Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	see_v	write_v	year_n	3,146	5	4.6224	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A31183	The Case of the sheriffs for the year 1682, or, The third years paper in regard to the act for corporations being the case also of the dissenting ministers in regard to the act of Oxford : in a second and third sheet, together with the first revised, strengthened and reprinted ...		1682 (1682)	Wing C1164; ESTC R18154	25,181	37

such Matters must be excepted But as for any Matters Established by Law that belong only to the Administration there is no Exception to be apprehended when the Words are so general without any Limitation If any other Law or Statute be pleaded for putting in such Exception it must be answer'd by the Distinction offer'd There are no Matters we must say excepted by any other Statute or rather can with reason be excepted unless they belong only to the Constitution and not the Administration The Other Question is Whether the taking away any of the Authority of the Bishops and Arch-Deacons Courts their Officers Canons and the like is such an Alteration as belongs to the Administration of the Government in England that is Whether it comes within the Cognizance of a Parliament or is in their Power to do it We know that such a thing as the Changing of our Monarchy into another sort of Government were not to be proposed to Parliament being out of their Cognizance if the King and the Houses were willing to have it But do the Bishops and their Courts stand upon the same Foundation 'T is true that Magna Charta may be pleaded but Magna Charta it self is but a Law for the Administration It is beyond all doubt in the Power of the King and His Houses i. e. the Parliament to regulate the whole External Polity of the Church and so take away Diocesan Episcopacy it self if they pleased And can any one indeed question whether the taking away some Power from their Courts or some Officer belonging to them or the like which yet were to Alter the present Government fo the Church is not within their Cognizance or that this Matter is not contained in those Matters Established by Law that in general may be Altered and in case of Grievance be Petitioned for to be Altered And if this be still permitted the People according to the Statutes made in the Reign of this King then could it not be the Intent or Meaning of this Parliament that All Endeavour to Alttr the Government when any thing is grievous in the Church should be Vnlawful and when we are brought to distinguish of such an Endeavour of Alteration which is Warrantable by Law and that which is Vnwarrantable then are we come to the right Understanding of the Lawgiver's Meaning viz. That the Endeavour which they require us to abjure in the Oath is the One and not the Other This is what we say all along and stand upon it Reader lay thy Hand upon thy Heart and as thou believest this Interpretation or believest it not either Take or Forbear the Oath in the Name of God And what think we after some pause upon this of those Sheriffs and Ministers who are Conformists Are there not many of them which is before hinted Men of Reason and Conscience judicious and that fear God And in what sense judge we have the One subscribed according to the Act of Vniformity the same words which the Other swears according to the Act for Corporations It is strange the Nonconformist should make such a stand at that Sense of the Oath and Subscription proposed in this Paper as singular and doubtful which the Conformist receives as the undoubted and common Sense of the Kingdom with all the Judges and Lawyers of the Realm If they received not this Sense they would refuse them no less than we and if we received it as freely as they we should submit to them as they do In like manner for renouncing the Covenant What is it also they intend by it Is it nor this that the Covenant was an unlawful Oath and therefore binds no body But let us ask again do they think that the Covenanting to maintain the King which indeed helpt to bring him in again and the Protestant Religion and to Reform our Lives or the like things is unlawful and that therefore no Man is bound thereunto Certainly they cannot think so but the Covenanting to Change the Government or extirpate Prelacy and that without and against the Will of the King which is consequently in a way Unparliamentary this is it they judge unlawful and that such an Oath can oblige no body And is there any Nonconformist that understands himself who does herein disagree with them In the name of God then let us come to a right understanding on both sides of the Oath and of the Declaration Let the meaning of the Oath be no more than this that it is unlawful to take Armes against the King or his Authority any where exerted according to Law and that we will never go about to make any Change either in Church or State Affairs but by King and Parliament And let the meaning of the Declaration also be no more than this as in the First Sheet That there lies no Obligation upon any from the Covenant to do as they Swear it It was unlawful in its self to do so and the imposition of it was illegal And when we come to an Agreement in the sense what should hinder us but we may come also to agree in practise and do as one another If any Man indeed remains yet unsatisfied in his Conscience to do as the Conformist does it may be only because he does it we charge him notwithstanding all this which we have said to forbear But if indeed he be satisfied as to the Sense and pretends dissatisfaction in his Conscience and fear of loosing his Soul for the saving onely of his Purse we must in this Case or in this Cause rather at this season lay upon him this Charge also that in refusing his Compliance with the Law he must give an account to God for the refusing his Duty with it both to him and to his Country For our selves if our Arguments satisfy any Man and so he complies we edify that Man and not scandalize him If they do not and he forbears we do him no hurt It is a Man 's own Conscience is the Discerner to him of his Duty and he is not to regard another Mans any further than to avoid active Scandal which upon such a warning that no man follow his Example unless he be satisfied with his Reasons he does prevent as much as he can in this business We have done after one Acknowledgment That the Materials of these Sheets are borrowed very much from a Book that one of us does think he may make bold with whose design is greatly to offer such a kind of Resolution to the Conscience touching our present Impositions that both they that Conform to them and they that cannot may see reason to retain a fair Opinion of one another and to hope that neither of them do wilfully depart from is in what they do The Book was written many years but Printed onely about three since and is quoted in the Margine of the First Sheet We have reason to tell this both because that which is here offer'd may not appear to be written as some

THE CASE Of The Sheriffs For the YEAR 1682. OR THE Third Years Paper In Regard to the Act for Corporations Being the CASE also of the Dissenting Ministers In Regard to the Act of Oxford In a Second and Third Sheet together with the First Revised Strengththened and Reprinted Upon more than ordinary pressing Cause respecting both the Preservation of such Minsters and their People and the Universal Safety of the Nation Thou seest Brother how many Thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all Zealous of the Law And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses Do therefore this that we say unto thee that all may know that those things whereof they are inform'd concerning thee are nothing but that thou thy self also walkest Orderly and keepest the Law LONDON Printed for Thomas Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers-Chappel 1682. To those Two Worthy Citizens Who Shall be CHOSEN Sheriffs of London For the YEAR 1682. WHether a Cup of Wine drunk by the Lord Mayor or the Votes of a Common-Hall according to the Charter shall have the Preheminence to make a Sheriff of this City it is but a few Weeks or Days it is like will bring into Tryal This Paper does suppose such an Election and it is the great difficulty onely as to the holding Sheriffs in point of Conscience when Elected that is here concerned We Dedicate these Sheets therefore beforehand to those who shall be sollicited to be Candidates for their Premeditation and after to the Chosen The Reasons from the beginning for Printing this Case are as follows 1. To take the Oath and Subscribe the Declaration in the literal strict Construction appears in our judgment unlawful and consequently unless by some means or other the sense be made publick in which a man does take them and that sense also be justifiable he must forbear 2. The Declaration is against the Consciences of the Nonconformists in general insomuch as some Men who took the Oath cannot subscribe the Declaration and for any Consciencious Men therefore to do it now and not declare their Reasons of Satisfastion were to Sin against the Brethren if they own them or to disclaim them 3. By doing this a Man shall give occasion to others to follow his Example and if he present them not in his Grounds or Reasons those that follow shall do it without the same Reasons and through his knowledge shall such perish But when ye sin so against the Brethren and wound their weak Consciences ye sin against Christ 4. The Episcopal Party are generally apt to think the Nonconformists to be Hypocrites and Knaves and say These Men refuse these Injunctions out of humour or for their profit but they will swallow them as well as we for Honour or for Advantage If any considerate Men therefore shall Swear and Declare and not give us some rational Account of what they do or some others for them they must not only wrong themselves but the whole Generation of such Men and cause the Name of God in regard to them to be Blasphemed The First Sheet Being The SHERIFFS CASE Whether and How they may Lawfully Qualifie themselves for their Holding the Office according to the Act for Corporations IN this Act there are Two things imposed An Oath and A Renunciation of the Covenant And we must lay down this * To this Rule there is a double Extreme The One is of those who think a Man must take every In●●●●●tion in the strict litteral Construction and can submit to it no otherwise T●● 〈◊〉 is of such who suppose that if a Man can frame any Interpretation of h●●● 〈◊〉 ●t is but reasonable he may take the Words in that Sense and be 〈…〉 first of these is so rigid that there is nothing can be imposed but 〈…〉 at it and the last so loose that nothing can be imposed but we shall swallow it The true Medium is this we must sit down and consider what we believe to be the Meaning of the Lawgiver and if we can submit to an Imposition in that Sense or Meaning which we believe theirs we must do it but if we believe their Sense to be such as we cannot take it in that Sense we must forbear it and suffer Pray see more about this Rule in a Book entituled A Peaceable Resolution of Conscience touching our Present Impositions Pag. 121. to 126. Rule at firsT That all Impositions of our Superiours must be taken in the Sense and Meaning of those that Impose them There need be no Scruple else in Submission to any thing enjoyned The bottom is this The Law is the Will of the Lawgiver and it is the Lawgiver's Meaning which is his Will howsoever the Words of the Law is expressed Not that when we distinguish the Words and the Meaning we do divide them An Imposition must be taken in the very Words and the Sense of the Words but the Sense of the Words must be the Meaning of the Lawgiver Although there are Words sometimes also to be understood when it is apparent either from the Subject-matter or from other Acts where that Meaning is fully or fuller declared The law it self now we know hath no Meaning or Intention but the Lawgiver or They that make it The Parliament here is the Lawgiver and this Oath then must be taken and Renunciation made in the Sense and Meaning of the Major Part of the Parliament which passed the Act. Here we must also premise thus much That it is not for any Sheriff Alderman or any other Person upon whom this Oath is imposed for we must begin with That to put a Meaning of his Own upon it which is to be taken only in Theirs that passed the Act but to consider verily what he believes to be that Meaning which is indeed the Lawgivers Not to determine neither and say This is the Meaning but to be able to say I * There is a Court then is set up for every one in his own Breast Let him go to his Conscience and ask What thinks he really as in the Presence of God if he could ask the Imposers of these things whether it is their Will that he should be of another mind in these Particulars that cross his Assent or leave his Station If his Conscience tells him it is verily perswaded that it was their Intention in the Injunction he is to Honour God in his patient Suffering their Pleasure But if he is perswaded in his Soul that this is utterly against their sills and was and that the things be scruples at or as be scruples them never came into their Minds unless to admit them onely they passed them in the gross never intending that they should put a Barr in Conscience to any and if he could ask them he believes they would certainly allow him in them Here he is I suppose to put such a Sense or Meaning