Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	appear_v	church_n	scripture_n	2,645	5	6.2134	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50542	Jus regium, or, The just, and solid foundations of monarchy in general, and more especially of the monarchy of Scotland : maintain'd against Buchannan, Naphthali, Dolman, Milton, &c. / by Sir George Mackenzie ...	Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691.; Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691. That the lawful successor cannot be debarr'd from succeeding to the crown.	1684 (1684)	Wing M162; ESTC R39087	83,008	208

that the Fanaticks who think that every throw of the Dice is influenc'd by a special Providence will not allow that God does by a special Providence take care who shall be his Representative who shall be the Pastor of his Flock and nursing Father of his Church let us therefore trust his Care more than our own and hope to obtain more from him by Christian Submission Humility and Obedience than we can by Caballing Rebelling and Sacrilegious-Murdering or Excluding the true Successor FINIS What follows is immediatly to be subjony'd to the Testimony of Calvin Page 90. I Know that to this it may be answered That the same Calvin does qualifie his own words which I have cited with this following Caution Si qui sunt saith he populares Magistratus ad moderandam Regum libidinem constituti quales olim erant qui Lacedemoniis regibus oppositi erant ephori quâ etiam fortè potestate ut nunc res habent fuguntur in singulis regnis tres ordines quum primarios conventus peragunt adeo illos ferocienti Regum licentiae pro officio intercedere non veto ut si Regibus impotenter grassantibus humili plebeculae insultantibus conniveant eorum dissimulationem nefariâ perfidiâ non carere affirmam quia populi libertatem cujus se tutores Dei ordinatione positos nôrunt fraudulenter produnt To which my reply is That these words must be so constructed as that they may not be incosistent with his former clear and Orthodox Doctrine of not resisting Supream Powers the former being his positive Doctrine and this but a supervenient Caution and they do very well consist for though Calvin be very clear that Kings cannot be resisted yet he thinks that this is only to be mean'd of those Kings who have no Superiors to check them by Law as the Kings of the Lacedemonians had who by the fundamental Constitution of their Monarchy might have been call'd to an accompt by the Ephori and so in effect were only Titular Kings Or of such Monarchs as had only a co-ordinate Power with the States of their own Kingdom and even in these Cases he does not positively assert that these Monarchs may be resisted but does only doubt whether if there be any such Superior or co-ordinate Magistrate representing the People they may not restrain the Rage and Licentiousness of their Kings But that Caution does not at all concern the Ius Regni apud Scotos because this cannot be said of the Kings of Great Britain since the States of Parliament are only call'd by the King and derive their Authority from him and the Legislative Power is solely in the King the States of Parliament being only Consenters he and not they can only make Peace and War and grant Remissions and against him and not them Treason only is committed and the Law Books of both Nations do affirm that the King is Supream and consequently even according to Calvin's Doctrine neither his People nor any of their Representatives can justly oppose and much less punish him I know that Grotius is by the Republicans and the Fanaticks oft-times cited to defend this their Doctrine of opposing Princes but though his Testimony might be justly rejected as being himself born under a Commonwealth yet he is most impudently cited for he lib. 1. cap. 4. does positively lay down as a general and undoubted Rule that Summum imperium tenentibus resisti non potest Those who have the Supream Power cannot lawfully be resisted whilch Rule he founds upon the Principles of Reason the Authority of Scripture and the Practice of the Primitive Church and though he limits the same thereafter by some exceptions yet it will easily appear that these exceptions extend not at all to our Case For the first relates only to such Kings as have receiv'd their Power with express condition that they may be try'd by other Magistrats The second to such as have voluntarily resign'd their Empire as Charles the 5 th did and so the one may be oppos'd because they were only Titular Kings and the other because they left off to be Kings and consequently we are concerned in neither of these Cases The third limitation is only in the Case where he who was truly a King has alienated his Kingdom to Strangers In which Case Grotius does contend that Subjects may refuse to obey because he ceaseth to be their King But as this is not our Case so even in that Case Grotius is very clear that if this alienation be made by an Hereditary Monarch the alienation is null as being done in prejudice of the lawful Successor but he does not at all assert that the Monarch may be thereupon depos'd by his People The fourth relates only to such Kings as from a hatred to their Countrey design its Destruction and utter Ruine but as he confesseth himself Id vix accidere potest in Rege mentis compote and consequently can take only place in a mad Man in which Case all Laws allow the Kingdom to be rul'd by Governours and Administrators in the King's Name if the Madness be Natural and a total depravation of Sense But if by Madness be mean'd a moral Madness and design to ruine the Kingdom and the Subjects as was and is most impiously pretended against King CHARLES the first and King CHARLES the 2 d the best and most reasonable of Kings then Opposition in such Cases is not at all warranted by Grotius who speaks only of a Physical and Natural Madness for else every thing that displeaseth the People should be call'd Madness and so the exception should not limit but overturn the general rule and should arm all Subjects to rebel against their Princes and make them the Soveraign Judges in all Cases Which is inconsistent with Grotius's own Doctrine and is excellently refuted by his own Reasons The fifth relates only to Kings who by the fundamental Laws of the Kingdom are ty'd to such and such Conditions so as that if they fall in them they may be oppos'd The sixth relates only to Kingdoms where the Power is equally devided betwixt the King and the Senate The seventh is incase the King was at first invested by the People with express reservation to them to resist in such and such Cases and so is almost the same with the fifth and all these three differ little from the first And with Grotius good leave they err also in this that they are not properly exceptions from his own rule for the rule being only that Supream Powers cannot be resisted these Powers are not Supream and they needed not be caution'd by an exception since they did not fall under the rule But neither of these Cases extend to us since our King is by the Acts of Parliament fomerly cited declared to be Supream over all Persons and in all Causes nor made our Predecessors any such express reservations at the first erection of the Monarchy and consequently by Grotius own positive

of St. Ambrose who being commanded to deliver up his Church to the Arians sayes Volens nunquam deferâm coactus repugnare non novi dolere potero flere potero gem●re potero adversus arma milites Gothos Lachrymae me● mea arma sunt talia enim sunt munimenta sacerdotis aliter nec debeo nec possum resistere Which Prayers and Tears are likewise call'd the only Arms of the Church by the great Nazianz in his first Oration against Iulian and by St. Bernard in his 221. Epistle But more of this is to be found Tom. 2. Concil Galliae pag. 533. Where it is fully prov'd that all Subjects ought humbly and faithfully to obey the Regal Power as being ordained by none but God with whom the wise Heathens agree for Marcellus Tacit. lib. 4. hist. pray'd for good Princes but obey'd bad ones and Plinij in his Panegirick to Trojan confesses that the gods had bestow'd on the Emperor the sole disposal of all things leaving nothing to Subjects save the honour of obedience But because these of that perswasion will believe better Calvin than the Fathers I have taken pains to consider in him these few passages cap. 20. lib 4. Institut § 27. Assumptum in Regiam Maj●statem violare nefas est nunquam nobis seditiosae istae cogitationes in mentem veniant tractandum esse pro meritis Regem § 29. Personam sustinent voluntale Domini cui inviolabile in Majestatem ipso impressit insculpsit § 31. Privatis hominibus nullum aliud quam parendi patiendi datum est mandatum And all this Chapter doth so learnedly and judicially impugn this Doctrine that it is a wonder why Calvinists should differ from Calvin The Examples adduced by our Republicans of the revolt of Libra 2 Chron. 1.21 And from Ieroboam because he had forsaken the Lord God of his Fathers and of the Ten Tribes from Rehoboam because of Rehoboam his oppression 1 King 12. prove not all the lawfulness of the Subjects defection from their Kings because these defections are only narrated but not allow●d in Scripture and are recorded rather as instances of Gods vengeance upon the wickedness of these Princes than as examples justified in these Revolters and to be follow'd by such as read the Sacred History In which when Examples are propos'd by the Spirit of God for our imitation they are still honour'd with the Divine approbation And I hope my Readers will still remember that I design not by this Treatise to encourage Princes to wickedness by Impunity but only to discourage Subjects from daring to be the punishers The great esteem which the great Bishop Vsher has justly even among Republicans and Phanaticks for Learning and Devotion has prevail'd with me to set down two Objections used by him with his pious Answers thereto The first is Suppose say they the King or Civil Magistrate should command us to Worship the Devil would you wish us here to lay down our Heads upon the Block and not to repel the violence of such a Miscreant to the outmost of our power And if not what would become of Gods Church and his Religion To which the Holy Man Answers That even when the Worship of the Devil was commanded by the cruel Edicts of persecuting Emperours the Christians never took up Arms against them but used fervent Prayers as their only refuge And St. Peter animats them to this patient suffering 1 Pet. 4.12 13. Beloved think it not strange concerning the fiery trial but rejoice in as much as ye are partakers of Christs sufferings But let none of you suffer as a murtherer or a thief or as an evil-doer or as a busie body in other mens matters By which last words if I durst add to so great an Author as B. Vsher the Apostle seems expresly to me to have obviated the dreadful Doctrine of rising in Arms upon the pretext of Religion and the killing such as differ from them which if the Christians did allow they behov'd to pass for Murtherers and to discharge them to meddle in matters of Government upon this pretext because then they behov'd to suffer justly as busie bodies And here B. Vsher does most appositly cite St. Augustine in Psal. 149. The World rag'd the Lion lifted himself up against the Lamb but the Lamb was full stronger than the Lion The Lion was overcome by shewing cruelty the Lamb did overcome by suffering And St. Ierome Epist. 62. By shedding of blood and by suffering rather then doing injuries was the Church of Christ at first founded it grew by Persecutions and was crowned by Martyrdoms The second Objection is If mens hands be thus ty'd no mans estate can be secure nay the whole frame of the Common-wealth would be in danger to be subverted and utterly ruin'd To which he answers that the ground of this Objection is exceeding faulty and inconsistent with the Rules of Humanity and Divinity of Humanity because this would impower privat persons to Judge and so should confound all Order and invite all men to oppose Authority and make Subjects Accusers Judges and Executioners too and that in their own Cause against their own Soveraign and against Divinity because it is contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers who command Submission Humility and Patience Rex est si nocentem punit cede justitiae si innocentem cede fortunae Seneca de Iura lib. 2. cap. 30. If the King punish thee when thou art guilty submit to Justice If when thou art innocent submit to Fortune And if a Heathen could be induced by his vertue to submit to blind Fortune how much more ought a Christian to be prevail'd upon by Devotion to submit to the All-seeing Providence of the most wise God who maketh all things to work joyntly for good to them that love him And as St. Augustine piously adviseth Princes are to be suffered by their People that in the exercise of their patience temporal things may be born and external hop'd for The instance of King Iames the Third being punished by his Subjects is so far from being an Argument able to justifie Subjects rising in Arms against their King that this part of our History should for ever convince all honest men of the dangers that attend Defensive Arms For this excellent Prince was so far from being one of these Tyrants against whom Defensive Arms are only confest to be just that few Princes were more meek and careful of his Subjects But because he imploy'd such as himself had rais'd finding that the Nobility had too often been insolent Servants to their Prince and severe Task-masters to the People the Nobility thinking more upon this imaginary neglect than their own duty did from Combinations proceed to Arms and rejecting all conditions of peace they were at last curs'd with a Victory in which this Gentle Prince was murthered whilst he sought to save his Sacred life in a deserted Miln By which we may see that these Defensive Arms so much hallowed in