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	king_n	time_n	2,545	5	3.5489	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33467	The power of kings, particularly the British monarchy asserted and vindicated, in a sermon preached at Wakefield in the county of York, Sunday, October the 30th, 1681 by William Clifford.	Clifford, William, A.M.	1682 (1682)	Wing C4715; ESTC R18703	16,088	36

such Principles As may be seen at large in the Decree and Oath 5. According to these Infernal Principles in the late Times of Distraction this was usually their most Illogical Assertion That it was lawful to fight against the Kings Person with his Power and that the King might be killed in his Personal or Private Capacity as they called it and yet his Power never the worse for it his Authority not suffering A strange Metaphysical Notion And so likewise that St. Paul speaking of Kings meaneth the Kingly Office not his Person with much more of this Nature Thus do they make the King a meer Platonical Idea a Quality not a Personal Subsistence As if the King of England were nothing but CAROLVS REX written in Court-hand without either Flesh or Blood If it be so to what purpose are those significant Solemnities used at the Coronations Why are they Crown'd Inthroned Inoyled but to shew their Personal and Imperial Power and Supremacy in Military Judiciary and Religious Matters That the Kings Authority may be where his Person is not if this be their meaning is most true but that his Person may be where his Authority is not is most false And a King without Personal Authority is a Contradiction and no King How dull were the Primitive Christians that could not bethink themselves of this Distinction what Blood and Martyrdom might it have saved But let these faint Chimera's vanish 6. They say that if we ascribe so much Power to the King Religion cannot be safe but that he may alter it at his Pleasure And so He may Neither is the Power of Kings in any thing more visible than in establishing such Modes of Public Worship as they think fit This is sufficiently asserted and maintained by the most Political Authors that hitherto I have met withal Were not the Religious Rites in Judea altered according to the Genius of the Prince Thus we find the Rites of Ahaz altered by his Son Ezechias which Manasses his Nephew again restored but by Josias they were again abolished Thus if they demand why in the Reign of Queen Mary the Romish Religion and in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth the Reformed Religion prevailed there can be no other Reason be given but that next under God it was Ex Reginarum Arbitrio It is an Old and unanswerable Maxim Qualis Rex Talis Lex And if every Magistrate must be devested of his Power because it is possible He may abuse it then should we have no Power at all at least no Exercise of Power there being the same Reason to fear every Man alike because the Axiom Nemo est qui falli neque at includeth all But why our King may not be intrusted with the same Power seeing he cannot well use it worse wherewith they durst intrust their Protector is a Paradox to me Or suppose this should fall out which always doth not that a King should alter the received Religion yet may we have sufficient comfort if we consider that the Hearts of all Men are in the hand of the Lord but more especially are the Hearts of Kings in his Power and as the Rivers of water he can turn them as he pleaseth It is Gods work you hear to sway the Inclinations of Kings let us then beware how we meddle in it His Power is so unspeakable that he can equally effect his Will as well by Evil as by Good Kings Sometimes Prosperity and sometimes Adversity is more profitable for the Church And if the Prince be Pious then the Truth flourisheth under him and if he be Ungodly it will be Evil for the Church but worse for him whose Condemnation shall One day be augmented answerably to the greatness of his Charge And in the mean time Rebellion will be so far from being agreeable that it will every way be contradictory to a Christian Profession Well said Saint Augustine Reges cum in errore sunt pro ipso errore leges contra veritatem ferunt cum in veritate sunt similiter contra errorem pro ipsa veritate decernunt ita legibus malis probantur boni legibus bonis emendantur mali But I hast to my Fourth and Last Proposition namely 4. That since the Persons and Powers of KINGS are esteemed Sacred both by the Laws of God Nature and all Nations to exhort all Men that they be to the utmost of their Power careful not to violate so great a Priviledge The Duty of Obedience to Kings was a thing so well known and so firmly believed in the Primitive Times that the Christians then stood in need of no other Arguments to perswade them to it but such as Christ and his Apostles left upon Record And seeing that those who lived so near the Apostles Days were so extraordinarily tenacious of this Duty it raiseth Admiration in me to consider That some Men amongst us who do at least pretend to as great Sanctity as ever any Primitive Christian had should go about to raise Arguments to defend their Taking up of Arms against their Lawful and Christian Princes from the same Sacred Scriptures which the Ancients thought laid sufficient Obligation upon them as I have largely shewed in the preceding Parts of this Discourse to obey even the worst of Heathen Powers That both God Nature and Nations have priviledged Kings I have already fully shewed and I trust so fully as to render it however to all good Men indubitable the Authorities that I have made use of are such as are altogether unquestionable For next to the Sacred Scriptures which we all equally own and adhere unto I have urged only such General Councils and Ancient Synods as have hitherto been approved by the whole Christian World And for the Testimonies of the Fathers or Others that I have used they are from the best and most Authentic Editions However therefore this Discourse may relish it concerneth not me seeing that I am assured that I have all along Impartially spoken the Mind of the Catholic Church And that to this very day there hath not been a General Council truly so named or any other Ancient tho not Oecumenical Synod duly and regularly called and debating or an Authentic Copy of any Father that have delivered otherwise If our Adversaries can produce the contrary we challenge them in the Name of God to do it if they cannot which is I am certain much more easie then let their Brainsick Notions cease to be imposed upon the Vulgar Multitude who are more apt to be taken with Flatteries of their Chimerical Greatness and Supremacy with Noise and Impudence than with any sober Reason or sound Arguments But let Us who have so good Authority for our Warrant as the Voice and Universal Practice of the Primitive Church resolve in spight of all Contradiction to be ever Conscious of our Duty Methinks the very consideration of our Interest and Society should put us in mind of Subjection for what a Polity else should we

for all this are they not in the least liable to the Censure of any Man No Tribunal under Heaven hath power to take cognizance of them or call them into question The Prophet in our Text tho a King confesseth his Transgression but it is with Reserve of Justice unto none but to him whom alone he owned Superiour and therefore he crieth Against thee only have I sinned That some of our Moderns might evade this plain sence of the Text they have invented one which as they think will do the business Namely that David sinned in a double respect One as a King Another as a Private Person If these be not the Notions of Forty Eight let the World judge As he was a Private Person say they he was offensive to his Neighbour as well as to God having been injurious to Vriah To which I answer Davids Repentance here was either Feigned or Sincere Feigned it could not be as appears by the circumstances neither will they suppose it And if Sincere how cometh it to pass that in his Confession he hath no respect to his injured Neighbour But here lieth the bottom of the business If they could juggle the World into a belief that David sinned as a Private Person then the unavoidable consequence would be That he must be obnoxious to that Law which he had offended and no Man is ignorant that the punishment of that Sin whereof David was guilty was Death by the Mosaical Statute What is this but to seek a pretence for Regicide That David was injurious to Vriah I do fairly and readily grant But that he was a Private Person neither They nor all the World will ever be able to convince me it being not only absurd but impossible To say that such a one is a King and a Private Person too is a flat contradiction which can never be reconciled for wherever the one is it is impossible for the other to be there also at one and the same time But whether David were Private or no this was not the thing they aimed at which was that he might be liable to Terrestrial Punishment and then whatsoever looked tho never so ill like an Argument must be brought to maintain it Thus do Men become the Patrons of Error and render themselves contemptible to all discerning Persons David was no Private Person after he was Anointed this was nothing therefore but a distinction they had invented and fitted for their purpose and either it as I have shewed or our Logic must be false Let them shew us one Example and it shall be enough of any Law either Divine or Humane of any Civilized Nation in the World that owneth it but this they cannot being only ingaged to their own crazed Heads for it David was a King and as such was as other Kings above the Law Kings have Power to dispence with the Law at their pleasure Neither is there the severest Punishment the Law can inflict but it is in the Power of the King to remit it of this David could not be ignorant nay he seems to imply as much here and by how much the more he knew himself exempted from the Mosaical Law by so much the more earnest here he seemeth to be with God for a Pardon to whose greater Tribunal only he could be accountable And of this his Earnestness the Original is a sufficient witness wherein the Pronoun is twice repeated Against thee thee only have I sinned But I hast to be more particular wherein I shall undertake to prove That For Subjects to question the Actions tho Offensive or the Authority of their Princes is a thing that is most clearly Repugnant to Primitive Custom Inconsistent with the nature of the Kingly Office And Diametrically opposite to the Liberty of the Subject 1. It is Repugnant to Primitive Custom That which Men call Religion will in no wise allow the Prerogatives of Kings to be called in question Thus the thing was amongst the Hebrews when they requested for a King to rule over them like as other Nations had the Prophet answereth them that they should have a King and that their King should take their Wives and Children their Servants and Cattel for his use and service as you may read at large Sam. 1. 8. But that which is very observable is that the Prophet in the whole description of that their King who we know was none of the best never so much as setteth the least bound or limitation to his Power maketh no observations of the extent of his Authority Whereas if either this or any other of the Precedent or Succeeding Authors of the Old Testament had but made any cases of Resistance or Restraint I make no question but the Antimonarchical Spirits of these Times would have been diligent in the search and discovery of them But so far was this from the business of Samuel and the rest of the Prophets that they enjoyn Obedience even to the worst of Kings tho it be not only to the hazard of Goods but Life And we do find it twice pronounced to make the Obligation greater concerning one of the most Insolent and Unjust of all their Kings Who can lift up his hands against Gods Anointed and be guiltless That Golden Sentence of the Psalmist therefore must of necessity have a like Relation to all Rulers Touch not mine Anointed And as the Law so the Gospel runneth high concerning Majesty Our Saviour prohibiteth us from doing any man Injury or Injustice but much more must we pay that Reverence and Respect to Caesar which himself paid and commanded us to do the like You will never find him controverting the Actions of Caesar or his Delegates but willingly submitting to whatsoever they imposed as you may clearly see in the Case of Tribute wherein he proved to St. Peter that such as were Freeborn were not liable to Taxation Nevertheless saith he lest we be troublesom go thou to the Sea and taking up a Fish in his mouth thou shalt find a piece of Money that give them for thee and me Nay so far was Christ satisfied of the Power of the Roman Emperour that he suffered Death upon the Sentence of Pilate the Governour not because he wanted Power to make Resistance as Porphyrius Julian and some others did vainly affirm against the Primitive Christians but because he would not in the least seem to make any Exception from that General Rule of Obedience to Superiours that he had laid down for otherwise as he said he could pray to his Father who could send him more than Twelve Legions of Angels to be his Assistants and to rescue their Sovereign Lord and Creatour from the violence of that hour Thus also we find the Disciples treading in their Masters steps St. Peter and St. Paul those two great Doctors of the Circumcision and Uncircumcision asserting this Royal Prerogative Submit your selves unto every Ordinance of Man saith Peter whatsoever some of his Successours have to say to