Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	good_a	king_n	power_n	4,538	5	4.8909	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67648	Dr. Stillingfleet still against Dr. Stillingfleet, or, The examination of Dr. Stillingfleet against Dr. Stillingfleet examined by J.W.	Warner, John, 1628-1692.	1675 (1675)	Wing W910; ESTC R34719	108,236	297

Spirit and Judgment in matters of Religion and in the Interpretation of Scripture but obliges all to submit to her judgment as is manifest neither can the Dr. question it since he oftentimes complains of the Tyranny as he is pleased to term it of the Roman Church in this point See Doctor Stillingfleet against Doctor Stillingfleet pag. 10. all which he passes over in silence Pag. 52. the Dr. wonders why I do not speak a word of the Fanatick Principles of Rebellion owned as he will needs have it by the Jesuitical party viz. The King 's deriving his power from the people and the people's Authority to call the King to account and if they see good to take away his Power and to chang the Government and not only so but to take away his Life too which pestilent Principles he had quoted out of Mariana a Jesuit and to shew that not only the Jesuits but also the Roman Church does approve these Principles which was his main task he adds that the party which owns these Principles Jesuits is to this day the most countenanced and encouraged at Rome So that he not only Fathers the forementioned Principles upon the whole Body of the Jesuits because they were delivered by one of their Community but also upon Rome because it favours the Jesuits which Argument of the Dr's is as conclusive as if you should Argue thus Hugh Peters a Member of the University of Cambridge preached in the late Wars Rebellious Principles Therefore not only the University of Cambridge but his Majesty also who hath shewen a a particular kindness for that University do countenance such Principles Who would not contemn such a Consequence And yet the University of Cambridge has not made a more publick detestation of those Rebellious Principles of Hugh Peters than the Body of the Jesuits has made of the forementioned Doctrines of Mariana Besides the Pope even in the common opinion of Protestants is a Sovereign Temporal Prince of Rome and its adjacent Territories and as zealous or more if we believe Protestants of his civil Authority as ony other Temporal Prince whatsoever how then is it credible that he should countenance so much the Jesuits as the Dr. saies he does if they did allow such Rebellious Principles destructive to the Sovereignty of Temporal Princes Moreover that party Dr. St. speaks of is countenanced by several Kings who would be loth to be deprived of their Kingdoms But alas for them poor Princes they do not understand the Intrigues of the Jesuits though they converse often with them neither have they men about them able to discover such pernicious Doctrines King Henry the 4th of France his Majesties Grandfather and the present French King both favourers of the Jesuits are unacquainted with matters of State and Civil Government but Dr. Edward Stillingfleet the great Polititian of the world comprehends clearly the true interest of Princes and though he has scarse ever had any converse with Jesuits yet with the sublety of his private Spirit whereby he is able to discover in a moment what Scriptures are Canonical and which is their legitimate sense he has learned their Intrigues and pestilent Principles Finally those who understand the temper of Rome better than Dr. St. affirm that the Dominicans and Clergy are as much or more countenanced there than Jesuits and yet the Dominicans and Clergy if we believe Dr. St. are no great friends to Jesuits In the same page he saies That if J. W. answer again let him speak out like a man concerning those Rebellious Principles abovementioned Well then J. W. speaks out like a man and tells the Dr. plainly That he would be very sorry were he not perswaded that he detected the aforesaid Principles more than the Dr. himself does for all that he can gather from his works For whatever Dr. St.'s practices have been which J. W. has not yet made it his business to enquire after yet even those very Principles whereby he pretends to clear the Protestant Church from the Crime of Scisme do vindicate had they any force in them all Rebellions and Treacherous Conspiracies though never so execrable and are most destructive to all Civil Government than any Doctrines of Mariana as will manifestly appear to whoever shall take pains to compare them And to apply the Dr.'s own words to himself in his Answer to Dr. Cressy's Apologetical Epistle p. 475. He that owns the Principles that lead to him Treason wants only an opportunity to act them So that if Dr. St. has a just and real zeal for his Majesties Interest and Security according to what he affirms pag. 52. his Principles do not lead him unto it but the prospect of some advantage thereby I proved the Roman Church to be free from Fanaticisme because all Fanaticisme as I shewed or at least that sort of Fanaticisme which maintaines rebellious Principles is against all Lawful and competent Authority as Dr. St. himself must needs confess Now what is countenanced by a competent and lawful authority is not against all such authority as is manifest and consequently cannot be Fanaticisme at least that sort of Fanaticisme that maintains rebellious Principles Since therefore the Roman Church is a True Church unerring in all Articles of Faith and since the Authority of a True Church is a lawful Authority and sufficient to clear particular waies of proceeding from Fanaticisme as with several instances I have shewen pag. 9. in the proof of my fourth Proposition though the Dr. cunningly passes them over it evidently follows That whatever the Roman Church countenances as long as she remains a True Church cannot be Fanaticisme nor Rebellion and by consequence she is free from those crimes For why should any one impute to her that which she does not countenance To this the Dr. Answers pag. 54. First That he charged as Fanaticks several persons in our Church who were never countenanced by her neither did they submit to her Authority But what answer is this to me who pretended only to clear our Church from Fanaticisme and how can she be justly impeached of Fanaticisme which she does not allow of Yea the Principal design of the Dr. in that Chapter was to Charge the Roman Church with Fanaticisme as appears from its Title But he adds that he produced those instances to prove against his Adversary T. G. That the Sects and Fanaticisms among Protestants here in England could not be the effect of the reformation since there were as wild and extravagant Fanaticisms before Good just as if he should have argued in this manner King Henry the 8th or Edward the 6th could not bring in Protestancy here in England because Luther had broached it before in Germany There have been Fanaticks heretofore among the Roman Catholicks as there are now among Protestants But with this difference That the very Constitution of the Roman Church is repugnant to Fanaticisme since it expressly prohibits men to be guided by their own private

he produced in proof thereof was void and to demonstrate this unto him would not be enough to shew that such a charge did contradict a Principle viz. the Soundness of Christian Religion true in it self and assented unto by both parties This is just our case with Dr. St. For as that Jew does contradict himself by granting Christian Religion to be a sound Religion and yet charging it with Idolatry So Dr. St. Contradicts himself by affirming the Roman Church to be a true Church and yet Idolatrous as we have proved and he now admits and as it would doubtless be a sufficient way of answering that Jew to prove unto him that the charge of Idolatry he laid upon Christian Religion was false as contradicting a Principle true in it self and assented unto by both parties So the way we have taken to answer Dr. St. being the very same must needs be sufficient and finally the Quibbles Dr. St. makes at our manner of Answering are or might be made by the forementioned Jew at the like manner of Answering him and consequently they are insignificant in both Cases or in neither Now to the Case proposed by Dr. St. my Answer is That it would be a sufficient way to Answer that person of Judah for those of Israel to prove to him as the easily might that if the Church of Israel was in those times a True Church as they both affirmed though erroneously it was not Idolatrous and that if it was not Idolatrous what ever he alledged to prove it such was void and of no force This I say would have been a sufficient way of Answering that person of Judah but not others who deny as we do the Church of Israel to have retained in that time the Essentials of a true Church and it is no wonder that what is a sufficient Answer to one be not a sufficient Answer to another Because different Adversaries go upon different Principles Let 's now see what Answer the Dr. makes to the Instance I produced of a Witness pag. 1.14 who being once Convinced of Self-Contradiction in the evidence he alledges renders himself unworthy to be heard any more in the Court at least till he has repaired his Reputation and whatever he produces void and of no force Besides the condign punishment he is liable unto To this Dr. St. Answers ingenuously confessing as has been hinted above page 15. That Self contradiction being proved overthrows the Authority of the person who stands convicted thereof and where things depend meerly upon Authority it is a good Argument and nowhere else I willingly accept of what Dr. St. so liberally grants and hence conclude that if he contradicts himself as we both now suppose he does all his Quotations and all the Arguments he grounds upon them and he has scarce any Argument which is not grounded upon some Quotation or other signifie nothing because they depend meerly upon his Authority which as he confesses is overthrown by Self-contradiction neither does he deserve to be heard any more in matters that depend of Authority till he has recruited his Credit All this according to Dr. St.'s own confession follows from Self-contradiction once proved against him And though one may seek out the Testimonies he aledges in their proper fountains at least till then and till one has found them to be faithfully quoted and who has examined all his Quotations he is not bound to give any credit unto them and should one take the pains to examin the Testimonies he alledges in their proper places he would easily see that they are either frivolous or false as the Learned Author of Catholicks no Idolaters who was pleased to examin some of them has already partly discovered Besides no body in prudence can think himself bound to examin in their proper places the allegations of one who is evidently convicted of Self-contradiction As for instance to go on in the same similitude of a Witness should one before a judge impeach another of High-Treason and in proof thereof name the complices and alledg that there might be found in such a place of his house store of Armes and in his Closet Letters of secret Intelligence with Rebels and Traitours yet withal should manifestly contradict himself averring before the same Judge and at the same time that the person whom he impeached of Treason was and had always been a faithful Subject to his Majesty Can Dr. St. imagin in this case that such a judge would be bound upon the meer Testimony of a Witness who had so palpably Contradicted himself to send Officers to Apprehend the Conspiratours named by him and to search the house of the person impeached to see whether what the Witness alledged was true or not or rather that he ought not in prudence to look upon the Evidence of such a Witness as null and of no force no less than if a Madman had put in the like accusation And yet such a Witness might plead for himself in the same terms wherein Dr. St. pretends to vindicate his own proceedings For he might say That though he should contradict himself it does not therefore follow as certainly it does not that all his Evidences are false and whatever he shall hereafter say in the same matter invalid That he never was so vain as to make use of his own authority to prove a thing to be true because he believ'd it or that his saying alone makes a thing to be true That he does not desire any one to follow his Opinion because it is his but he offers evidences for proof of what he saies assigning the places where they may find manifest Arguments of Treason That if these be good and true in themselves they do not therefore cease to be so because they are inconsistent with what he saies in favour of the person he impeaches That such persons as are constituted by publick Authority as all Judges are to provide for the security of his Majesties Royal Person when they hear one impeached of High Treason the Complices nominated and the place assigned where the Instruments of the conjuration may be found ought not presently to conclude all these Allegations are false and of no force meerly because the person who makes use of them does judge so charitably of the Traitour as to suppose he still retains the Essentials of a Faithful Subject and that therefore they make very ill use of his Charity but however that they are more concern'd in proving the person he impeached not guilty of Treason than he is in defending his Charitable Opinion of him That what they will get by charging him with Contradiction is only that hereafter he shall not think so Charitably of the persons he impeaches Finally that when he saies that such a person whom he impeaches is a Traitour but yet a faithful and loyal Subject the only true Consequence that thence may be inferred is not that he contradicts himself but that he thinks some kind of High-Treason to