Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	king_n	law_n	treason_n	3,277	5	8.9802	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94294	A discourse of the right of the Church in a Christian state: by Herbert Thorndike.	Thorndike, Herbert, 1598-1672.	1649 (1649)	Wing T1045; Thomason E1232_1; ESTC R203741	232,634	531

Law of his Country pretendeth to be for his good and to relish it aright when upon due consideration it appears to be no otherwise And so the punishment of the Law tends to the same purpose as all afflictions are sent by God to drive men to their good against their will And that those who fainedly submit to Christianity may as Aristotle says be Sun-burnt by walking in the Sun though they walk not in the Sun for that purpose That is by trying the effect of Christianity in the worship of God and reformation of mens lives among whom they live by being under such Laws may be won to imbrace it for it self which at first they imbraced for the worldly privilege of it To which purpose there can be no mean so effectuall as the restoring of the publick discipline of Penance in the Church By which it becomes most evident what inward esteem men set upon Christianity by the esteem they set upon the Communion of the Church And that the sentence of Excommunication is abhorred not for the temporall Penalties which by civile Laws attend upon it but for the Society of the Church which it intercepteth And truly this last inconvenience of Hypocriticall profession can by no means be avoided wheresoever Christianity or any opinion supposed to be a necessary part of it is made the Religion of any State For evidence whereof I must repeat first that which was supposed afore that there are but two reasons for which any Religion can be said to be the Religion of any State to wit Privileges and Penalties In the second place I must suppose here that as exemption from any penalty is a privilege so exemption from a privilege is a penalty Wherefore seeing no Religion can be the Religion of any State but by such privileges as another Religion is not capable of it is manifest that Toleration of Religion as it is a Privilege in comparison of punishment so it is a punishment in comparison of that Religion which is privileged These things supposed it will not be difficult to render a reason why Christianity must of necessity decay and why the power of it is so decaied since the world came into the Church For when men came not to Christianity till they had digested the hardship of the Crosse and resolved to preferre the next world afore this it is no marvell if they endured what they had foreseen and resolved against But seeing temporall privilege as well as temporall punishment may belong to true Christianity no marvell if men follow the reason of privilege not of Christianity when they goe both together though by consequence they will be ready to change as the privilege changes Now as to the Privileges which Christianity is endowed with by the Act of God or made capable of by the same from Soveraign Powers when they make Christianity the Religion of those States which they govern It is very easie to resolve from the premises that the Clergy are not exempt by Divine Right from any Law of those States under which they live For seeing the Clergy is a quality which presupposeth Christianity and subsisteth by virtue thereof and that no quality subsisting by the constitution of the Church or by Christianity endoweth any man with any temporall right wherewith he is not invested by the quality which he holdeth in his own Country it followeth that no man by being of the Clergy can be privileged against Secular Power or against those Laws which are the Acts of it And therefore the example of Abiathar High Priest removed from his Office by Solomon for Rebellion and Treason 1 Kings II. 26. to wit because as it is there expressed he had deserved to be removed out of the world is an effectuall argument to this purpose For if that Office to which his person was designed by Gods expresse Law supposing him to be lawfull High Priest might be taken away for a crime committed against the Majesty of the King subsisting by an Act subsequent to the Law established by God because the Law which allowed a King enjoined obedience by all the Penalties of the Law And indeed seeing the Clergy is but a degree qualifying men in Christianity above the People those temporall privileges which by Divine right are pretended to belong to the Clergy must needs belong to the People in an inferiour degree by the same right much more the Clergy presupposing the Church as the Church the State must needs leave all men that are qualified by it obliged upon the same termes as it findes them to the States wherein they professe themselves Christians Which cannot be when both Societies of the Church and the Commonwealth consist of the same persons But though the Clergy be not exempt from any Secular Jurisdiction by Divine Right yet they are so capable of exemption by Divine Right that no man can deny the Privilege granted by the first Christian Emperors the Causes of the Clergy to be heard and determined within the Clergy themselves to be very agreeable to reason of Christianity For if our Lord hath commanded and the Apostles ordained the differences of Christians to be ended within themselvs that they might not prove a scandall to Christianity it is but correspondent consequent thereunto that for avoiding the scandalls which the differences of the Clergy may occasion or to make them lesse publick they be ended within themselves seeing it is manifest to all understandings that the reverence of the Clergy is of great interesse to the advancement of Christianity On the other side seeing the Discipline which the Clergy are liable to by Christianity is so much stricter then that which the Civile Laws of any Commonwealth whatsoever can require and determine that Clergy men cannot incurre the penalties of Criminall Laws but they must be supposed to have violated the stricter discipline of the Church which they are under afore It follows that it is so farre from Christianity to privilege them against such Laws that the Church cannot otherwise be cleared of the scandall then by Ecclesiasticall censures correspondent to the temporall punishments which they incurre But if thus it be true that no man by virtue of his Christianity is endowed with any Secular Privilege of that Civile Society wherein he liveth By the same reason it must be true that no man is by his Christianity uncapable of any Right common to all members of the State in which he liveth unlesse some Law of Christianity can be produced whereby it may appear to be incompetible with the quality he holdeth in the Church Which hath been pretended with much noise to render the Clergy of this Church uncapable of imploiment in Secular affairs in point of Divine Right but will be very difficult to prove by the Scriptures in regard that Christianity containeth nothing but that which tendeth to the maintenance of Civile Society as on the other side Civile Society and the Powers thereof tendeth to the maintenance of

of their lawfull Soveraigns the subject of their Sermons seeing that all parts of Christianity may be throughly taught the people and every person of the people as fully understand how grievous every sin is as if they be stirred to malign and detest their Superiours by being told of their sins How much more when the actions in their whole kinds are not sins but may be involved with such circumstances as make them consistent with Christianity Besides seeing it is not every Preacher that is to regulate the proceedings of the Church in such sins of publick persons as appear to destroy Christianity to run before the publick censure of the Church in declaring what it ought to doe is not the zeal of a Christian but such a scandall as leaves the person that does it liable himself to censure The sin of Will-worship which I acknowledge p. 188. is as far distant from that voluntary service of God under the Gospel which answers to the voluntary Sacrifices of the Law in my meaning as it is in deed For as the Law had voluntary Sacrifices or freewill offerings not commanded by it but to be offered according to it the price whereof consisted in the frank disposition of him that offered the same So can it not be doubted that the Sacrifices of Christians their Prayers and their Alms all the Works of Free bounty and goodnesse together with Fasting and single life with continence and whatsoever else gives men more means and advantages to abound in the same may be offered to God out of our free-will not being under any Law requiring it at our hands Onely the difference is this that whereas the Sacrifices of the Law are things neither good nor bad but as they are tendred to God either in obedience to the Law or according to the same all Sacrifice which we can tender to God under the Gospel must needs consist in the spirituall worship of God Not in the means whereby it is advanced that is more plentifully or cordially performed Now though the spirituall worship of God is always commanded yet seeing it is not commanded to be done and exercised always it is much in the disposition of Christians what times what places what manner what measure what circumstances they will determine to themselves being not always determined by Gods Law for the tendring of the Sacrifice of Christians which being so determined shall be as truly a voluntary Sacrifice or freewill Offering as any under the Law and so much more excellent as the Law is lesse excellent then the Gospel If this may be received to goe under the name of Will-worship I am so far from counting Will-worship a sin that I acknowledge that to be the height of Christianity from whence it proceedeth But I conceive the word is not improperly used to signifie that which the Jews are reproved by our Lord after the Prophet Esay for because they worshipped God according to Doctrines taught by Traditions of men Not because they practised the Law according to the determinations of the Greek Consistory which as I have many ways shewed they had expresse power by the Law to make and therefore our Lord also commands them to obey Mat. XXIII 2. But because they thought there was a great deal of holinesse in practicing the Precepts of the Law precisely as their Elders had determined which setting aside the obedience of Gods Ordinance was nothing in Gods esteem in comparison of that justice and mercy and piety wherein the service of God then as always consisted We cannot but observe that this sin is taxed by the Prophets oftentimes as well in the practice of those precepts which are expressed in the Scripture of Moses his Law as by our Lord and the Prophet Esay in the ptactice of those which were introduced by humane authority Psal XL. 7 L. 8 Es I. 12 Jerem. VII 21 and therefore consisteth not in observing things introduced by men but in tendring to God for the service of God that which was not necessarily joyned with the inward holinesse of the heart which God is to be served with This sin of the Jews I conceive is found correspondently in other professions not onely of Gentiles and Mahumetanes which cannot worship God without it but also of Christians professing true Christianity when they worship not God according to it But not because they acknowledge humane constitutions which by Gods Ordinance cannot be avoided but because they may vainly please themselves in imagining that they please God in observing them without that disposition of the heart which God is to be served with And this sin of the Jews as Eusebius cals 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Epiphanius also in some of the ancient Hereticks cals it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which satisfies me that it may be called Wil-worship in English Though whether the former voluntary and frank service of God is not also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I dispute not here The reason why the Ceremonies of Divine Service which are here p. 192. proved to have been used under the Apostles cannot continue the same in the Church of all times and places I have briefly expressed p. 325. so that notwithstanding the Ceremonies of the service of God in publick ought to be such as may conduce to the same end for which it may appear those were instituted which were in force under the Apostles That it is a mistake to think that Soveraign Powers are called Gods in the Scripture as is said p. 214. appears further by Exod. XXII 28. Thou shalt not curse Gods neither shalt thou speak evill of the Ruler of thy people For in this place the Prince of the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a name common to Kings Judges and all their Governours in Chief that were of their own Nation whether absolute or under strangers Therefore the Sacrifice enjoyned Levit. IV. 22. belonged to the King when they were under Kings as the Jews agree Therefore it is given the King also Ezek. XII 10. VII 27. XIX 1. And therefore this Law is acknowledged by S. Paul to belong to the High Priest Acts XXIII 5. because as I said afore the High Priests had then the Chief Power within their own People as they had upon the return from Babylonia Wherefore seeing this Precept consists of two parts the second whereof belongs to the King the first must belong to the Judges of their Consistories according to the resolution of the Jews that all and onely Judges made by Imposition of Hands are called Gods in the Scriptures That which is here said p. 228. of the quality of Governour under the King of Persia in which and by which Nehemiah restoreth the Law and swears the people to it is to be compared with that which you finde here since in the 57 page of this Review Whereby it will rather appear that he was Governour of that Province by the like Commission as other Governours of