Selected quad for the lemma: order_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
order_n	church_n	pope_n	rome_n	3,776	5	6.5276	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63105	A treatise of the oath of supremacy	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.	1679 (1679)	Wing T2097; ESTC R17363	56,021	94

the Eighth nor any of his Legislators did ever endeavour to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the Power of the Keys or any part thereof either the Key of Order or the Key of Jurisdiction I mean Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which hath place only in the inner Court of Conscience and over such Persons as submit willingly Nor did ever challenge or endeavour to assume to themselves either the Key of Order or the Key of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual All which they deprived the Pope of all which they assumed to themselves was the External Regiment of the Church by Coactive Power to be exercised by Persons capable of the Respective Branches of it This Power the Bishops of Rome never had or could have justly over their Subjects but under them whose Subjects they were And therefore when we meet with these Words or the like That no Forreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of Power Jurisdiction c. Ecclesiastical with this Realm it is not to be understood of Internal or purely-Spiritual Power in the Court of Conscience or the Power of the Keys we see the contrary practised every day but of External and Coactive Power in Ecclesiastical Causes in Foro contentioso And that it is and ought to be so understood I prove clearly by a Proviso in one main Act of Parliament and an Article of the English Church Which Act and Article have been produced above The Bishop continues They that is the Parliament profess their Ordinance is meerly Political What hath a Political Ordinance with Power purely Spiritual They seek only to preserve the Kingdom from Rapine c. And then having produced the Article he concludes You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political Our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual to those to whom Christ hath left it Nothing can be more express than this so clear a Testimony of so Judicious a Bishop touching the King's Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical acknowledged by Oath 42. Again the same Bishop thus further adds Wheresoever Ibid. p. 169. our Laws do deny all Spiritual Jurisdiction to the Pope in England it is in that Sense that we call the Exterior Court of the Church the Spiritual Court They do not intend at all to deprive him of the Power of the Keys or of any Spiritual Power that was bequeathed him by Christ or by his Apostles when he is able to prove his Legacy To conclude omitting a World of other Passages to the same effect he saith We have not renounced the Substance Ibid. p. 219. of the Papacy except the Substance of the Papacy do consist in Coactive Power 43. And that we may see this still continues the Sense of the Protestant Church and consequently of the State even to this day Mr. Falkner of Lynn Regis in his Book entituled Christian Loyalty so lately Printed that it was Antedated 1679 and dedicated to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Page 200. gives us the Sense of this Oath in these Words This Oath tending according to the Designe of that Statute by which it was Establish't to restore to the Crown its Antient Jurisdiction that Authority which is chiefly rejected thereby is such as invaded or oppos'd the Royalty of the King and particularly that which claimeth any Supreme Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Affairs as if they were not under the Care of the Temporal Power or that pretendeth to any other Authority above and against the Just Rights of the Crown 44. Now that such Authors especially the Three first so Universally read by all Learned-Men in their respective Times and doubtless amongst others by Thousands learned in the Law should pass without any the least Reprehension for interpreting the Oath and our Laws wrong in case they had in such their Declarations and Expositions declin'd from the true Sense of the Lawgivers nor be discountenanc't by those respective Princes as diminishing the Extent of their Power or by the Protestant Church and State for reserving more to the Pope than was meant by them when they requir'd Roman Catholicks to take the Oath but on the contrary that their Works should pass without the least Controll and Censure nay be Universally receiv'd with the highest Esteem and Applause and that their Persons should be so Caressed and Advanc'd by those Princes is a Riddle past mine or any man's Solving Princes and States use not to be so supine in such Matters as to permit a wrong Sense to be impos'd upon their Laws least of all those who are not in Communion with Rome especially when their own and the Pope's Authority are concern'd And yet we must either say that such Persons in such Matters were thus strangely negligent or else be forc't to acknowledge that in the Sense of all England the Lawyers there and even of our Princes themselves that was the True and Legal Sense of the Oath of Supremacy which those eminent Authors assign'd and declar'd This Argument will have far greater Force if we add that not one Protestant Author amongst so many that have either written expresly or touch't upon that Subject was ever found who contradicted this Explication of theirs or affirm'd any Power purely Spiritual to be given the King or taken from the Pope by this Oath Which the Fancies of Mankind especially those of many several Judgments in other things and all of them averse to the Pope and the Opinions of Writers being naturally so various evidences that this Sentiment of theirs concerning the abovesaid Meaning of the Oath was not only Universally but moreover Firmly and constantly held as an undoubted Truth And let it be noted here that all these four Learned Authors speak of the Oath both as to the Affirmative and Negative Clause in it that is both of what they attribute by it to the King and deny by it to the Pope Out of which Discourse it follows that though these Testimonies taken singly do not amount to a Publick Declaration of the Sense of the Oath yet taking them conjoyntly with all their respective Qualifications and Circumstances they evidently argue that the Sense they and we affix to the Oath is agreed to by all sorts of intelligent People in England to be indeed the True Sense of it Which Universal Consent seems equivalent to any Publick Declaration whatsoever Section III. Objections Answer'd NOtwithstanding the Evidence of what we produc'd above mens Fancies Interests and Humours being various there remain diverse Scruples in the minds of many and I will endeavour to ease them of those that have come to my knowledge and seem any way Material 1. First 'T is Objected that the words of the Oath deny all manner of Power to the Pope But how could they do otherwise Had they gone about to have number'd all the particulars which they intended to Abolish besides that 't would have been extreamly tedious in an Oath especially some perhaps would have escaped their utmost diligence Had they excluded Ordinary

knowing Christian Man judge what he ought to Teach or judge what is Faith what is Heresie likewise what is or is not a convenient Canon-Law or a fit Prayer to be used in his Churches and the like And more than these we do not find that the Acts ever gave K. H. 8th I believe it will be found that Solomon at the Dedication of the Temple and the Kings of Judah did as much or more as in reforming Abuses in God's Worship pulling down Superstition and Idolatry and the like and yet none imagined they in so doing usurp't the Office of the High-Priest as sacredly reserved to him then by the Law of Moses as the Pope's or that of Bishops is now to them 17. To these Examples I know it is commonly reply'd That these Kings did not do these Things without usurping the Priest's Office in case they did more than Execute what the Priests judg'd to be the Law of God and its Convenient Practice It being not the King's but Priest's Office to judge what was the Law of God to Teach it to the People and perswade them to Practise it And hence that they reach not King Henry's Case who was impower'd with Sixteen of the Clergy and Sixteen of the Laity to judge what Canons were not repugnant to the Law of God as in 25 H. 8. C. 19. and in his Court of Chancery to judge of Appeals from Spiritual Courts Nor Queen Elizabeth's Case who took upon her to order a New Form of Prayer and a New Manner of Consecrating Priests and Bishops 18. But this Reply invalidates not the Application of these Examples First Because in the Preamble of the Statute 24. C. 12. the Judgment of Things concerning the Law of God and Divinity is left to the Clergy as a thing of their and not the Laity's Office By which it appears that the King no more acted out of such an Office in himself than the Jewish Kings did And the same Office Queen Elizabeth denyes to her self in her Admonition and so leaves it and its Exercises to the Clergy And this is also evident because no Power is given to either of them by Act which only concerns us to order concerning the Law of God or its Practice without the Clergy's ordering it with them For in the First Sixteen Clergy-Men are mentioned In the Second the Spiritual Court if the Matter belonged to it Judged First And though an Appeal lay to the Chancery 't was not the Chancery but Commissioners who were to judge of that Appeal which Commissioners if the Case concern'd the Law of God 't is to be presumed were to be Clergy-Men as we shall see by and by Likewise Queen Elizabeth left the making of the Common-Prayer and Form of Consecration to Clergy-Men And hence they were never hindred from doing their Office that Christ gave them Power to do Neither did our Princes by these Laws pretend to do it but do what they did by the Clergies Directions as far as they judg'd them to direct right 19. Hence I Reply Secondly according to what has been said already That though no Lay-Man can be a Judge of what is Faith or a Preacher of it to which are reduced an Excommunicator or Denouncer of him that doth contrary to it or its Practice as of a Man to be avoyded and a Maker of Laws or Directions for its best Practice without any other Force than that of Excommunication in the most common or most proper Sense of these VVords which is the same as a Judge or Preacher authoriz'd or made by Christ's Immediate or Mediate Appointment Yet if the Word Judge be used to signify no more than one that knows or judges what is true Faith or its best Practice by Natural Reason not Authoritative Mission in this Sense every Lay-Man is and ought to be Judge of Faith and of its Preachers too because every Man has and ought to use his Reason in Faith as well as every thing else And he seeing many sorts of Faith pretended to be Christ's and many sorts of Preachers pretending to be True Ones is this way to judge of both these by the Reasons they bring for themselves and their Faith And hence the King as a Christian Man is in this Sense a Judge of Faith Nay in a particular Manner as he is King For as King he ought to use the Power he hath to see that Christ's true Faith be believ'd and practiz'd by his People And how can he see that Laws be made and executed for this without he knows or judges which it is Or how can he put in True and put out False Preachers without he knows by more than their own Words which are so And how can he establish right Laws for its Practice and abolish wrong Ones except he judge which are Good Ones which not Neither do I by this Power given to Princes of Judging in Matters of Faith give them that Power of Judgment which is proper to the Church Christ delivered his Doctrine not to Princes but Pastors and commanded Them not Princes to Teach the Flock and all the Flock Princes as well as private Men to hear their Voice Yet Faith being one of the many Things which fall under a Princes Care and about which he must needs Act one way or other I conceive he cannot Act in any thing without Judgment and so must of Necessity judge his way of Faith if he Act about Faith But the Church judges in order to Teach the Faithful the Prince in order to Govern his Subjects and appoint Rewards or Punishments We hold the Church Infallible and therefore She can oblige People to Interior Assent The Prince may happen to judge wrong which if he do we are not bound to Believe as he Judges Though we are bound to submit and patiently suffer the Penalties to which that wrong Judgment may expose us Other Differences there are which it is to no purpose to mention 20. Likewise If the Word Preacher signify no more than one that Teaches another what he knows of Christ's Doctrine and it 's right Practice then a Lay-Man may without Injury to the Clergy be a Preacher witness Apollo in the Acts Sir Thomas Moor in his proving Faith and disproving Heresies and writing Devout Treatises Parents in respect of their Children and God-Fathers in respect of their God-Children More-over What Injury would it have been if Sir Thomas More had been made such a Writer or Preacher by Act of Parliament And the same may be said of a King or Queen who either by Themselves or Counsel may be Learn'd enough Nay though every King be not a Preacher by Writing or Speaking yet he is a Supreme Authoritative Preacher in his kind since he by establishing one Faith and its Practice before another both Teaches and perswades to Practise it and in this way he hath none above him And since all properly call'd Preachers here have Leave or Jurisdiction from Christ and from our Law he