Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
england_n church_n doctrine_n homily_n 2,580 5 12.0475 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A84287 The Exercitation answered, in the assertions following made good against it. 1 That the usurpation pretended by the exercitator is really no usurpation, by any thing that he hath said to prove it such. 2 That former oaths in controversie oblige not against obedience to present powers. 3 That obedience is due to powers in possession, though unlawfully enter'd. 1650 (1650) Wing E3865; Thomason E597_12; ESTC R201963 43,067 59

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

which hee makes account easily to elude all this for he saies the succession is to a Crown and Dignity but that is abolish and therefore the Successors which he pretends our Author pleads for can never be those intended in the Oath Is it indeed abolisht How then can the Successor which he pleads for bee the Successor in the Oath more then they nay how can he indeed be either Successor or Heire Hee that is either Heire or Successor to that which is a abolish is such to that which is not hee that is such to that which is not is such to that which is indeed nothing much good do it him both with his Heire and Successor-ship the man hath fairely confuted himselfe But then againe doth he know what the Crowne and Dignity he talkes on is Doth its essence consist in a Name or Thing If in a Name There is no body desires much to take it from him provided he be contented with that onely If it consist in a Thing then the name is onely chang'd the thing still remaines and so they of whom our Author as he would pretend speakes may be the Successors in the Oath notwithstanding what he Objects to the contrary concerning the abolishing of the Crowne and Dignity Yet againe he sales the Oath intends by Heires and Successors the Jame Persons which he goes about to prove too ridiculously to neede an answer and adds admit them divers and the Oath will import a contradiction For he saies had the persons beene divers it must have beene Heires or not and Successors Right For you know in a Lease we must not say Executors Administrators and Assignes but or Assignes unlesse Assignes meane the same persons with Executors and Administrators else it will imply a contradiction Where 's his true Syntaxis now will not every Scrivener tell him that this deserves the Ferula Againe admit them divers and the Oath will import a contradiction A very weake exception but a strong contradiction to the truth and therein a reall inforcement to the cleare Letter of the Oath his over-hasty zeale making him truely fall into that very crime which he had before wrongfully charg'd on our Author For why I pray may we not swear to performe the duty of the Oath to divers sorts of persons at divers times obtaining and without a contradiction seeing both cannot obtain at once if the words beare adifferent signification And that their signification is indeed different The Exercitator himself cannot deny whilst he grants the word Successours even in the present Oath to bee a Terme in Law Page 50. For every Puisne will tell him that hath but read the first Chapter in Littleton that words that make a different estate in Law must in Law have a different signification Besides reason it selfe will dictate that they were at first intended different For the Oath being made by the Kingdome in Parliament was intended to make provision for the Kingdome as well as the King and not for the King without the Kingdome as the Exercitator sondly imagines in case the line obtaining should faile or upon other emergencies whatever that might insue To conclude this particular our Author to shew the ordinary acception of the word Successor bids aske the question who was Successour to W. Conqueror The Exercitator takes him up very Magisterially and saies t is fallaciously propounded Rightly he saies 't will be this Who is to bee his Majesties Successour But surely hee hath not more fallaciously then foolishly propounded a question which Fryer Bacons head would hardly have beene able to answer him For if it must be understood as he tells us he intends it Of the suture time and a thing to be done in it He that shall give a true answer to the question so propounded and so understood must either answer by inspiration or confesse that our learned Exercitator hath clearely put him to a non-plns Before we conclude this Chapter we cannot but taste of one more dish of Objections serv'd in as indeed it is somewhat a homely o●e our of a Homily For hee tells us the Homily is fully and flatly against Subjects removing or disposing sure it should bee deposing their Princes upon any pretence whatsoever This Homily he saies is part of the Doctrine of the Church of England and this Doctrine of the Church of England hee saies wee are bound by Protestation to maintaine and this sticks very much with him for he knowes not how the contrary can stand with the Protestation Well for this once I shall undertake with his owne and the helpe of the Fuller Answer to be his Oedipus I answer therefore If he please to call it to minde he may remember he told us that in his America the House of Commons were coordinate with the American Prince now if he doe not understand his owne Termes the Fuller Answer will tell him that where there is a Coordination there is no Subordination but Subjects are Subordinate therefore he addes that all the Members Collectine in their House are not Subjects Againe our Exercitator makes his coordinate Commons the Fundament Us of his American Government And in this case the Fuller Answer will tell him againe Fundamentalls admit not of higher and lower all foundations are principall alike there can be therefore no subjection So it is not much materiall whether his Homily be part of the Doctrine of the Church of England or no for the practise in America is not contrary to the Doctrine in England But certainly some that have reason to know say that those Homilies are no part of the Doctrine of the Church of England and that the Articles give them onely this Testimony that they containe wholsome Doctrine and sutable to their times But enough if not too much of this we hasten to our third Assertion CHAP. IIII. That obedience is due to Powers in possession though unlawfully entred IN answering the Arguments from the Oathes objected in the former Chapter against obedience to present Powers when suppos'd to bee unlawfully entred there was frequent cause to demonstrate the Duty of such obedience which properly should have beene the worke of the present Assertion wherefore having as to the point in hand already spoken so much so much the lesse will need now to be added The Exercitator page 64. acknowledges The lawfulnesse of obeying c. hath of all others spoken most for the obedience to be maintained and upon that account tels us he intends to speake most against what was by him spoken We shall herein follow the path which he hath thus trod out to us and if we doe but make good our Authors part against his Antagonist wee shall defeate his maine Battell by his owne confession The first taske he undertakes is to prove that the Apostle in the place urg'd by our Author Rom. 13. can onely bee understood of a lawfull Magistracy and to make that good compares it as he had done before in laying his foundation