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	parliament_n	pass_v	3,913	5	6.6551	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67807	A vindication of my Lord Bishop of Worcester's letter touching Mr. Baxter from the animadversions of D. E.	Yelverton, Henry, Sir, 1566-1629.	1662 (1662)	Wing Y30; ESTC R34109	13,719	17

A VINDICATION Of my Lord Bishop of Worcester's LETTER TOUCHING Mr. Baxter from the Animadversions of D. E. LONDON Printed for Henry Herringman at the Anchor in the lower walk of the New-Exchange Anno 1662. A VINDICATION Of my Lord Bishop of Worcester's Letter touching Mr. Baxter from the Animadversions of D. E. Expected when I first saw these Animadversions that my Lord Worcester's Relation touching his carriage to Mr. Baxter had been false in many particulars and in all partial for I could hardly believe any Ingenuous person could write so sharply against a Father of our Church if he did not believe that he had truth on his side as to the main occasion of the Bishop's Letter But I confesse I was much amazed when I found our Animadvertor not only silent as to the main businesse but of my Lord Bishop's opinion as to the Controversy if Dr. Gunning and Dr. Peerson state it right And yet he is so angry that through all this discourse he gives the Bishop not one civil Epithete never calls him Lord but taxeth him of testiness choler of malicious ill-grounded fancy of unpeaceableness virulency of trifling with Scripture of boldnesse impiety And that this worthy Prelate might not go alone he calls the Imposers of Ceremonies unconscionable and so joyns all our Bishops with him I never yet to deal ingenuously saw so much choler in so few words come from the pen of any person much lesse from one whose judgement as he tells us is for the Order of Bishops from one who ever opposed the Covenant and is a zealous lover of the King I am now more fully confirmed in my former opinion that my Lord Bishops Letter is unanswerable since our Animadvertor strives rather to pick a quarrel with it than to answer it He had certainly a very great desire of writing or a very great animosity against this Bishop in publishing of his Animadversions since he knew before he writ them that as to the Controversy the Bishop was right and only here and there takes out a passage which he thinks may afford some dispute How well he hath done this this ensuing Discourse shall evidence The first Exception he takes at the Bishop is that he supposeth so strict an union and inseparable dependence between Kings and Bishops that they must stand and fall together I am glad he confesseth the event of this War is some advantage to this Position But I believe if he looks but about him he will hardly find any that opposed their Bishop but did their Prince as soon as they had power to do it He means nor I suppose in his Answer to this Axiom the Anabaptistical or Fanatick party the Munster Rebellion will sufficiently shew their Principles by their practices And as for the Presbyterians for them the World esteems the most sober of our dissentors although I am fully of Arch-Bishop Whitgifts opinion that they differ in nothing from them but length of time because the consequences of their Positions do naturally carry them to the Anabaptists I wish I could ever find their Government in any place established but upon a War but upon Arms against their lawful Magistrates He that should hear of Zuinglius killed fighting of Beza's trouping under the Banner of the Prince of Conde of the Genevans expelling their Bishop and lawfull Prince of the Hugenots fighting in France against their lawful King of the Dutch subverting their Monarchical Government into a Common-wealth of the Scots to name no more expelling their lawful Q. Mary He that considers who first taught the lawfulness of taking Arms for Religion invented the distinction of Offensive and Defensive Arms and who generally teach the People that the whole Power and Government is in them will easily believe that their Principles are inconsistent with Monarchy which hath produced such fatal effects throughout this part of the World But this by the way his first Reason why this Axiom is not true is 1. Because Kings were in all parts of the World before Bishops and what hath been may be I understand not at all how this is argumentative because there were Kings before there was any Christian Church and so consequently before Bishops therefore when there is a Christian Church Kings can subsist without Bishops for whilst the World was Heathen we find a Monarchy amongst their Priests a superiority and an inferiority evidently amongst them and so though there were not Bishops yet it was necessary to have something that resembled them Amongst the Jews we find three distinctions of Clergy High-Priest Priest and Levites established by God himself which is a very probable Argument they were necessary to uphold a Monarchy for they were necessary to uphold the Jewish Chuch or else they had not been instituted I could not have believed that a person that seems Learned could have thought that Axiom reached further than since the World was Christian But if he only means since the World was Christian why doth he not assign some Monarchy that subsisted with Presbytery I think he can name none but Scotland which how long it kept from a Rebellion after Presbytery was by Law there established the Animadvertor knows as well as I do 2. His second Reason is because Bishops as they are by Law established in England are purely the King 's subordinate Ministers for the management of Ecclesiastical affairs This I think is more invalid than the former for allowing what he saith to be true which I am sure is not I do not understand why because the Bishops are the Kings Officers therefore there is not a necessity of Episcopacy in a Monarchy nay rather it inforceth the contrary for it demonstrates that Kings ever judged Episcopacy necessary to Monarchy by alwayes constituting such Officers to Govern the Church under them Our Animadvertor would do well to assign a King that put down Episcopacy upon his own free will and consent without the force of the people and settled up any other Ecclesiastical Government with which the Monarchy did better subsist But besides his Position is false for the Law of England doth not look upon the Bishops meetly as Ecclesiastical Officers but as a third Estate without whose consent no Act of Parliament did legally pass unless they did voluntarily exclude themselves and that they are a third Estate several Acts of Parliament expressely call them so Secondly All Bishops are to be considered in a double capacity First As Officers instituted by Christ and so the Power of Church Censures belongs to them and this Power our Kings never pretended to to have neither doth our Law any where cell you that this Authority the King gives them Secondly As Officers appointed by the King to exercise that former power given them by God within such bounds and limits And many times out Law gives the Bishop much power in the Secular affairs which will conduce to the good of the State as well as the Church which Power they