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	king_n	power_n	3,247	5	5.0875	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

And it cannot therefore be remitted but by them alone for whose sake the Oath was taken So that when in the second Paragraph of the first clause and more plainly in the fift he sweares a benefit to the Bishops alone in the behalfe of them and their Churches t is apparent that this Oath must perpetually bind except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves and their Churches he was sworne to This then must be confessed to be the sense of the oath that when the King hath first sworn in generall to grant keepe and confirme the Lawes and Customes of the people of England he farther yet particularly sweares unto the Clergy to preserve their Lawes and Priviledges and Customes because since they are not able to make a negative in Parliament so that the Clergy may easily be swallowed up by the People and the Lords Therefore in a more particular manner they have obtained an oath to be made unto them by the King which being for their particular benefit it cannot be remitted without their expresse consent so that although an Act of Parliament being once passed by the Votes of the King and both Houses it doth Sir as you have told me bind the whole People of England yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too yet it concernes the King by vertue of his Oath to give his Vote unto no such Act as shall prejudice what he hath formerly sworne unto them except he can first obtain their expresse consent that he may be thereby freed from his juratory obligation It may be said perhaps that in the consent given by both Houses of Parliament the consent of the Clergy is tacitely implyed and so it is say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir in respect of the power obligatory which an Act so passed obtaines upon them for they affirme that it shall as strongly bind the Clergy as if they themselves had in expresse termes consented to it Although Bishops being men barred from their Votes in Parliament And neither they nor their inferiour Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great Councell their consents can in no faire sense be said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their representative presence as they once without their personall But the Question is whether a tacite consent though it be indeed against their expresse wils can have a power remissory to absolve the King from his Oath he that affirmes it hath must resolve to meet with this great absurdity that although besides his Generall Oath unto the whole People of England His Majesty be in particular sworne unto the Rights of the Clergy yet they obtaine no more benefit by this then if he had sworn onely in generall which is as much as to say that in this little draught Oathes are multiplyed without necessity nay without signification at all and that the greater part of the first and the whole fourth clause are nothing else but a meere painfull draught of superfluous tautologies For his yeelding to the two first lines swears him to keep and confirme the Lawes and customes of the whole people of England which word People includes those of the Clergy too and therefore in generall their Lawes and Customes are confirmed no doubt in those words and so confirmed that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacite consent in a Parliamentary way But since the King condescends to afford to their Rights a more particular juratory tye there is no doubt but it binds in a way too that is more particular so that His Majesty cannot expect a remission of this oath without their consents clearely expressed For as when the King sweares to keep the Lawes of the People in general he cannot be acquitted but by the expresse consent of the people or by a body that represents the People quatenus the people so that when in particular he sweares unto the Lawes and Customes of the Clergy this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an expresse forme either by the whole Clergy themselves or by some Body of men at least that represents the Clergy quatenus the Clergy and not only as they are involved in the great body of the People so that he that shall presume to perswade His Majesty to passe an Act in prejudice of this ecclesiastical Body to whom he is thus sworn without their expresse consent first obtained councels him to that which is both grosly injurious unto his fellow Subjects nay which is indeed a most damnable wickednesse against the very soule of the King Sir as I conceive t is now plaine enough that if the Parliament should destroy the Episcopall Order and take away the Lands of the Church the Houses in that Act would runne themselves into two sinnes and His Majesty into three and upon this supposition the Epistler and I are agreed I do not thinke saith he Conveniency or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull and before that he calls the contrary the Tenet of the Romanist or Jesuited Puritan Onely I would beseech him for his own soules sake to consider how great a scandall he hath given to mankind in defence of such sinnes as these For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding Fornication was no sinne against the Law naturall then Shechem did who was onely under that Law in his Lust upon old Jacobs Daughter Fraudem legi facere saith the Civilian is worse then Legem violare it argues a more un-Subject-like disposition for a man to put tricks and quirks upon his Prince his Lawes then to runne himselfe into a down-right violation And God we know is King I am a great King saith the Lord of Hosts and a King in whose hand is vengeance Malach. 1. 14. T is true Sir we are thus put into a very sad condition when the only Option that seemes left us now is either to choose sinne or ruine but yet if well used t is a condition glorious a condition wherein all that noble Army of Martyrs stood before they could come at Martyrdome and if in preparation of mind we thus lay our lives downe at the feet of Christ I am undoubtedly perswaded t is our only way to preserve them FINIS 25. H. 8. c. 19. Epist. Ans. Epist Ans. Epist. Ans. 2 Sam. 7. Act. 27. 8. Mal. 3. 8. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 39. Art 1. Ibid. Art 3. 〈◊〉 verum de Furto Gel. l. 11. c. ●lt L. verum

feare that if I should perhaps dissent in opinion from this Epistler I might be thought at least in his conceite to incurre a sharpe censure both in point of reason and honesty Which I confesse at first somewhat troubled me untill I remembred you were wont to say that when vessels do once make such noises as these t is a very shrewd signe they are empty He who wrote the Letter seemes most desirous of Peace and truly Sir so am I besides we agree in this that we must not commit sinne for a good end so that if Peace it selfe cannot be attained without that guilt we must be content with a worse estate But you very well know with how many severall deceipts our affections can mislead our reason you remember who it was that said it unto the very face of a Prophet I have kept the commandement of the Lord and yet his sin remained still a great sinne and much the worse because he excused it For his guilt is lesse that commits a crime then his that undertakes to defend it because this cuts off all repentance nay it makes a sin to grow up into that more wicked heighth of a scandall and so t is not only a snare to the sinner himselfe but it warrants many more to be sinfull Whether this Oxford Londoner for so I take the Epistler to be hath not defended or made apologies for sinne and hath not in that sense done evil that good may come thereof I am now to make an enquiry and I shall follow him in his two generals 1. The delivering up the Kings friends whom they above call evil counsellors And 2. The businesse of the Church 1. For the Kings friends He sayes I know not how you can with reason gainsay the bringing offenders to justice indeed nor I neither but what if they be not offenders What if they must be brought to injustice I know no man that will refuse to be judged by a Parliament whose undoubted Head is the King and the King sitting there with an unquestioned Negative nay for his Majesty to referre Delinquents to be judged by the House of Peers sitting in a free Parliament and judging according to the known Lawes of the Realme is that at least which in my opinion would not be stucke at But the Parliament prerogative which this Letter speakes of being now so extended as we have cause to thinke it is I doubt in this case whether not only in point of honour but in point of justice and conscience the King for his own Peace can leave his friends to such men whom he is clearely bound by so many grand ties to protect But this Sir I shall commit to you to determine and if you returne me a negative I shall not presume to question your reason or honesty nor shall I perswade the Kings friends that they would banish themselves unlesse it were only to do that great favour to the two Houses now at Westminster as to keep them from some future foule acts of oppression and bloud because they shall have none left to act upon 2. For the busines of the Church which he againe divides into two parts first that of Episcopacy secondly of Sacriledge And in these Sir I shall speake with lesse hesitation I shall clearely tell you the Epistler is cleane out and though you very well know me a great honourer of your profession yet I cannot hold it fit to decide cases of conscience or in humane actions to tell us what is sinne or no sinne and I am confident Sir you will not take this ill at my hands First for Episcopacy his words are if I mistake not and if I do I pray reforme me The opinion that the government by Bishops is jure divino hath but lately been countenanced in England and that by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy These last words make me suspect some passion in the Writer as being in scorne heretofore taken up by men who for a long time were Schismatiques in their hearts and are now Rebels in their actions And since the Lawes of this Land makes some Church men Lords I do the more marvaile that the Epistler lookes awry upon it so that though his profession be that he has undergone labours and hazards for the Episcopall Government yet truly Sir I must thinke that t is then only fit for the Church to give him thankes when she has done all her other busines But grant that Tenet to be but of late countenanced it thence followes not that t is any whit the lesse true For in respect of the many hundred yeares of abuse the reformation it selfe was but of late countenanced here yet I take it for an unquestionable truth that the Laity ought to have the cuppe And though I was not desired to reforme this Epistlers errour yet in charity I shall tell him that he is out when he affirmes that this opinion was but of late countenanced in this Church as I could shew him out of Archbishop Whitgift and Bishop Bilson and others and since perhaps he may thinke these to be but men of the more Lordly Clergy I shall name one more who may stand for many and who wrote forty yeares since that most excellent man M. Hooker a person of most incomparable learning and of as much modesty who I dare be bold to say did not once dreame of a Rotchet he averres in cleare tearmes There are at this day in the Church of England no other then the same degrees of Ecclesiasticall order namely Bishops Presbyters and Deacons which had their beginning from Christ and his blessed Apostles themselves or as he expounds himselfe Bishops and Presbyters ordained by Christ himselfe in the Apostles and the seventy and then Deacons by his Apostles I may adde Bucer too no man I am sure of the Lordly Clergy who though he were not English born yet he was professor here in King Edwards time and he wrote and dyed in this Kingdome Bishops saith he are Ex perpetua ecclesiarum ordinatione ab ipsis jam Apostolis and more Usum hoc est spiritui sancto and sure if Bishops be from the Apostles and from the holy Spirit himselfe they are of divine institution Nay what thinke you if this Tenet be approved by a plaine act of Parliament I hope then it wants no countenance which England can give it and it needs not fly for shelter under the wings of the Lordly Cleargy you have these words in the booke of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops which is confirmed by Parliament It is evident to all men reading holy Scriptures and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have been these orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Presbyters and Deacons And againe the prayer in the forme of consecration of Bishops Almighty God giver of all good things which by thy holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church mercifully behold this thy servant now called to

appeare without all doubt a plain robbery of God for he that steales from men yea though a whole community of men though bona universitatis yet he sinnes but against his Neighbour t is but an offence against the second Table of the Law in these words Thou shalt not steale but Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Lawes call Bona nullius it strikes downright immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can out doe-it as this is t is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these crimes are equally built upon the self-same contempt of God the offenders in both kinds the Idolater and sacrilegious person both thinke him a dull sluggish thing the first thinkes he will patiently looke on while his honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines he 'l be as sottishly tame though his goods be stoln to his face This was without doubt the sense of all ancient churches for upon what ground could they professe they gave gifts to God but only upon this that they presumed God did stil accept them So S. Iraeneus We offer unto our God our Goods in token of thankefullnesse So Origen By gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of all So the Fathers generally so Emperours and Kings so Charles the Great To God we offer what we deliver to the Church in his well known Capitulars And our own Kings have still spoken in this good old Christian language We have granted to God for Us and Our Heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable they are all the first words of our Magna Chart. Her whole Rights Liberties words of a very large extent and imply farre more then Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands and Honours and Jurisdictions all these have beene given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publique Acts of the Kingdome and yet if Ananias might thus promise and yet rob God consider I beseech you whether England may not do so too 2. Proposition God gets this Propriety as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him For the second t is plaine in the Text that God did as much take the Temple to be his as he did the Jewes Tithes and Offerings These last indeed were his by expresse law command but the Temple was the voluntary designe of good David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tels David that he had been so far from commanding that house that he had not so much as once asked this service And therefore in his Apologie Saint Paul tels the Jewes Neither sayes he against the Law of the Jewes nor against the Temple have I offended any thing For he might in some case offend against the Temple and yet not against the Law Notwithstanding all this God pleads as much for his Temple in the Prophet Haggai as he doth in Malachi for his tithes In this his words are Ye have robbed we in tithes and offerings in the other Is it time for you O ye to dwell in sieled houses and this house lie waste therefore ye have sowne much and bring in little ye eate but have not enough so Hag. 1. 4. And to affirme that God in the New Testament doth accept of meat and drink and cloathing as it is plaine Mat. 25. he doth accept of money land was sold for as in the case of Ananias and yet that he doth not accept Land it selfe is so contrary to all reason so contrary to the practice not onely of the Christian but humane world so contrary to what God himselfe has expressed in the Old Testament and no where ●●called it in the New that he that can quiet his conscience with such concepts as these may I doubt not attaine to the discovery of some Quirkes which in his conceipt may either palliate murthers or adulteries For to think that those possessions are indeed Gods which he doth command but not those which he doth accept is to use God so as we would neither use our selves nor our neighbours for no man doubts but that 's as properly mine which I accept as a gift from others as what I attaine to by mine owne personall acquisition be it by a just war by study by merchandice or the like 3. Proposition That to invade those things consecrated be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sin of Sacriledge Sacriledge is then committed say the Schooles and the Casuists and they speak in their owne profession quando reverentia rei sacrae debita violatur When we violate that reverence due to a thing sacred by turning it into a thing profane so as the violation may be committed either per furtum by theft strictly so taken by stealing a thing moveable or per Plagium which is the stealing of a man or per invasionem which is a spoiling men of lands or of things immoveable for as any one of these done against our neighbour is no doubt in Scripture phrase a theft a sin against the 8. Commandment Thou shalt not steale So done against God t is no doubt a Sacriledge and a breach of the first Table be it either against the first or the second Commandement I stand not now to dispute for the word used in the New Test to expresse this sin is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Praeda or spolium So that Sacriledge is not to be defined onely by theft strictly taken but t is a depredation a spoliation of things consecrated and so the word extends it selfe as properly if not more to Lands as it doth to things moveable And hence Aquinas is plaine that Sacriledge reaches out its proper sense ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum sive sint mobilia sive immobilia For it would be very strange to affirme that in the sacking of Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar was sacrilegious when he transported the holy vessels but not at all when he burnt the Temple 4. Proposition That this sinne is not onely against Gods positive Law but plainly against the Morall Law For this common reason hath taught all even Pagan nations to hold Sacriledge a sinne So that Lactantius observes and he was well read in humane learning which made him to be chose Tutor to a sonne of Constantine the Great Inomni Religione nihil tale sine vindicto God did still remarkably revenge this sinne not onely in the true but amongst men of the most false Religions And 't were easie to shew that never any Nation did yet adore a God but they thought he did accept and did possesse himselfe of some substance I omit those proofs that would be thought far too tedious t is enough to quote the Prophets words Will a man rob God yet ye have robbed me Mal.

is no theft in the Civill Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure t is neither intimated by the Greek nor the Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Authors on the Subject so that I must set down an assertion I conceive well grounded too point blanck against this Londoner and affirme there may be a sacriledge properly so call'd which is not a theft in the Civill law-sense which has been grounded in the third Assertion and then we need not trouble Sir Robert Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other busines nor his fellow Lawyers for I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will thinke that this Epistler hath met with a Civill Law quirke which he knew not well how to weild But to say truth he deales clearely with the Doctor and tels him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I believe and do not only wonder he would gibe at another man in a point he could no better Master But these Arguments it seemes are but only the forlorne-hope the main Battell is yet to come He calls this the main quere and desires patience from the Doctor First saith he I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any Lands True the Clergy under the Gospell hold not their lands by a Divine command but they do by a Divine acceptation by Christs most gracious acceptance of such goods and possessions which have been given him by good Christians and this title you now heare will go as farre as a law and that is we conceive farre enough for it gives God a propriety in such lands and so keeps men from a re-assumption He goes on The hire of a Labourer at most as fitting maintenance is all that can be challenged I but that maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians shall use God like no other men farre worse I am sure then do Pagans And when such a maintenance hath been once given in lands the acceptation of Christ will soone make it irrevocable so that it signifyes little to say the Apostles had no Lands for they who had the money for lands fold might no man can well doubt have still kept the lands had they liked it but the Church was straight to be in hot persecution the Disciples were to fly and Lands we know are no moveables and it were very strange if not ridiculous to affirme that Ananias and his wife sinned in taking back● that money which they promised but if in specie they had given their Lands they might have revoked that gift without sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundlesse argument upon the Lands and portions allotted to the tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministere have no succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belongs to that Tribe by Leviticall right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a morall interest and what wee read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much obli●ge Christians as if it were found in the Now And 〈…〉 that they enjoy their 〈◊〉 by the 〈…〉 others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title Out into 〈◊〉 Have Church-men no title to those possessions they enjoy but by the law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christs acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law evangelicall their Lands are Gods own propriety and so they hold from him by the Law morall too and therefore though by the lawes of the land they hold estates in Fee-simple and so may alienate without punishment from the law of England yet they cannot do it without the guilt of sinne as being a breach of the law evangelicall and morall except then only when they better themselves by some gainfull or at least by some not hurtfull permutation Besides were the argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their owne act might alienate their lands but no man else without their consent And I conceive it would not now prove so easie a taske to bring Church-men to such an alienation But the Parliament may do it for sayes he I am sure it will be granted that by the Lawes of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or Goods hath them with this inseparable limitation and condition viz. that the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure This you have oft told me Sir is strange Doctrine for either the Parliament I hope he meanes the King in Parliament doth this as being the supreame power or as being representative and so including the consent of the whole People of England If as being the supreame power it will follow that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like and yet this hath been ever held tyrannicall in the Great Turk as being against the rules of justice and humanity Indeed Samuel 〈◊〉 the Israelites that since they would needs change their Theocracy the immediate government of God himselfe though it were into Monarchy the best of all humane Governments the King should take their sons and their daughters their fields and their vineyards c. and they should cry and should find no help Yet the best Divines think that this would be most unjust most sinful in their King and expresly against the law of Moses who leaves every man his propriety onely the Prophet there averres it should be not punishable in him they should have no remedy since being the supreame power 't was in no Subjects hands to judge him So if the King in Parliament should take away Church-lands there is I confesse no resistance to be made though the act were inhumanely sinfull Or secondly the Parliament does this as representing the whole people and so including their consent for they who consent can receive no injury and then I understand not which way it can at all touch the Clergy who are neither to be there by themselves nor yet God knowes by representation Or if againe they were there I would gladly know what Burgesse or what Knight of a shire nay what Clerke or what Bishop doth represent Christ whose Lands these are and by vertue of what deputation Nor doe I beleeve that any Subject intends to give that power to him that represents him in Parliament as to destroy his whole estate except then onely when the known Laws of the Land make him lyable to so high a censure But grant that this were true in Mens lands yet sure it will not hold in God's For since in Magna Charta that hath received by Parliament at least 30. Confirmations the Lands we speak of are now given to God and promise there made That the Church shall hold her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable Sure the Kingdome must keep what she hath thus promised to God