Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	call_v	church_n	rome_n	3,348	5	6.7274	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49524	The reformed Presbyterian, humbly offering to the consideration of all pious and peaceable spirits several arguments for obedience to the act for unifromity, as the way to vnity and endeavouring to demonstrate by clear inferences from the sacred scriptures, the writings of some of the ancients, or several old pastors of the reformed churches abroad, and of the most eminent old non-conformists amongst ourselves : as Mr. Josias Nichols, Mr. Paul Baines, and other learned divines : as for Mr. Perkins, Mr. Iohn Randal, and Mr. Rob. Bolton, that there is nothing required by the act for vniformity that is forbidden by the law of God / by Rich. Lytler ...	Lytler, Richard.	1662 (1662)	Wing L3573; ESTC R1525	139,662	290

good but is a sin also most of these things having no warrant from Gods Word but are additions to the same forbidden Deut. 12.32 Sect. 25. We fear also to subscribe the 39. Articles as they refer to these Books aforesaid for the very same reason And we fear that we being ordained by Bishops we should receive an Ordination from the limbs of Antichrist and renounce the Ordination we receive from the Presbyter and therefore this alters the case very much The Apostle Peter that you quote if you read a little further saith notwichstanding all you have alledged that If we suffer for righteousness-sake blessed are we Now to suffer rather then sin is to suffer for righteousness-sake and this is our case Sect. 26. Now therefore that I may according to what I have already declared as my End in this my unusual undertaking be instrumental in this hour of temptation that is upon many pious and good men whose books I am not worthy to carry after them I shall proceed to the examining of these Objections which I suppose are the chief which may be made against obedience to the Act of Uniformity And because that I do believe by what I find granted by the Author of the Five Disput. that many who may be satisfied as to the Common prayer Re-ordination and Cereminies yet are much perplexed about what is required concerning the Covenant I shall begin with that in the first place and take into consideration what the Act requireth of all that are in Holy Orders School-masters and Tutors to declare CHAP. VI. That to declare against the binding power of the Covenant according to the Declaration appointed by the Act for Vniformity is lawful both by the Law of God and of the Land Wherein the judgment of reverend Mr. Perkins in six cases as to the not-binding power of an Oath is applyed to the case in hand Section 1. THe words of the Declaration as to the Solemne League and Covenant runne in these words I do declare That I hold that there lyeth no obligation upon me or on any other person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State and that the same was in it self an unlawful Oath and imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom That I may the more distinctly speak unto this great and weighty business and that the subject matter of this Declaration about the Covenant may be rightly understood and the doubts and scruples about the same may be the better resolved I shall consider of these particular parts which are included in this general Declaration First I do declare that I hold that there lyeth no obligation upon me or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant Secondly what the Covenant bindeth not me or any other to do viz. To endeavour any alteration of Government either in Church or State Thirdly that the same is in it self an unlawful Oath Fourthly that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Kingdom against the known Laws and Liberties of this Realm Sect. 2 But before I begin to speak of these things I hold my self under this obligation to declare That what my thoughts and apprehensions are upon this subject which I now impart have not been formed in me upon any account of carnal fear or interest by the late occurrents of these times but some years before when it was very much beyond my thoughts that ever either I or any other should have been by the Authority of the King and both Houses be called to a Declaration of this nature And I hope that I may appeal to the searcher of all hearts that if I can but be convinced by such clear and evident demonstrations as I hope to offer to the contrary I shall bewayle my error and retract the same and repent of it as being guilty of a great sin for I am very sensible of what my blessed master hath taught me in his holy Word that he that breaketh the least of his Commandments and teacheth men so to do shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven Sect. 3 Hoping therefore that God hath heard my prayer and will deliver me from falling into this evil and that I may by this following Discourse convert some from the error of his way and so hide a multitude of sins in the integrity and sincerity of my heart I shall proceed as followeth In the first place therefore I shall begin with what I propounded in the second as being the most principal viz. What every person by the said Act is to declare that he holdeth no obligation to lye upon him or any other person from the Oath commonly called The Solemn League and Covenant viz. To endeavour any change or alteration of Government either in Church or State So that the matter of the scruple lieth but in a close compass and a very little room Sect. 4. Whether or no any person whatsoever who hath no lawful Authority from Gods Law or the Lands to change or alter the Government of Church or State or to impose an Oath upon any others so to do be bound by this Solemn League or Covenant they have taken to endeavour any change or alteration in the same Observe here by the way that whatever we are obliged to by the Law of God and of the Land our Baptismal Vow and Covenant the Oath of Allegeance and Supremacy we are not called upon to renounce as is expressed in this Declaration But that it bindeth not the Subjects of this Realm on whom it was imposed against the known Laws of the Land to endeavour that for which if I mistake not the Earl of Straffard and Archbishop of Canterbury were charged with High Treason for This was the first Article of the Charge against the Earl of Strafford and Mr. Pim in his speech in following the Charge hath these expressions towards the later end saith he The 10. consideration in this That as it is a crime odious in the nature of it viz. to endeavour the alteration of the Government of the State so it is odious in the judgment and estimation of the Law to alter the settled frame and constitution of the Government is Treason in any State Sect. 5. So then by this argument of Mr. Pim to swear to do that which is a crime odious in it self and in the estimation of the Law Treason viz. to endeavour to alter the setled Frame and Constitution of Government must needs be an unlawful Oath and therefore bindeth not any that have taken it This being the judgment of the Assembly of Divines and all others that an unlawful Oath bindeth not But it may be objected that though it be true for any particular person to alter the Fundamental Government of the Land in Church or State be unlawful But to be engaged to endeavour this in

things Mr. Ball saith pag. 11. Antichrist hath unjustly usurped the Church of God may lawfully lay claim unto And therefore if our Book of Common prayer saith he pag. 12. please the Papists it is but in some things wherein in reverence to Antiquity we come too nigh them in some Rites and Ceremonies But with the substance of the ministration it self they cannot be pleased unlesse they will be displeased with their own service and will renounce their own Religion Sect. 12. Surely methinks the judgment of this learned and moderate man might very much defend us against not onely the fear of Popery he having affirmed that the Papists cannot be pleased with our Book of Common prayer as to the substance of its Ministration unless they will renounce their own Religion But may cause such a day-break of light to shine upon some of our understandings as that we may be perswaded that it is lawful to declare they will conform to the use of the Common prayer of the Church of England it being no false and Idolatrous Worship as too many might apprehend from what hath been within this year or two written to exasperate mens minds against it But that I may make the lawfulness thereof to appear more evidently I shall proceed to consider of the English Liturgie and ceremonies as they are by some apprehended to symbolize too much with the Mass-book and being too like the same and that therefore upon this account conformity is unlawful it being absolutely affirmed Plus ultra pag. 30. We say it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain either in Doctrine Worship or Discipline any conformity to the Church of Rome Sect. 13. I do profess before the searcher of all hearts out of any desire to abstain from all appearance of evil When I first saw this Book I desired to take great notice how this Authority did by the authority of the Scriptures convincingly prove the same For to conform to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is doubtless unlawful to conform to the Worship and Discipline of the Church of Rome in statu corrupto in that stace wherein it was before Reformation and is now in at this present time is sinful and unlawful But that to conform to the Common prayer book of the Church of England and those few retained ceremonies because that they symbolize with the Church of Rome That this should be sinful and unlawful notwithstanding so confidently affirmed I leave to the determination of the wise and learned upon the examination of the proofs of Plus ultra for the same Sect. 14. I do find indeed that Mr. Ball doth speak to this purpose That if any have mistaken the book of Common prayer because that it hath too much likelihood to the Mass-book he saith that hath not been the judgement of the Non-conformists alone others have said and written so much that never condemned the use of the book or all things therein contained pag. 9. From whence I observe that there is a great deal of difference between the disliking of a form that doth in something as is supposed symbolize with that form that is in a corrupt Church and the condemning of it as sinful and unlawful as Plus ultra doth And yet that I may deal faithfully before I come to speak to the arguments of Plus ultra I think I should do a good work tending to our healing if I should offer but some honest inferences from Mr. Balls conclusions and concessions that may take off that dislike may be in the minds of men which may hinder an unfeigned assent and consent in declaring their confo rmity Sect. 15. For it being granted that a form of prayer is lawful and this of the Church of England so much vindicated as you have heard and may find further in pag. 3. where Mr. Ball saith that the Non-conformists can prove the Religion and the Worship of the Church of England to be of God and that by such plain Texts of Scripture against which the gates of hell shall never prevàil I humbly conceive that the offence taken at its too much likelihood to the Mass-book pag. 9. may be taken away by the very reason that Mr. Ball giveth for the same pag. 12. which he saith is in Reverence to Antiquity To avoid the imputation of novelty in a Church it is necessary to keep to those externall modes as to phrases of speech and rites for comeliness in Gods Worship which have been most ancient in the Church But if this do it not sufficiently deferring to answer what I find alledged but not proved by Mr. Ball pag. 7. as exceptions against the said book as in some points disagreeing with Gods Word pag. 7. for which they judge it unlawfull to subscribe as agreeable to the Scripture which doubtless may lawfully be done by Mr. Balls own Doctrine Sect. 16. I say forbearing to speak further to these particulars being but the same objections made by Mr. Josias Nicholls and other Non-conformists long before which I shall through divine assistance speak more particularly to in the next Chapter I shall desire that what Mr. Ball doth declare in the name of all the Non-conformists to his time that did judge the book in the form thereof so nigh the Papists pag. 15. may be considered who saith that herein they shew but what they judge most convenient not condemning the book for the substance thereof So that some of the Non-conformists of our time are gone much beyond this pious and prudent man who upon this argument doth but onely shew what was the judgment of the Authors of the Admonition and others in this case that it was not convenient to use a form so near the Papists but he saith no such thing himself being more wise then to judge in a case already determined by the Law of the Land which God had not determined against by his Law in his Word Sect. 17. But though Mr. Ball is so modest yet Mr. Plus ultra is more magisterial who as you have read out of the place before quoted affirmeth that it is unlawful for the Church of England to retain any conformity to the Church of Rome in Worship or Discipline Come we therefore to examine his grounds for it pag. 30. And because we know from whence I observe many heads were laid together to form this argument this will hardly down by any reasons we can lay before you we shall commend this argument to you under the credit of your right learned Prelate Jewell please you to peruse pag. 325 326. of his Defence The learned and godly men at whose Persons it pleaseth you so rudely to scoffe saith Jewell to Harding Mr. Doctor Harding used to scoffe at Calvin and Zuingliùs and to upbraid Jewell with them that refuse either to go in your apparel or otherwise to shew themselves note Sir like unto you have age sufficient and can answer for themselves notwithstanding thus much I 'le

he is said to be in this exercised as Gods Minister to take vengeance on him that doth evil the greater therefore the evil is the more to be suppressed and the greater the good is the more to be inforced Sect. 5. St. Augustine in his 50. Epistle hath a very considerable passage to this purpose Who being in his right wits will say to Christian Kings Take you no care who defendeth or impugneth in your Realms the Church of Christ your master let it not pertain to you who list to be sacrilegious or religious within your Kingdom And upon this account he doth challenge the Donatists Cry thus if you dare Let murthers be punished adulteries c. onely sacriledge which he expounds to be a contempt of God his Truth his Church we will not have punished by Princes Laws And again saith he will the Donatists though they were convinced of a sacrilegious schism say That it belongeth not to the Princes power to correct or pu●ish such things Sect. 6. Observe I beseech you besides the Scripture the judgment of this ancient Father and that it was the opinion of the Donatists who were very great Scismaticks as I find in the Arraignment of schism by Mr. Brinsley they also it appeareth did deny the Christian Magistrate to meddle in matters of Religion I wish this error be not found amongst such as Mr. John Ball wrote against in the answering of John Can or any other besides the great Factors for Rome the Jesuites Sect. 7. I proceed therefore to prove this to be the Magistrates office in the third place by the practice of the first Christian Emperors that submitted to Christs Gospel Constantine commanded matters of Religion as Eusebius in vita Constant lib. 3. cap. 38. lib. 3. cap. 27. he sheweth what a Nursing father he was to the Church of Christ how he called Councils and in many of their Synods did not sit idle but as a Moderator among them and confirmed their decrees with his seal And as Constantine so also did Constantius and after him Justinian who in his Code repeateth not onely th● Laws of former Emperors touching the Christian Faith Baptisme the Church c. but in his Authenticks he maketh many new constitutions in which he disposeth o● matters about Gods Worship as in what places by what persons with what loudness of voice they are to administer The like also did Charles the great the Emperor of the West part 800. years after Christ in his Preface to his Laws Praefat. Caroli in leges Francisc there is this passage Therefore O you Pastors of Christs Church and Teachers of his flock have we directed commissions unt● you that will joyn with you to redress those things which need reformation in our Name and by virtue of our Authority And that this did belong to Christian Kings ever since the plantation of Christian Religion in our Land I find by a Letter of Eluthorius Bishop of Rome unto King Lucius 169. à passione Christi in this Letter he saith That h● is Gods Vicar in his Kingdom according to the saying of the Psalmist Give the King thy judgments O God and thy righteousness to the Kings son The Kings sons be Christian people and folk of his Realm Fox Mon. pag. 96. who if they be divided you ought to gather in concord and peace Sect. 8. And that this belongeth to this day to our Kings to meddle in matters of Religion is evident by several Statute-Laws that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is annexed to the Imperial crown of this Realm I may have occasion to name some hereafter and therefore forbear at present Having I hope fully proved by the Light of Nature Scripture the practice of Christian Kings at all times to this day that it belongeth to the Magistrates office to command in matters of Religion though not to make God a new Worship yet to command about the modes thereof Sect. 9. I shall speak but a word of the second part of the Proposition That it belongeth to the Church-governors and Pastors to command about matters of Religion also but so as to be subject to the Higher powers 1 Thes 5.12 13. Heb. 13.17 1 Cor. 11.34 The Apostle Paul having given as it were several Canons for reforming the great abuses that were about the administration of the Lords Supper he saith The rest I will set in order when I come And the like commission he giveth to Titus 1.5 For this cause left I thee in Creet to set in order the things that were wanting as I appointed thee or commanded thee He doth not say as God hath commanded but as I have appointed The practice of the Synod in restraining the Christian Gentiles from their liberty of eating bload doth shew that it belongeth to Church-governours to command about indifferent things and the modes of Worship and Discipline And thus now having proved that which I judge very necessary to reconcile mens minds to obedience if once the conscience be perswaded that it belongeth to the Magistrates Office to command what is the subject matter of this Uniformity I shall in the next place proceed to explain what this Vniformity is which the Act requireth in order to the proof of my Proposition That obedience to the Act of Vniformity is the way to Unity CHAP. IV. The term Uniformity explained and this Proposition proved That obedience to the Act for Uniformity is the way to Unity Section 1. COncerning the term Vniformity I shall not spend much Ink or Paper in a critical or Etymological discourse thereof for to speak de nomine of the Name is to no great purpose further then it makes the thing required more intelligible I must confess I do not find the term in Scripture but yet as Epiphan lib. 3. haeres 73. Nomen substantiae non ponitur nude nec in veteri nec novo Testamento sensus verò ubique est But the sense or essence thereof we may find in many places of Scripture commanded and commended that we should all speak the same things and with one mind and mouth glorifie God And that is the chief thing propounded by this Law pag. 71. viz. An universal agreement in the publick Worship of Almighty God Sect. 2. I have therefore but one thing from the term Vniformity to observe as to its Etymoligy if I mistake not and that is this Uniform doth signifie one form mode or manner in which by a universal agreement the publick Worship of God is to be performed And were this but well considered this Act would be the more readily obeyed it requiring of us no more then what Gods Word commands or allows and his Church hath practised as you shall read hereafter that in the manner of our publick Worship we should be uniform the whole Church to have but one mode and one rule for its rites and ceremonies Now take the term Vniformity in my proposition in this sense for one form mode or worship to be observed by all

unlawful for when it becometh impossible then we must safely think that God from Heaven freeth a man from his Oath which I think also is considerable in this case And saith he when it doth begin to be unlawful then it ceaseth to bind because the binding virtue is onely from the Word of God which bindeth not to any thing forbidden in the holy Scripture or that is unlawful either from the Word of God or the Law of the Land I beseech you consider that if when an Oath whose institution by God is to be the end of all strife shall have a natural tendency to the maintaining of strife division and contention to be the occasion of wars and commotions in the Land of our Nativity to administer matter and occasion of jealousie in our Superiours that while we judge our selves bound in conscience by an Oath that we have taken to endeavour to alter and change the Government whether he will or no there can be no safety Sect. 30. Consider I pray whether in this case an Oath which we have apprended lawful at one time may not now begin to grow unlawful because that the word doth forbid resistance of the powers that are over us and doth require obedience of us for conscience sake the contrary whereunto we do exert in our endeavours to change the Government though we should never be able to effect the same Sect. 31. And therefore upon all these considerations which I now offer to all peaceable spirits to you especially which should be the Embassadours of Peace and should with John the Baptist be Instrument by your Ministry to turn the hearts of children towards their Parents Let what I have offered as the judgment of that Orthodox and Reverend Mr. Perkins who being dead and so above all interest yet speaketh that as to the not binding power of an Oath which I hope may prevail with you to declare That you hold that there lyeth no obligation upon you or any other person from the Oath commonly called the Solemn League and Covenant to endeavour any change or alteration of the Government of Church or State especially considering that if I be not in a very great errour I have made it appear by the Law of God and of the Land that it is an unlawful oath and that it was imposed upon the Subjects of this Realm against the known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom Both which are to be declared also and doubtlesse may very well be without sin Sect. 32. There is also another thing particularly to be declared against required by the said Act which I do hold needful to speak a word unto though I hope but very little if not at all scrupled by Presbyterian Ministers or People and that is to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that I do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person or against those that are commissionated by him But of this in the next Chapter briefly CHAP. VII That to declare That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take up Arms against the King and that we do abhor that trayterous Position of taking Arms by his Authority against his Person c. is very warrantable by the Law of God and of the Land Section 1. THat this Declaration may be chearfully made by all His Majesties subjects and especially the most zealous haters of Rome and Popery and also may be lawfully made without sin one would think there were no need to speak a word in that behalf But considering how much the Reformed Protestant Religion hath been dishonoured how much the. * Bilson the differences between Christian Subjection and Unchristian Rebellion Edit 1536. lib. 3. pag. 92. Jesuites Doctrine of the lawfulness of the Subjects taking up arms against their Prince hath of late years been too much justified I shall write a little more then I intended referring the Reader to more of this subject in Bilsons Answer to this Jesuitical doctrine Bilsons subjection lib. 3. pag. 97. and so on Sect. 2. That this therefore may lawfully be declared that it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King c. I argue thus That which is unlawful by Gods Law and of the Land for me to do I may without sin declare to be unlawful But for subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King is unlawful and therefore I may declare according to the Act. Now that for subjects upon any pretence to take arms against the King is unlawful Rom. 13.1 may serve for a Scripture-proof instead of many Let every soul be subject to the Higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordained of God ver 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the Ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation It is you see a most dangerous sin to offend this Gospel-precept by our disobedience which commands and requires subjection of every soul No persons of what order or degree soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil but are to be subject to the Higher powers thereof him as the Apostle Peter doth acknowledge to be the supreme the King whom the Laws of the Land doth invest with Supremacy of Jurisdiction in all Cases and over all persons in his own Dominions Sect. 3. But to resist the power this is to resist the Ordinance of God and therefore the punishment is expressed to be so dreadful to deter us from it For they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation instead of getting dominion over others they shall receive damnation to themselves Whoever therefore taketh up Arms upon any pretence whatsoever be the cause never so good against the supreme and higher powers must have his commission for it out of Gods Word otherwise you see it is a very great sin How contrary it is to Gods Law you may read more in Bilsons Christian Subjection I having I hope said enough to perswade to the lawfulness of making this Declaration from the unlawfulness of taking up Arms against the King upon any pretence whatsoever it being so expresly forbidden to resist Rom. 13.2 now he that taketh up Arms against his King resisteth him Sect. 4. But further I may declare it is not lawful upon any pretence to take up Arms against the King because the Law of the Land forbids it and maketh it to be high Treason so to do Mr. St. John's speech pag. 6. the words of the Statute are 25 Edward 3. If any man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm this is declared to be Treason And so also is the arising to alter the Religion by Law est ablished 4 of Philip and Mary not repealed if I mistake not These being the known Laws of the Land such Ordinances of men to which we are to yield obedience for