Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	crown_n	parliament_n	2,582	5	6.5434	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43627	The lay-clergy, or, The lay-elder in a short essay in answer to this query : whether it be lawful for persons in holy orders to exercise temporal offices, honours, jurisdictions and authorities : with arguments and objections on both sides, poyz'd and indifferently weigh'd / by Edm. Hickeringil ...	Hickeringill, Edmund, 1631-1708.	1695 (1695)	Wing H1818; ESTC R10850	22,034	36

are not two but one and Lay-Clergy is but one word and what God has joyn'd together let not wicked man put asunder This Unity of Persons Clergy and Lay takes away all distinctions of Lands as Church-lands and Lay-fees which King H. 8. and his Parliament begun practically to understand when they took the Church-lands which the Popelings Superstition had Monopoliz'd to the Clergy alone robbing the State and made them Crown-lands For to the Crown all Deodands appertain and I will justify it against all the Bigots that they were Lawfully disposed of by Act of Parliament which in England is the only thing that distinguishes and ascertains all mens Properties and Liberties and places all Lawful Land-marks Nature makes no distinction of meum and tuum for Property and Right in the Kingdom is only ascertain'd and known by the Law of the Land But 2dly How can God be robb'd except it can be proved that those Church-lands were his and that he who hates Robbery for a Burnt-Offering did ever accept thereof How can it be prov'd that his word was one of the two words that went to the bargain when such Holy-lands and Sacred Persons were Dedicated to him Tythes and Offerings were God's Lot under the Law of which he might have been robb'd not so under the Gospel Sacred they were only in the use whilst well imployed in the more immediate service of God Divine Service but the Character is not indelible they cease to be so when the good and right use ceases or turns to an Abuse and never were accepted by God that we know of or ever were acknowledged to be God's peculiar especially when purchased by Superstitious craft robbery and fraud for it is written Let no man go beyond out-wit or defraud his Brother in any matter for the Lord is the Avenger of all such The Magistrate is God's Deputy and the Avenger and in England he has done his Duty in Redeeming these superstitious Church-lands reducing them to the State their antient Channel and who art thou that darest to gain-say this Minister of God to thee for good Demas was Ordain'd but what became of the Indelible Character when he turn'd an Apostate-Priest in the Ido!-Temple at Thessalonica Julian the Emperour was once in Holy Orders and given or ordain'd or devoted to God but if God had accepted the gift he had not afterwards by his Apostacy given himself to the Devil but where 's the Indelible Character all this while so much boasted of by the Papists and so much prated of by some Protestants Our Holy Religion is of its own store rich enough without borrowing from Hypocritical dresses or groundless and vain Pretences Moses the chief Magistrate Ordain'd his Elder Brother Aaron Chief Priest and Nature wrought in him so that he prefer'd all his own Family and Tribe Ordaining all the Tribe of Levi fit or unfit even before they were Born to be Clergy-men to the World's end and gave them not only great Gleabes but the Tenth whereas Levi was at most but the twelfth part of the other Tribes even of all their Labour and Increase the eleven Tribes drudg'd hard to make the Tribe of Levi easy I do not say Lazy But under the Gospel there are no such entail'd Ordinations nor a Clergy-Tribe the Laity and Clergy are now all of one Flesh and they ought to be all of one mind which can never be whilst they are distinct corporations either in Fact or Name Even under the Law the chief Magistrate King Solomon deem'd it no Sacriledg to degrade and deprive the High-Priest Abiathar and Ordain'd and Install'd in his room one of his own Favourites Nay Moses could not so monopolize the Priest's Office and Church-Benefices and Benefits to his own Tribe but other Tribes put in for a warm share long before Jeroboam's time one of the House of Judah was an Interloper and got Ordination Judg. 17.7 So that neither the Church-Affairs were Administred only by the Tribe of Levi nor the chief Administration and Government in the State was confin'd to the Tribe of Judah as King David's good nature and kindness to his own Tribe did design it for King David's project lasted not three Generations Judah was the Royal Family during the Reigns of David and Solomon but the Scepter departed from Judah by the Revolt of ten of the Tribes in the Reign of that impolitick Prince Rehoboam and an Ephraimite Reigned in Jeroboam who had the Art or King-Craft to cajole the people who must be pleased or else their King's Crown sits neither easy nor fast upon his head Jeroboam had the knack of it whilst silly and Rash Rehoboam was Abdicated what portion say the people have we in David neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse To your Tents Oh Israel now see to thine House David Thus we see that even under the Occonomy of the Old Testament neither Offices in the Church nor State were confined to One Set of Men much less to such a distinct Tribe of Levi or Church-men distinguished and characterized from other men no not so much as in Habit Garb or Name For St. Peter a Fisher-man was a Fisher-man still even after he was a Preacher and Fisher of men and I doubt not but he wore a Fisher-man's Habit Clothes and Garb suitable to his Trade as did St. Paul and the rest Nor were Magistrates excluded from Degrading Ordaining or Commissionating Church-men and Depriving them likewise making Church-men Statesmen and vice versa Statesmen Churchmen Ministers of the Church and State or Servants to the State for they are not as I said before two distinct Bodies two distinct Corporations but the Church is a Member and part of the State It was only Popish Pride and Antichristian Prelacy that advanc'd the Mitre above the Crown And all our aucient Statutes made in the Unhappy Reign of Popery run in one strain as if the Church of England was adistinct Body from the Kingdom of England Thus the first Chapter of Magna Charta grants That the Church of England shall be free and shall have Her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable and 3 Rich. 2.1 That Holy Church have and wholly enjoy Her Franchises and Liberties by the manner she as hath had c. What a do is here to maintain this She This She Holy Church can never be meant to be the same Body with the He the State for which cause the old Statutes often mention the Lay-Fec in opposition and distinction to Church-lands But it was never-well with the King and Kingdom of England when this She strove to wear the Britches and kept a Purse and Cupboard by her Self alone peculiar and independent of the He the King For in the days of yore when Popery or Antichristianism was rampant above all that is called God the Magistrate our King could not durst not hang a Murderer or Traitor if he were a Clergy-man or Church-man 'till Holy Church was pleased to Depose Disrobe and unclergy

for the way was trac't before him for long before Laud's Ministration King Charles I. twice in Parliament uttered that distastful Sentence that gave such Umbrage and disgust to the Parliament and to the whole Kingdom and prov'd of most fatal and bloody Consequence in the ensuing Civil Wars for no people in the World have been more jealous of their Liberties and more apprehensive or allarm'd at any threatning presages of Arbitrary Government than the English such was that unfeasonable and distastful Sentence In that King's Speech I owe the Account of my Actions to God only And the Common-Text for the Manwarings and the Court-Sycophants of those times was Psal 51.4 Against thee thee only have I sinned and done this Evil in thy sight Whence they concluded and inferred that no King could sin against any but God alone Strange Logick more strange Divinity to draw an universal conclusion from particular Premises that because King David said that in the matter of Vriah the Hittite he sinned against God only therefore neither he in any other matter or particular nor any other King in any particular could sin against any but God only Surely David in that particular sinned against more than God only for he sinned against his own Conscience and his Coronation-Oath and the Duty of a King which is to be a Shepheard not a Wolf and was set up for Edification not destruction of the People of God also he sinned against Vriab's Life and his Wives Chastity in tempting and debauching her also he sinned against the Generation of God's Children made Religion evil spoken of and made the Enemies of the Lord to blaspheme as 2 Sam. 12.12 But Arch-bishop Laud had more ingenuity than to make that Construction of the word only for only there is interpreted by the following words in thy sight which are exegetical of the word only that is to say As Nathan said unto him 2 Sam. 12.14 thou didst it the Murther and the Adultery secretly David was cunning in his bloody ways and lustful ways he called not witnesses of his Adultery none knew but his Confidents and Pimps sworn to secrecy and the Murther was more secret for he kill'd by the sword of his Enemies the sword of the Children of Ammon so that against thee thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight It is plain that David only meant that he had done that evil only before God only in his sight none else were privy to it or knew of it at least he thought so and so did Nathan thou didst it secretly saith he so cunningly didst contrive it that none but God only should know of that sin Besides only may as in Psal 62.4 and in many other places of Holy Scripture be taken for especially or Chiefly against thee especially against thee chiefly have I sinned Sure I am none but Parasites can imagin that a wretchedly-sinful King is not a sinner cannot offend against any but God If a King as King David did make his subject a Cuckold does he therein sin against or offend against none but God Must not the Cuckold be at all concern'd because his Horns were of a King 's making What Divinity is this Flatterers and Sicophants are the worst of Poysoners but King Charles I. was thus cajoll'd long before Laud came into vogue But indeed are King's accountable to God only I had thought that no King can for his Heart exempt himself from the Judg within him his Conscience which if wounded and awake it will keep him from sleep as it did poor King David this Judg put him upon the Rack and made him roar again breaking his Bones Psal 51.8 So true it is A wounded Spirit who can bear This Judg was such a Terror to Cain that it made him a Vagabond and to run away with himself he knew not whither nor could over-run his Judg and Executioner for he carried them along with him as Murderers do most terribly in the very Breast so that Judas rather than endure it Hang'd himself Oh wretched Sycophants To encourage a King to sin because he is Accountable to God only at the day of Death and the day of Judgment As if he the Rock of Israel that told King David 2 Sam. 23.3 That he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God Should be Answered must Must be Just Is there a necessity for it must is not for Kings they are not accountable to any but God they can sin against God and against God only and he reckons not till the day of Death or the day of Judgment But I believe King David and some other Kings that I could think of found a more early day of reckoning than the day of Judgment and tho they and their Flatterers might put far from them the evil day yet they could not put it away yet in foro humano a King is not accountable But waving the Impiety where 's the Policy By such expressions to make the People Jealous and afraid of approaching Tyranny and Arbitrary Government The Kings of England usually have had their Speeches well examined in Council before they have spoken them in open Parliament I make no Apology for such language so offensive to the People only I say Laud is not to be blamed for the same for the Venome was destill'd into the King's Ear before he had the King's Ear and if it was otherwise what fence reason or Justice is there for one Clergy-man's failings to lay the blame upon all persons in Holy Orders This would be as ridiculous and unjust as if all the Layety should suffer for the sins of the Duke of Buckingham and Earl of Strafford of whose miscarriages in Government as an Evil Counsellor King Charles I. was so sensible tho always too late that he did publickly avow before Strafford's Death that he did not think him a Man fit for so much as the place of an High-Constable Was it Arch-bishop Laud too that was guilty of being an Evil-Privy-Councellor When K. Carles I. uttered the like alarming Expressions Such as these about imprisoning the Earl of Arundel saying in the House of Lords My Lords I do not by this mean to shew the Power of a King by Diminishing your Priviledges c. At which both Houses were strangely affrighted for the words Implied that he thought he had such a Power as King to diminish their Priviledges if he listed whereas they thought that they held their Priviledges per Legem Terrae not ad Libitum Regis by the Law of the Land and not the Arbitrary list or will of any man living Such Doctrines may go down in Turky and France they will not yet pass currant in England such was that other like ill-advised expression of that King namely But as for Tunnage and Poundage it is a thing I cannot want necessarily implying that if they would not give it him by Law he would take it by force as he did afterwards and