Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	england_n	king_n	3,741	5	3.7730	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41285	A second speech of the Honovrable Nathanael Fiennes, second son to the right honourable the Lord Say, in the Commons House of Parliament touching the subjects liberty against the late canons and the new oath.	Fiennes, Nathaniel, 1607 or 8-1669.	1641 (1641)	Wing F878; ESTC R8459	10,471	24

not whether it be true they say or noe but whether they have power to say what is Treason and what not But now Sir that I am upon this point J would gladly know what kind of power that is which is exercised by Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes Arch-Deacons c. Coactive certainly it is all the Kingdome feeles the lash thereof and it must needes bee independent if it be jure Divino as they hold it for they doe not meane by an independent power such a power as doth not depend on GOD Besides if their power bee dependent of whom is it dependent not of the King for the Law acknowledgeth no way whereby Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction can bee derived from his Majestie but by his commission under the great Seal which as I am informed they have not I speake not of the High Commission but of that jurisdiction which they exercise in their Archiepiscopall Episcopall Archidiaconall Courts c. and therefore if their owne sentence bee just wee know what they are and what they have pronounced against themselves But Sir it were worth knowing what they aymed at in that independent coactive power which they terme popular J will not take upon mee to unfold their meaning but wee know Doct. Beale had a hand in the making of these Canons and if wee apply his Paraphrase to the text it may give us some cleerenesse J remember amongst other notes of his this was one that we did acknowledge the Kings Supremacy but would joyne unto him an assistant viz. the people meaning this House which being the representative body of the COMMONS of England and claiming as it is so a share in the Legislative power Doct Beale calleth this a joyning of an assistant to the King in whom soly he placeth the power of making Lawes and that it is but of grace that he assumeth either the Lords or Commons for the making of Lawes with him Now Sir the Legislative power is the greatest power and therefore coactive and it is the highest power and therefore independent and if every Estate for the proportion it hath therein should not have such a power it should not have it of right as founded in the Fabricke and frame of the policy and government but of Grace or by Commission as Doctor Beale affirmeth J have done with the first Canon onely J shall adde this that considering the Principles and positions that are laid downe therein and comparing them with a clause towards the end of the Canon that in no case imaginable it is lawfull for Subjects to defend themselves wee may judge how farre forth these Canons were to prepare mens mindes for the force that was to follow after if the accusation against my Lord of Strafford be layed aright For the matter it selfe I hope there will never be any need to dispute that question and J doe beleeve they had as little need to have published that position had it not beene upon designe As for the second Canon therein also they have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power in taking upon them to appoint Holidayes whereas the Statute saith in expresse wordes that such dayes shall bee onely kept as Holy dayes as are named in the Statute and no other and therefore though the thing may be bonum yet it was not done bene because not ordained by Parliament notwithstanding what hath beene alleadged to the contrary it seemeth to me to be the appoynting of an Holy day to set a time a part for Divine Service and to force men under penalties to leave their labours and businesse and to be present at it And of the same nature is that other clause in the same Canon wherein they take upon them without Parliament to lay a charge upon the people enjoyning two Bookes at least for that day to be bought at the charge of the Parish for by the same right that they may lay a penny on the Parish without Parliament they may lay a pound or any greater Summe As to the third Canon I shall passe it over onely the observation that my neighbour of the long Robe made upon it seemes unto mee so good as that it is worth the repeating that whereas in the Canon against Sectaries there is an especiall proviso that it shall not derogate from any Statute or Law made against them as if their Canons had any power to disanull an act of Parliament there is no such Proviso in this Canon against Papists from whence it may be probably conjectured that they might have drawne some colour of exemption from the penall Lawes established against them from this Canon because it might seeme hard that they should be doubly punished for the same thing as we know in the point of absence from the Church the Law provideth that if any man be first punished by the ordinary he shall not be punished againe by the Justices For the fourth Canon against Socinianisme therein also these Canon-makers have assumed to themselves a Parliamentary power in determining an Heresie not determined by Law which is expressely reserved to the determination of a Parliament It is true they say it is a complication of many heresies condemned in the foure first Conncills but they doe not say what those Heresies are and it is not possible that Socinianisme should bee formally condemned in those Councills for it is sprang up but of late Therefore they have taken upon them to determine and damne a Heresie and that so generally as that it may be of very dangerous consequence for condemning Socinianisme for an heresie and not declaring what is Socinianisme it is left in their brests whom they will judge and call a Socinian I would not have any thing that I have said to be interpreted as if J had spoken it in favour of Socianisme which if it be such as J apprehend it to be is indeed a most vile and damnable heresie and therefore the framers of these Canons are the more to blame in the next Canon against Sectaries wherein besides that in the pre-Preamble thereof they lay it downe for a certaine ground which the holy Synod knew full well that other Sects which they extend not onely to Brownists and Separatists but also to all persons that for the space of a moneth doe absent themselves without a reasonable cause from their owne Parish Churches doe equally endeavour the Subversion of the Discipline and Doctrine of the Church of England with the Papists although the worst of them doe not beare any proportion in that respect to the Papists J say besides that they make them equall in crime and punishment to the Papists notwithstanding the great disproportion of their Tenents there is an other passage in this Canon relative to that against Socinianisme which I shall especially offer to your consideration and that is this If a Gentleman comming from beyond Seas should happen to bring over with him a Booke contrary to the Discipline of the Church of England or should give such a Booke

A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FIENNES second Son to the Right Honourable the LORD SAY in the Commons House of PARLIAMENT Touching the Subjects Liberty against the late Canons and the New Oath Printed by a perfect Coppy 1641. A SECOND SPEECH OF THE HONOVRABLE NATHANAEL FJENNES second Son to the Right Honourable the Lord SAY touching the Subjects Liberty against the late Canons and the New Oath Mr. Speaker NOW that wee are about to brand these Canons in respect of the matter contained in them it is the proper time to open the foulenesse thereof and though much of this hath beene anticipated in the generall debate yet if any thing hath beene omitted or if any thing may be farther cleered in that kind it is for the service of the House that it should now be done Sir I conceive these Canons doe containe sundry matters which are not onely contrary to the Lawes of this Land but also destructive of the very principall and fundamentall Lawes of this Kingdome J shall beginne with the first Canon wherein the framers of these Canons have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary power and that too in a very high degree for they have taken upon them to define what is the power of the King what the liberty of the Subjects and what propriety he hath in his goods If this bee not proper to a Parliament J know not what is Nay it is the highest matter that can fall under the consideration of a Parliament and such a point as wherein they would have walked with more tendernesse and circumspection then these bold Divines have done And surely as this was an act of such presumption as no age can parallell so is it of such dangerous consequence as nothing can bee more For they doe not onely take upon them to determine matters of this nature but also under great penalties forbid all Parsons Vicars Curats Readers in Divinitie c. To speake any other wayes of them then as they had defined by which Meanes having seised upon all the Conduits whereby knowledge is conveyed unto the people how easie would it be for them in time to undermine the Kings prerogative and to suppresse the Subjects liberty or both And now Sir I beseech you to consider how they have defined this high and great point they have dealt with us in matter of Divinity as the Judges had done before in matter of Law they first tooke upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature but onely to the Parliament and after by their judgement they overthrew our propriety and just so have these Divines dealt with us they tell us that Kings are an Ordinance of God of Divine Right and founded in the Prime Lawes of Nature from whence it will follow that all other formes of government as Aristocracies and Democracies are wicked formes of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God and the Prime Lawes of nature which is such new Divinity as I never read in any Booke but in this new Booke of Canons Mr. Speaker We all know that Kings and States and Judges and all Magistrates are the Ordinances of God but Sir give me leave to say they were the Ordinances of men before they were the Ordinances of God J know I am upon a great and high point but J speake by as great and as high a warrant if Saint Peters chaire cannot erre as Saint Peters Epistles cannot thus he teacheth us Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreame or to the Governour as to him that is sent by him c. Sir it is worthy noting that they are Ordinances of men but that they are to be submitted unto for the Lords sake and truely their power is as just and their subjects alleageance as due unto them though we suppose them to be first ordinances of men and then confirmed and established by Gods Ordinance as if wee suppose them to be immediate ordinances of God and so received by men But there was somewhat in it that these Divines aimed at I suppose it was this If Kings were of Divine Right as the Office of a Pastour in the Church or founded in the prime Lawes of Nature as the power of a Father in a Family then it would certainly follow that they should receave the fashion and manner of their government onely from the Prescript of Gods Word or of the Lawes of Nature and consequently if there be no text neither of the Old nor New Testament nor yet any Law of nature that Kings may not make Lawes without Parliaments they may make Lawes without Parliaments and if neither in the Scripture nor in the Law of Nature Kings be forbidden to lay taxes or any kind of impositions upon their people without consent in Parliament they may doe it out of Parliament and that this was their meaning they expresse it after in plaine termes for they say that Subsidies and taxes and all manner of aydes are due unto Kings by the Law of God and of nature Sir if they bee due by the Law of God and of nature they are due though there bee no act of Parliament for them nay Sir if they be due by such a right a hundred acts of Parliaments cannot take them away or make them undue And Sir that they meant it of Subsidies and aides taken without consent in Parliament is cleerely that addition that they subjoyne unto it that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods for had they spoken of Subsidies and aides given by consent in Parliament this would have beene a very ridiculous addition for who ever made any question whether the giving Subsidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the propriety hee hath in his goods when as it doth evidently imply they have a propriety in their goods for they could not give unlesse they had something to give but because that was alleadged as a chiefe reason against ship-money and other such illegall payments levied upon the people without their consent in Parliament that it did deprive them of their right of propriety which they have in their goods these Divines would seeme to make some answer thereunto but in truth their answer is nothing else but the bare ass●rtion of a contradiction and it is an easie thing to say a contradiction but impossible to reconcile it for certainly if it be a true rule as it is most true ●uod meum est sine consensu meo non potest fieri alienum to take my goods without my consent must needs destroy my propriety Another thing in this first Canon wherein they have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary power is in that they take upon them to define what is Treason besides what is determined in the statute of Treasons They say to set up any coactive independent power is treasonable both against God and the King the question is