grow popular they become dangerous Sacerdoces eo quidem sunt ingenio ut ni pareant territent St. Chrysostom comments excellently on Rom. 13 v. 1. 2. Let every soul be subject saying whether he be an Apostle or Evangelist a Prophet c. let him be subject to the higher Powers Our blessed Saviour and the Apostles were the most eminent Ecclesiastical persons yet did not think themselves exempted from the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Civil Powers and if the 24th Article of the Confession of Faith mentioned in the Test be considered it will be found to grant as much to the Civil Magistrate as here is asserted and yeelded Yet all this power belonging to the supreme Magistrate over religious persons and matters doth not interfer with nor suppress the intrinsik and essential Power and Authority of the Church for the Church's power is internal and spiritual and the power of the supreme Magistrate is external coercive and temporal which when duely weighed in a just balance will be found not only to be poised of just different kinds and natures but so far from interfering with or destroying one another that if duely and rightly managed they do mutually assist and support each other Beside the sense of the Oath of Supremacy asserted in a Speech delivered by B. James Usher then Bishop of Meath and afterwards Primate of Ireland at Dublin Novemb. 22. 1622. for which he received the thinks of King James the sixth the Solomon of his Age by a Letter from His Majesty dated the 11. day of January 1623. is so clear and plain that it leaves no place for any manner of scruple concerning the intrinsick power of the Church as if it were invaded and incroached upon by the foresaid Oath where it is said That the Kings Supremacy reacheth the outward man only but the spiritual and intrinsick power of the Church reacheth to the inward this binding or loosing the soul that laying hold only on the body and things belonging thereto Yea there is an Act of the Parliament of England 13. Eliz. declaring That by the supreme Government given to the Prince is understood that kind of Government only which is exercised with the Civil Sword So that there is nothing can be more evident than that by the Kings Supremacy as asserted by the Act November 16. 1669. no incroachment or invasion is made upon the spiritual intrinsick power of the Church Besides by the very express words of that assertory Act No more is declared to belong to the King save the ordering and disposal of the external Government and Policy of the Church And again The administration of the external Government of the Church where not a syllable can be found touching upon the internal spiritual and essential power and iurisdiction thereof And as to the word matters contained in that Act the Kings emitting Orders concerning religious matters as well as persons it needs stumble no thinking person as if our Religion were thereby exposed to dangers at the pleasure of the Prince if we consider the following words viz. Matters to be proposed and determined in Ecclesiastical Meetings or Assemblies which reserves the power of determining matters of Religion still in the hands of that Meeting or Assembly So that tho the King may by vertue of his RoyalSupremacy propose any matter of Religion to a National As● Yet it is not to pass unto an act till first it be determined by the deliberate and free consent vote and suffrage of the major part of that Ecclesiastical Meeting And now let the Impartial Judg if any so great security for the true Protestant Religion can be devised as to have all Bishops Ministers and Members of a National Synod to whom the determining of matters of Religion by Law belongs solemnly sworn and bound by this Oath and Test to adhere to the same Protestant Religion all the days of their lives and never to consent to any alteration or change thereof As for the other Objection of these who think that by this assertory Act 1669. there is a power declared to be vested in the King to alter and change the Established Episcopal Government of this National Church which these who believe Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and Apostolical Institution and by consequence unalterable by any humane Authority can never swear to belong to the Crown as an Inherent Right and Prerogative thereof For answer Tho this point of the Divine Right of Episcopacy is tenderly to be touched the Phrase of Jus Divinum being in terms subject to misconstruction yet it must be acknowledged that no form of Church Government was ever yet modelled or set up which hath not claimed to a Jus Divinum as well as Episcopacy tho every one of them with far more noise but with far less reason than this hath done For the Papists ground the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs Commands to St. Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Soveraign Princes as well as others to submit to him as to their Universal Pastor The Presbyterians cry up their model of Government tho of a very late Edition as the very Scepter of Christs Kingdom to which all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it also unalterable and as inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments The Independents assert that any single Confederate Congregation is Jure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such Rules as shall be consented to by its Members without dependance from any except Jesus Christ alone or subjection to any Prince Bishop or any other Person or Consistory whatsoever So that all these other flatly deny the Kings Supremacy and claim a Power and Jurisdiction over him The Presbyterians agreeing with the Papists in this branch of Antichristianism and claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute Jurisdiction over Princes even to the highest censure by Excommunication as the Romanists challenge to belong to the Pope or pleading at least a priviledg of exemption from the Kings Authority and Jurisdiction The Independents exempting their Congregations from all Ecclesiastical subjection to Christian Kings in asample manner as ther Papists do their Clergy whereas the Protestant Bishop and regular Ministers as becometh good Christians and dutiful Subjects do neither pretend to any Jurisdiction over the King nor withdraw their Subjection from him but humbly acknowledg His Majesty to have Soveraign Power over them as well as over his other Subjects and that in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal But for a more closse Answer to this Objection They who believe the Indifferency of the forms and models of Church-Goverment cannot have any scruple on this Head in regard of the present Church-Government For should it be changed by Authority then are they not obliged by this Oath any longer

or culpam as of old but durante beneplacito And 4ly Are not such as were most forward and active in the Earl's comdemnation proportionally rewarded And as for the Earl's Jurors or Assizers you have heard a full account of them in the Narrative 2ly Our Author tells us That the King and his Ministers were under no tentation against the Earl That there was no design against his life That His Royal Highness albeit informed of an escape intended yet gave express order not to keep him strictly even after he was found guilty As also His Highness ordered that Advocates should be prest to appear for him And in fine that the Earl was very discreetly and respectfully used And. 1. As to His Majesty He is indeed most freely assoiled of all either inclination or tentation in this matter except that of importunity But 2ly For His Ministers the contrivers and actors their tentations may be guessed at by what is said in the Narrative And if they also had none it only sayes that they run without driving and are the lesse excusable 3ly How forward His Highness and the Council were to press Advocates in the Earl's cause and to grant his Petitions though founded on clear Acts of Parliament how false it is that his Royal Highness had any information of the Earl's intention to escape and notwithstanding ordered that he should not be strictly keept and whether or not there was a design to take the Earl's life you have already and I hope plainly and satisfyingly seen in the Narrative But pray remark the solly of this self-condemned reasoning For. 1. If the Earl was truly guilty of these worst of crimes Leasing-making Depraving and Treason why should he not have died And if he was not guilty what wickedness was it to give Sentence against both his Life and Fortune and since by disposing on his whole estate to execut it as far as possible And 2ly Is it not a pleasant conceit to imprison arraign for Treason and find guilty and crave leave to Sentence a Person of the Earl's quality And then to take away all his Estate and yet to tell the world there was no design against his Life Solomon sayes As a Mad man who casteth firebrands arrows and death so is the man that deceiveth much more condemneth his nighbour and saith am not I in sport And Machiavel whose Politiks may be with some are in more request then Solomons Proverbs taxeth it as no less impolitik to take away a man's Estate and yet spare his Life And yet notwithstanding ou● wiser and more politik Author will have us to believe neither But 4ly Yet the Earl was very respectfully used And this must go far from such hands And was he not indeed so when he was 1. Summarly imprisoned without Bale or Mainprise 2ly Arraigned before the Justice-Court and not reserved to the Parliament as is usual for Persons of his rank especially the Parliament being then current and its next Session near approaching 3ly Refused access to or opportunity to speak with His Royal Highness though it was often and much desired And 4●ly When by the Sentence his Blood was tainted his Posterity disabled and his Escucheon and Arms thereafter torn and ranversed as if he had been the worst of traitors I grant it was observed that the debate in the Process was managed on both hands with a more then ordinary coolness but as something must be imputed on the one part to His Majesties Advocat's secret conviction of these strange impertinencies whereunto the discharge of his Office obliged him and on the other hand to the Earl's Advocates their perswasion that his words were so innocent that hardly any thing could be said that was not equally criminal so it is certain that the main cause was that both the one and the other knew that the design was laid and the issue inevitable Thirdly This Vindicator sayes That the Earl's Jurisdictions and Estate could be no tentation for the late Advocate had given such reasons against his Right to these Iurisdictions and Superiorities as could not be answered and that the King got nothing for his Royal Highness procured more of it to his children then belonged to the Family debts being payed And the remainder was given among the Creditors and the tithes returned to the Church But. I. Our Author goes on still to disown tentations which can signify nothing save to confirm more and more that the Earl was overthrown and ruined by pure Mal●ce For if there was no tentation either against his Person or Estate and yet notwithstanding of his innocence which all men see the former be subjected to a Sentence of death and the later quite taken from him must not this strange severity proceed from a very extraordinary good Nature 2ly Our Author disowns any design against the Earl's life But affirms That there are reasons unanswerable against his Iurisdictions and Estate And yet instead of making use of these reasons civily to take away his Jurisdictions and Estate his life is criminally and principally persued How are these things consistent But that which is crooked cannot be made straight 3ly It is false that ever the late Advocate or any other represented any reasons far less unanswerable ones against the Earl's Rights either to his Estate or Superiorities And the whole truth in this matter is that he did indeed offer some reasons to the Exchequer against the Earl's Right to his Jurisdictions but which at the same time were so evidently refelled by shewing that the Earl's Rights were long anterior and no way touched by all the Acts of Parliament whereon he founded that His Majesty after full information did first by his Letter a copy whereof ye will find subjoyned expressly order the passing and confirming of the Earl's Rights and then give a special Instruction unto his Commissioner to ratify it in plene Parliament which was also done And what the present Advocate did in the last Parliament and how it succeeded with what else may be needful for clearing of this point you have already in the Narrative 4ly Our Author first confounds the Earl's Estate and his Superiorities as if one and the same thing Whereas a man's Estate includs also his Property But the Second mistake and the greater cheat is because the word Superiority sounds more of power then the word Property doth therefore the Earl's enemies do in his case constantly joyn his Jurisdictions and Superiorities as if both of the same nature and equally amissable for not taking the Test or any the like cause And hereby have they so far impressed His Majesty as to cause him also speak at the same rate Whereas it is an uncontestable truth that a Superiority in its Right and as to the person that enjoyes it is plainly Property and is only called Superiority because the Owner by granting according to the use of the Feudal Law a Subaltern Right to a Vassal holding or releving of himself for certain Services