Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	judge_n	king_n	power_n	3,562	5	5.1146	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91392	The true grounds of ecclesiasticall regiment set forth in a briefe dissertation. Maintaining the Kings spirituall supremacie against the pretended independencie of the prelates, &c. Together, vvith some passages touching the ecclesiasticall power of parliaments, the use of synods, and the power of excommunication.	Parker, Henry, 1604-1652.	1641 (1641)	Wing P428; Thomason E176_18; ESTC R212682	61,943	101

ought to be a great deal lesse and we doe the rather suspect all popish traditions and additions in Religion because wee see they make use of them for the augmenting of the power and regiment of Prelates And yet if knowledge did not abound if our Religion were more cloudie and if the Scriptures Councils Fathers and all learning were now more imperfect to us then they are I cānot imagin how an uncōfined absolute dominion of Churchmen shold be more necessary thē of Princes For if absolutenes of power be of necessary use in intricate perplexed mysteries cōtroversies yet why must that absolute power be more effectuall in Priests then Princes is not the counsel of Prelats the same and of the same vigor to solve doubts and determine controversies whether their power be subordinate or not doth meer power ad to the knowledg of Priests or is the power of Priests more virtuous for the promoting of truth then the power of Magistrates how comes this vast irreconcilable difference betwixt the government of the Church and State In matters of Law in matters of policy in matters of war unlimited power in such as are most knowing and expert does not conduce to the safety of the Common-wealth subordinate Counsells are held as available for the discerning of truth and far more available for the conserving of peace and order And who can then assigne any particular sufficient reason why matters of religion should not as well be determined in the consistory by dependent Prelates as matters of Law are by the Judges and Justices in their tribunals where they sit as meere servants to the King His third exception is That God having armed the Jewish Religion with a temporall sword and the Christian with that of spirituall punishment only the one with power to imprison scourge put to death the other with bare authoritie to censure and excommunicate there is no reason why our Church which hath no visible sword should in regiment be subject unto any other power then only to that which bindeth and looseth This reason taketh it for granted that amongst the Jewes the Church and State was the same had the same body the same head the same sword and that head was temporall and that sword was materiall This we freely accept of but in the next place without any reason at all given it as freely assumes that Christians now have only a spirituall sword in the Church as that Jews had only a temporall one A diametricall opposition is here put betwizt Jews and Christians in Church Regiment and yet no cause shewed or account given of that opposition We have very good colour to argue that without some strong reason shewed of opposition Christians ought not to bee so contrary to that excellent discipline of the Jewes which God himself ordered and to introduce I know not what spirituall rule in prejudice of temporall rule but how will Stapleton prove that amongst Christians the Church and State are two divided bodies so as they may admit of two severall heads and severall swords the one temporall the other spirituall the one yielding precedence as temporall the other predominating as spirituall This wee desire to see fortified with better proofs Hooker in his eighth booke not yet publisht has a learned cleere discourse to shew the fallacie and injustice of this blind presumption Hee allows that a Church is one way and a Commonwealth another way defined and that they are both in nature distinguisht but not in substance perpetually severed Since there is no man sayes hee of the Church of England but the same is a member of the Common-wealth nor any of the Common-wealth but the same is of the Church therefore as in a figure triangle the base differs from the sides and yet one and the self-same line is both a base and a side a side simply a base if it chance to be the bottome and to underlie the rest So though properties and actions of one doe cause the name of a Common-wealth qualities and functions of another sort give the name of a Church to a multitude yet one and the same multiude may be both Thus in England there 's none of one Corporation but hee is of the other also and so it was amongst the Jews Two things cause this errour First because professours of the true Religion somtimes live in subjection under the false so the Jews did in Babylon so the Christians in Rome under Nero in such cases true professors doe civilly only communicate with the State but in matters of their Religion they have a communion amongst themselves This now is not our case and therefore these instances are not proper amongst us Secondly In all States there is a distinction between spirituall and temporall affaires and persons but this proveth no perpetuall necessity of personall separation for the Heathens always had their spiritual Laws and persons and causes severed from their temporall yet this did not make two independent States among them much lesse doth God by revealing true Religion to any Nation distract it thereby into severall independent communities his end is only to institute severall functions of one and the same community Thus farre Hooker most judiciously and profoundly Wee must not here expect any satisfaction from our Adversaries why there should be lesse division betweene Church and State amongst the Jews and lesse use of two severall swords then is amongst us 't is sufficient that they have said it There 's no crime so scandalous amongst our Church-men or wherein they claime so much spirituall interest of jurisdiction as adultery yet amongst the Iews that crime was carnall not spirituall and its punishment was death inflicted by the Civill Judge not damnation denounced by the Priest Now if adultery in these days were better purged away and lesse countenanced in our Christian Courts then it was amongst the Jews there might something be alleaged to preferre our moderne inventions before Gods owne Statutes but when Ecclesiastiall persons shall therefore incroach upon Civill that by I know not what pecuniary corruptions and commutations vice and scandall may abound we doe strangly dote to suffer it For his last reason he says That albeit whilst the Church was restrained into one people it seemed not incommodious to grant their Kings generall chiefty of power yet now the Church having spread it self over all Nations great inconvenience must thereby grow if every Christian King in his severall Territorie should have the like power By this reason it s presumed that all the Universe ought to have but one head on earth and that Rome must be its Court and that it must be indued with Oraculous infallibilitie and so to remayne till the Worlds end and this must bee admitted out of some obscure generall Metaphors in Scripture or else God has not sufficiently provided for the wise government of his Catholike Church Man can scarce imagine any thing more mischievous or impossible then that which these goodly

painted out before their eyes even by the very solemnities and rights of their inauguration to what affaires by the same Law their supreme power and authority reaches Crowned we see they are and Inthronized and Annoynted the Crowne a signe of Military dominion the Throne of sedentary or Iudiciall The Oyle of Religious and sacred power Hee here Attributes as supreme a rule and as independent in Religious and sacred affaires as Hee does either in Military or Iudiciall and hee accounts that venerable Ceremony of Vnction as proper to the Kings of England as that of Crowning or Inthroning Neverthelesse it is now a great objection against this chiefly of Dominion that it may descend to Infants under age as it did to King Edward the sixth Or to Women as to Queene Mary and Elizabeth and whatsoever wee may allow to men such as Henry the eighth yet it seemes unreasonable to allow it Women and Children The Papists thinke this objection of great moment and therefore Bellarmine in great disdaine casts it out that in England they had a certaine Woman for their Bishop meaning by that woman Q. Elizabeth And Q. Elizabeth her selfe knowing what an odium that word would draw upon her both amongst Papists and many Protestants also consults her Bishops about it and by their advice sets forth a declaration certifying the world thereby that shee claymed no other Head-ship in the Church but such as might exclude all dependency upon forreigne Head-ships and secure her from all danger of being deposed How this paper could satisfie all I cannot see My thinkes the Bishops in this did as warily provide for their owne clayme as the Queenes for whatsoever power Shee had in the Church it was either absolute Coordinate or Subordinate If it was subordinate Shee was in danger of deposition and was to bee ordered and limited and commanded by her Superior If her power was Co-ordinate She had no more power over her equall than her equall had over her and it being as lawfull for her equall to countermand as it was for her to command her power would be as easily disabled and made frustrate by her equalls as her equalls by hers In the last place therefore if her power or headship were absolute why did not her Bishops uphold and declare the same Such dallying with indefinite expressions and dazelling both our selves others with meere ambiguities does often very great harme for uncertainty in Law is the Mother of confusion and injustice and this is the mother of uncertainty According to this obscure declaration of supremacy in the Queenes paper many Papists at this day take the Oath penned in the Statute for that purpose they will abjure the Popes supremacy as to deposition of Princes but not in any thing else and they will hold the King supreme as to all deposers but not as to all men else Those which are not bloudy and dangerous but by the light of nature abhorre regicides rest themselves upon these shallow distinctions but such as are Iesuitically furious and murdrous break through them as meere Cobwebs and the more secure Princes are from the other the lesse safe they are from these These men will still insist upon absolute supremacy somewhere to rest and that it cannot rest in Women or Minors they will still insist upon this argument If the Queene be not competent for that lower Order to whom the Word and Sacraments are committed then shee is not competent for that higher Order which has power over the lower but the Queene is not competent for the lower therefore not for the higher They say that to prescribe Lawes to Preachers is more than to preach and to have power over Ordination is something greater than to enter into Orders and therefore the Law cannot justly give that which is more and greater when God denyes that which is inferior and lesse Our Divines make a very short unsatisfying reply to this Their reply is that though our Bishops owe some kind of subjection to Kings yet the authority of preaching c. is not from Kings but from Christ Himselfe Christ they say giveth the Commission Kings give but a permission only All the power at last of our Kings which is acknowledged equall with that of the Iewish and has been so farre all this while magnified and defended against Papists inables them now no further than to a naked permission in religious affaires their most energeticall influence is permission T is true the Commission of the Apostle was from Christ His Ite docete was their authority And so it remaines still to all their successors but is it therefore a reason that there is now no other Commission necessary Where Christs Commission was particular it was good without any other humane commmission nay permission it selfe was not requisite the Contents of that Commission was not only Ito Doceto but Tu Petre Tu Paule c. Ito doceto but now there remaines nothing of that Commission but the generality Ito doceto the particularity requires now particular Commissions and meere permissions will not serve the turne And as for succession we may suppose that our Saviours first Commission was vigorous as to that purpose but we must know That the Apostles being both Governours and Preachers all that commission which was given them as Governours was not given them as Preachers There must still be successors to the Apostles in Governing and Preaching but it s not necessary that the same men now should succeed in both offices and that whatsoever was commanded or granted to the one office the same should bee granted and commanded to the other The Civill Iudges and Councellors of State under the King are not without Generall Commissions from Heaven to doe justice and preserve order in their severall subordinate stations and yet they depend upon particular commissions too from Gods immediate Vice-Gerent And it seemes to me a weake presumption that Officers in Religion should have more particular Commissions from GOD than Officers of State or that Princes should bee more permissive and lesse influent by way of power in the Church than in the Common-Wealth He that observes not a difference betwixt these times under Christian Princes and those under unbeleeving Caesars is very blind and He is no lesse that thinks particular Commissions now as necessary when Princes joyne to propagate the Gospell as they were when supreme power was abused for its subversion And so makes no difference betwixt a Nero and a Constantine Did Constantine gaine the style of Head-Bishop or Bishop of Bishops meerely by permitting the true worship of God And let us lay aside the strangenes of the Name and apply the thing I meane the same Episcopall power to Queene Elizabeth as was to Constantine and what absurdity will follow What is intended by the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which may not bee as properly applyed to Queene Elizabeth as to Constantine If the Patriarchs and Kings of Iudah