Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	believe_v	church_n	father_n	2,359	5	5.4153	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86302	Respondet Petrus: or, The answer of Peter Heylyn D.D. to so much of Dr. Bernard's book entituled, The judgement of the late Primate of Ireland, &c. as he is made a party to by the said Lord Primate in the point of the Sabbath, and by the said doctor in some others. To which is added an appendix in answer to certain passages in Mr Sandersons History of the life and reign of K· Charles, relating to the Lord Primate, the articles of Ireland, and the Earl of Strafford, in which the respondent is concerned.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.	1658 (1658)	Wing H1732; Thomason E938_4; Thomason E938_5; ESTC R6988	109,756	140

Supper and are taken eaten and drank by them which though it be onely in an Heavenly and Spiritual manner yet are they both given and taken truly and really or in very deed by Gods faithful people By which it seems that it is agreed on on both sides that is to say the Church of England and the Church of Rome that there is a true and real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist the disagreement being onely in the modus Praesentiae But on the contrary the Lord Primate in his Answer to the Jesuits challenge hath written one whole Chapter against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament In which though he would seem to aim at the Church of Rome though by that Church not onely the reall presence of Christ in the Sacrament but the corporal eating of his body is maintained and taught yet doth he strike obliquely and on the by on the Church of England All that he doth allow concerning the real presence is no more then this viz. That in the receiving of the blessed Sacrament we are to distinguish between the outward and th● inward Action of the Communicant In the outward wi●● our bodily mouth we receive really the visible elements of Bread and Wine in the inward we do by faith really receive the Body and Blood of our Lord that is to say we are truely and indeed made partakers of Christ crucified to the spiritual strengthning of our inward man Which is no more then any Calvinist in the pack which either do not understand or wilfully oppose the Doctrines of the Church of England will stick to say 5. The Church of England teacheth that the Priest hath power to forgive sins as may be easily proved by three several Arguments not very easie to be answered The first is from those solemn words used in the Ordination of the Priest or Presbyter that is to say Receive the Holy Ghost whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven and whose sins ye retain they are retained Which were a gross prophanation of the words of our Lord and Saviour and a meer mockery of the Priest if no such power were given unto him as is there affirmed The second Argument is taken from one of the Exhortations before the Communion where we find it thus viz. And because it is requisite that no man should come to the holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods mercy and with a quiet conscience therefore if there be any of you which by the means aforesaid cannot quiet his own Conscience but requireth further comfort or counsel then let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned Minister of Gods word and open his grief that he may receive such ghostly counsel advice and comfort as his conscience may be relieved and that by the Ministry of Gods word he may receive comfort and the benefit of absolution to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness The third and most material proof we have in the form prescribed for the visitation of the sick In which it is required that after the sick person hath made a confession of his faith and profest himselfe to be in charity with all men he shall then make a special confession if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter And then it followeth that after such confession the Minister shall absolve him in this manner viz. Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truly repent and believe in him of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences and by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost Amen Of the first of these three places deduced all of them from the best Monuments and Records of the Church of England the Lord Primate takes notice in his Answer to the Jesuites challenge p. 109. where he treatech purposely of the Priests power to forgive sins but gives us such a gloss upon it as utterly subverts as well the Doctrine of this Church in that particular as her purpose in it and of the second he takes notice p. 81. where he speaks purposely of Confession but gives us such a gloss upon that also as he did on the other But of the third which is more positive and material then the other two he is not pleased to take any notice at all as if no such Doctrine were either taught by the Church of England or no such power had been ever exercised by the Ministers of it For in the canvassing of this point he declares sometimes that the Priest doth forgive sins onely declarative by the way of declaration only when on the consideration of the true Faith and sincere Repentance of the party penitent he doth declare unto him in the name of God that his sins are pardoned and sometimes that the Priest forgives sins only optativè by the way of prayers and intercession when on the like consideration he makes his prayers unto God that the sins of the penitent may be pardoned Neither of which comes up unto the Doctrine of the Church of England which holdeth that the Priest forgiveth sins authoritativè by vertue of a power committed to him by our Lord and Saviour That the supreme power of forgiving sins is in God alone against whose Divine Majesty all sins of what sort soever may be truly said to be committed was never questioned by any which pretended to the Christian faith The power which is given to the Priest is but a delegated gower such as is exercised by Judges under Soveraign Princes where they are not tied unto the Verdict of twelve men as with us in England who by the power committed to them in their several Circuits and Divisions do actually absolve the party which is brought before them if on good proof they find him innocent of the crimes which he stands accused for and so discharge him of his Irons And such a power as this I say is both given to and exercised by the Priests or Presbyters in the Church of England For if they did forgive sins onely Declarativè that form of Absolution which follows the general Confession in the beginning of the Common-prayer-Book would have been sufficient that is to say Almighty God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which desireth not the death of a sinner but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live and hath given power and commandment to his Ministers to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent the absolution and remission of their sins and pardoneth and absolveth all them which truly repent and unfainedly believe his holy Gospel Or if he did forgive sins onely Optativè in the way of prayers and intercession there could not be a better way of Absolution then that which is prescribed to be used by the Priest or Bishop after the general confession made by such

as are to receive the Communion viz. Almighty God our Heavenly Father who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them which with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him have mercy upon you pardon and deliver you from all your sins and confirm and strengthen you in all goodness and bring you to everlasting life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen Or else the first clause in the form of Absolution used at the visitation of the sick would have served the turn that is to say Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to his Church to absolve all sinners which truely repent and believe in him of his great mercy forgive thee thine offences And there could be no reason at all imaginable why the next clause should be superadded to this prayer viz. And by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from all thy sins c. if the Priest did not forgive sins Authoritativè by such a delegated and commissionated power as before we spake of And that this is the Doctrine and intent of the Church of England appears by the acknowledgement of two learned men of the opposite faction For thus saith one of the great sticklers for the Church of Rome viz. Hereunto is also pertinent the Doctrine of those Protestants who hold that Priests have power not onely to pronounce but to give remission of sins Yea it seemeth to be the Doctrine of the Communion-Book in the visitation of the sick where the Priest saith And by his Authority committed unto me I absolve thee from all thy sins Then which there could not come a clearer Testimony from the mouth of an Adversary And for the other side I will take Dr. Lewis Bayley afterwards Bishop of Bangor a man precise enough as to the perpetual morality of the Lords day Sabbath and Calvinist enough in some other Tenets of that rigid Sect And yet this man in his Book called the Practice of Piety not onely doth advise his sick Penitent to send in time for some godly Minister to whom he may unfold his griefs confess his sins that so he may receive the benefit of Absolution but tells him that then he should not doubt in foro conscientiae but that his sins be as verily forgiven on earth as if he did hear Christ himself in foro judicii pronouncing them to be forgiven in Heaven And this he doth exemplifie in Doctor Reynolds the ablest and most learned man of all that shewed themselves on the Puritan party who being on his death-bed did earnestly desire to receive the benefit of sacerdotal Absolution according to the form prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer and humbly received it at the hands of Dr. Holland the Kings Professor in Divinity in the University of Oxon for the time then being and when he was not able to express his joy thankfulness in the way of speech did most affectionatly kiss the hand that gave it and yet this Doctor had not only a chief hand in the Millenary Petition as they commonly called it presented to K. James at his first coming to this Crown wherein they excepted not only against the use but the very name of Absolution as being a forinsecal word which they desired to have corrected but managed the whole busines of it at Hampton Court And this he did with such fidelity and zeal that to give that party some contentment it was ordered in the Conference there that to the word Absolution in the Rubrick following the general confession these words Remission of sins should be added for explanation sake as it stil continueth so powerful an Orator is death as to perswade men in extremities of sickness to apply those remedies which in the times of health they neither thought lawful nor convenient to be used in such extremities 7. But to proceed in the Article of Christs descending into Hell the Church of England doth maintain a local descent that is to say That the Soul of Christ at such time as his body lay in the grave did locally descend into the nethermost parts in which the Devil and his Angels are reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great terrible day This proved at large by Bishop Bilson in his learned and laborious Work entituled The Survey of Christ's sufferings in which he hath amassed together whatsoever the Fathers Greek and Latine or any of the ancient Writers have affirmed of this Article with all the Points and Branches which depend upon it And that this was the meaning of the first Reformers when this Article amongst others was first agreed upon in the Convocation of the year 1552. appears by that passage of S. Peter which is cited by them touching Christs preaching to the Spirits which were in prison And though that passage be left out of the present Article according as it passed in the Convocation of the year 1562. yet cannot that be used as an Argument to prove that the Church hath altered her judgment in that Point as some men would have it that passage being left out for these reasons following For first that passage was conceived to make the Article too inclinable to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which makes the chief end of Christs descent into Hell to be the fetching thence the souls of the Fathers who died before and under the Law and secondly because it was conceived by some learned men that the Text was capable of some other construction than to be used for an argument of this Descent The judgment of the Church continueth still the same as before it was and is as plain and positive for a local descent as ever formerly She had not else left this Article in the same place in which She found it or given it the same distinct Title as before it had viz. De Descensu Christi ad Inferos in the Latine Copies of King Edward the Sixth that is to say Of the going down of Christ into Hell as in the English Copies of Queen Elizabeths Reign Nor indeed was there any reason why this Article should have any distinct place or Title at all unlesse the maintenance of a local Descent were intended by it For having spoken in the former Article of Christs Suffering Crucifying Death and Burial it had been a very great impertinency not to call it worse to make a distinct Article of his Descending into Hell if to Descend into Hell did signifie the same with this being buried as some men then fancied or that there were not in it some further meaning which might deserve a place distinct from his Death and Burial The Article speaking thus viz. As Christ died for us and was buried so is it to be believed that he went down into Hell is either to be understood of a local Descent or else we are tied to believe nothing by it but what was explicitely or implicitely comprehended in the former Article Now that this

onely that some time should be set apart for the worship of God of which we have so many evident examples in the Greeks and Romans that no man can make question of it but that in all the Acts of worship a man should totally abstract himself from all worldly thoughts which might divert him from the business he was then about Orantis est nihil nisi coelestia cogitare as we learned when School-boyes But that this time should rather be the seventh day then any other is not a part or branch of the Law of Nature never accounted so by the Ancient Writers nor reckoned so by some of those of note and eminency who otherwise are great friends to the Lords day Sabbath Certain I am that Theodoret doth not so account it who telleth us that the observation of the Sabbath came not in by nature but by Moses ' s Law Sabbati observandi non natura magistra sed latio legis which is short but full Nor is it so accounted by Sedulius another of the ancient Writers who ranks it amongst the legal ceremonies not amongst those things quae legi naturali congruunt which are directed meerly by the Law of Nature nor by Damascen amongst the Greeks who doth assure us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say that when there was no Law enacted no● no Scripture inspired by God that then there was no Sabbath neither nor finally by our venerable Beda who lived about the same time with Damascen and was of the same judgement with him in this particular for he assures us That to the Fathers before the Law all dayes were equal the seventh day having no prerogative before the others which he calls naturalis Sabbati libertatem the liberty of the natural Sabbath and by that liberty if I rightly understand his meaning men were no more restrained to one day then unto another no more unto the seventh then the fourth or eighth Tostatus to the same effect for the middle times who telleth us That howsoever the Hebrew people or any other before the giving of the Law were bound to set a part some time for religious duties Non tamen magis in Sabbato quàm in quolibet aliorum dierum yet were they no more bound to the Sabbath day then to any other For this last age though I could help my selfe by many good Authors yet I shall rest content with two that is to say the Lord Primate himselfe and Doctor Ryvet before named who build the institution of the Sabbath on a positive Law and not upon the Law of Nature And therefore if the instituting of the Sabbath in the first beginning be in effect to make it all one with the Law of Nature as was inferred from Dr. Prideaux and Tostatus it must needs follow thereupon that the Sabbath not being lookt on as a part of the Law of Nature could not be instituted as the Lord Primate saies it was in the first beginning SECT III. The sanctifying of the Sabbath in the first beginning imports a Commandment given to Adam for the keeping of it No such Commandment given to Adam in his own personal capacity nor as the common root of mankind The Patriarchs before the flood did not keep the Sabbath The Sabbath not observed by the Patriarchs of the line of Sem nor by the Israelites in Egypt That the Commandment of the Sabbath was peculiar onely to the Jewes proved by the testimony of the Fathers and the Jewes themselves That the seventh day of every week was not kept holy by the Gentiles affirmed by some of their own best Authors and some late Divines The Jewes derided by the Gentiles for their seventh day Sabbath The Lord Primates Antithesis viz. that the seventh day was more honoured by the Gentiles then the other six not proved by any ancient Author either Greek or Latine The three Greek Poets whom he cites do not serve his turn and how they came to know that the Creation of the World was finished in seven dayes which is all they say The passage of Tertullian in his Tract Ad Nationes as little to his purpose as the three Greek Poets The meaning of that Author in his Apologeticum cap. 16. not rightly understood by the Lord Primate whose Arguments from Tibullus Lucian and Lampridius conclude as little as the rest The observation of the Sabbath and other Jewish Ceremonies taken up by the later Gentiles not upon any old Tradition but by Imitation The custome of the Romans in incorporating all Religions into their own and the reason of it BUt there is one Conclusion more which follows on the instituting of the Sabbath in the first beginning and is like to afford us more work then the other did For if it be all one to bless and sanctifie the seventh day in the beginning of the World as to impose it then on Adam to be kept and sanctified as some say it is it may be very well concluded that if no such commandment was then given to Adam the Sabbath was not blessed and sanctified in the first beginning Nor can it stand with Piety Reason that it should be otherwise For to suppose that God did set apart and sanctifie the seventh day for a day of worship and yet that no Commandment should be given for the keeping of it what is it but to call in question the most infinite wisedom of Almighty God which never did any thing in vain unless perhaps we may conceive with Tornelius that the Angels solemnized this first Sabbath with joyful shouts and acclamations as he gathereth from Iob 38. 4 6. Or that the WORD the second person in the Syntax of the blessed Trinity did take our humane shape upon him and came down to Adam and spent the whole day with him in spiritual exercises as is affirmed by Zanchius with an ego non dubito as a matter which no man need make doubt of but he that listed For if any such Commandment was given to Adam it must be either given him in his own personal capacity or as he was the common root of all mankind which was then virtually in his loyns as Levi is said by the Apostle to have paid Tithes unto Melchisedeck because he was then virtually in the Loyns of his Father Abraham when those Tithes were paid But no such precept or command was given to Adam in his own personal capacity for then the Sabbath must have died and been buried in the same grave with him nor was it given to him as the common root of all mankind for then all the Nations of the World had been bound to keep it the contrary whereof we shall see anon In the mean time let us take with us the Authority of the Ancient Writers by some of which it is affirmed that no commandment was given by God to our Father Adam but that he should abstain from eating of the fruit of the Tree

several Greek Editions above mentioned and finding them so well backt and countenanced by those holy Fathers which succeeded in their several times need not be troubled at the starting out of an old Latine Manuscript so different from the Greek Editions as it seems to be nor to recede from any thing which he hath cited out of those Editions because the Lord Primate findes it not in his Latine Manuscript The passage of Ignatius Ad Magnesianos cited by the Historian being justified by so many good Authors all living and writing except Socrates onely in the four first Centuries we must next see what the Lord Primate hath to object against it or any thing therein delivered or rather to confirm his correction of it out of the old Latine Copy in the Library of Caius Colledge The old Latine Copy hath it thus Non amplius Sabbatizantes sed secundum Dominicam viventes in qua vita nostra orta est And this he thinks to be a sufficient Argument to prove that the Lords day was observed as a weekly holy day by the Christians in the room of the abrogated Sabbath of the Jewes p. 93. Though no such thing can be collected either as to the weekly celebrating of the Lords day or the abrogating of the Jewish Sabbath from his Authors words But then as well to justifie the reading of this old Latine Copy as to refel that which the Historian had observed from the Greek Editions he gives us two Authorities and no more but two The first is the Authority of the Fathers in the Council of Laodicea touching the time whereof whether he or the Lord Bishop of Ely be in the right we dispute not now By whom it was declared quod non oportet Christianos Judaizare in Sabbat o otiari sed ipsos eo die operari diem autem Dominicam praeferentes otiari si modo possint ut christianos p. 98. But unto this it may be answered that this Canon it is the 29 in number relates not to the meetings of the Christians on the Sabbath or Saturday for Gods publick service but to the usage of some men who did seem to Judaize upon it by giving themselves to ease and idleness and to rest from labour when the service of the day was ended And that the Canon meant no more then to reprove such men as observed the Saturday or Sabbath after the manner of the Jewes and to take order for the conttary in the time to come appears most evidently by the great care they took touching the solemnizing of that day and the Divine Offices to be done upon it declared in three several Canons the summe whereof we have seen already in this Section So that this first part of that Canon aimed at no other end but by ordaining that the people should work on the Sabbath or Saturday suppose it still after the publick service of the day was ended thereby to distinguish them from the Jewes who would not work at all upon it And then that this distinction between them and the Jewes might appear more evidently it was ordered in the later part of that Canon that preferring the Lords day before it they should as Christians rest from labour on that day if their occasions would permit them For if we mark it as we should we shall not find that the Fathers absolutely prescribed any such cessation from all or any work for which purpose it is chiefly cited but onely with a si modo possint if neither Masters Parents or other Superiors should command them otherwise or that the conveniency of their own affairs or the doing of good offices to their neighbour did not occasion them to dispose of it or some part thereof on some bodily labour The Canon must be thus expounded or else it must run cross to those which before were mentioned which were ridiculous to imagine in so grave a meeting The next Authority is taken from Gregory the Great who telleth us that it is the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist qui veniens diem Dominicum Sabbatum ab omni opere faeciet custodiri who at his coming shall cause both the Lords day and the Sabbath to be kept or celebrated without doing any manner of work A passage very strangely cited and such as I conceive the Lord Primate will neither stand to nor be ruled by upon second thoughts For if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work is to be done upon the Saturday or Sabbath it is the Doctrine of the same Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work be done on the Lords day neither And if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist that no manner of work should be done on the Lords day what will become of all our English Sabbatarians and their Abetrers who impose as many restraints of this kind upon Christian people as ever were imposed on the Jewes by the Scribes and Pharisees What will become of those who framed the Articles of Ireland or have since subscribed them or preacht or writ according to the tenour of them in one of which it is decreed that the first day of the week which is the Lords day is wholly to be dedicated to the service of God and that therefore we are bound therein to rest from all common and daily business The Lord Primate did not well consider of these inconveniencies when he brought in Gregory the Great to bear witness for him And in that want of consideration he falls on Doctor Francis White Lord Bishop of Ely a right learned man for rendring Pope Gregories words by a strange kind of mistake in turning this word and the Copulative into or the Disjunctive But possibly this may be a fault of the Printers or a slip of the Pen without any purpose or design of altering the least word or true intention of that Father And secondly whether it be rendered by the Copulative and or the Disjunctive or is not much material for if it be the Doctrine of the Preachers of Antichrist to teach men to abstain from all manner of work both on the Saturday and the Sunday it is no doubt the Doctrine of the same preachers of Antichrist to teach men to abstaine from all manner of work upon the Saturday or the Sunday So that the Lord Primate might have spared that exception against a man of his own order and of so great Abilities in the Schools of Learning but he held a contrary opinion to the Sabbatarians and therefore was to fare no better then the Author of the History had fared before him And herein the Lord Primate seems to be of the same mind with the famous Orator who held it very just and equitable ut qui in eadem causa sint in eadem item essent fortuna And so much for that SECT VII The Historian charged for crossing with the Doctrine of the Church of England and in what particulars