Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	john_n	word_n	write_v	2,847	5	5.7890	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19149	A second manuduction, for Mr. Robinson. Or a confirmation of the former, in an ansvver to his manumission	Ames, William, 1576-1633.	1615 (1615)	STC 556; ESTC S115272	26,714	36

answer is that the very obteyning receyving of such a licence is unlavvfull because it is a reall acknovvledgement that such a Byshop hath a lavvfull povver to grant it Which is neyther so nor so for 1. The asking receyving of leave or licence which are both one doeth not allways implie an acknowledgement of his lawful authoritie from whome it is sought If any man of violence shall usurpe a power to him self of permitting or hindering the lawful good offices that pertaine unto honest men so that without his licence a man could not buy or sell or teach any science or trade of life if an honest man whome these duties concerne should in that case take a licence from that usurper though hee were no better then a strong theif no reasonable man will say that in so doeing he did acknowledge such usurped power lawful The rulers of Iewish synagoges had no lawfull power over the Apostles of Christ in any part of their ministerie neyther would Paul ever acknowledge so much yet hee Barnabas accepted of such licence or leave from them sometime as they did usually grant unto those that acknowledged them selves lawfully subject to their authoritie See an example act 13.15 Mr. R. him self hath granted in the first demand that a man may preach by leave in a parochiall assemblie which leave must bee given by the parochiall minister churchwardens whose authoritie hee holdeth one with the Bishops If therfore leave or licence whether in word or writing that is all one may be lawfully taken from them without acknowledging any authoritie lawfull which is unlawfull why not from the Byshop 2. There is some authoritie in the Bishops derived from the king which may bee acknowledged lawfull Such is this of giving licence libertie civill authoritie for men to doe good The civill magistrat may doe it him self or appoint others to doe it 2 chro 17.7 The abuse of this authoritie doeth not make it unlawfull But Iohn Claydon sayth Mr. R. a martyr of Christ vvas othervvise minded vvhen he vvitnessed that the Byshops licence to preach the vvord of God vvas the true character of the beast Which testimonie is found in deed in the book of martyrs p. 588. But 1. It is not Iohn Cleydons but found in a book wherof hee was the owner but not the author for hee could neyther write nor read 2. Whosoever was the author the meaning was that in regard of the conditions required by those Byshops the persons that usually obteyned their approbation licences might be helde as a note of one that followed the beast of Rome though those conditions beeing removed ther was no such wickednesse in the bare licence This meaning may bee gathered out of the answer of William Thorp whoe may probablie be judged the author of that treatise wherin this testimonie was found For concerning the Byshops licence hee rendereth a iust reason why the godly preachers in those days did not seeke them p. 492. In this his speach to the archbyshop Sir as touching your letters of licence or other Byshops vvhich yee say vvee should have to vvitnesse that vvee vvere able to bee sent for to preach vvee knovv vvel that neyther yovv sir nor any other Byshop of this land vvill grant to us any such letters of licence but if vvee should oblige us to yovv to other Byshops by unlavvfull othes not to passe the bounds termes vvhich yee sir vvith other Byshops vvil limit to us And since in this matter your termes bee some too large some too strait vvee dare not oblige us thus to bee bounde to you for to keepe the termes vvhich yovv vvill limit as yovv doe to friers such other preachers 3. If one good martyr out of zeal had given that testimonie in such a sense as Mr. R. wil haue it understood in yet the generall consent of almost if not absolutely al the other martyrs beeing otherwise as is wel knowen to such as have read their stories this one of it self could work no great praejudice This for the answer directly applied unto the demand Vnto the comparative reason annexed that a man may ask leaue of the great Turk to preach the gospell within his dominions he opposeth 2 things 1. A difference betwixt leave licence that to ask leaue is to desire one not to hinder him but to obteine a licence of the Byshop is to obteine publique authoritie of the publique officer according to the publique lavves of the church to exercise a publique ministerie 2. That the great Turk is a lavvfull civill magistrat vvith vvhose civill authoritie it is lavvfull to partake But so is not the Byshop a lavvfull ecclesiasticall officer vvith vvhose spirituall iurisdiction gods servants may communicate In all which ther is not one sound sentence For 1. What difference soever he may imagine betwixt leave licence my meaning was that it was lawfull to obteine a licence of the Turk for to preach the gospell in his Dominions 2. Leave from one that is in authoritie so as he that hath it shal be hindered of none subject unto that authoritie is a licēce with authoritie So that the difference betwixt leave licence insinuated by him must consist onely in the great sound of the word publique so oftē repeated in vaine publique authoritie publique officer publique lavves publique ministerie Which how idle it is hath formerly been shewed 3. He that hath a Byshops licence orders too hath no such authoritie actuall conferred upon him therby but that hee may bee hindered many ways even by those that are subiect unto the Byshop from ever exercising that wherto he hath licence so that in this respect ther seemeth not so much as full perfect leave to bee conteyned in a Byshops licence 4. That the Turk is a lawful magistrat it would trouble Mr. R. to prove 5. The Byshop hath some jurisdiction exercised about spiritual causes which may lawfully bee communicated with 6. And lastly though all this were so as Mr. R. sayth that it were unlawfull for to seek or take such a licence of a Byshop yet it doeth not follow but it might be lawfull to communicat with him that hath taken it especially seeing it was lawful before and the man doeth hath all good that he did or had before onely with this difference that he doeth that with licence of the Byshop which he did before with his connivence So that this demand remaineth unanswered which was not made of the getting of licence but of communicating with him that had gotten one Which communion can be no more unlawfull then that which schollers haue with a schoolmaister who hath takē a Bishops licēce according as many are urged to doe from the same Bishop or that which subiects haue had with their lawfull king sometime when he was crowned or set up by the Pope THe 4. Demand was concerning a man that hath taken that forme of admission which is called