Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	emperor_n	king_n	philip_n	2,474	5	9.4559	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40651	The appeal of iniured innocence, unto the religious learned and ingenuous reader in a controversie betwixt the animadvertor, Dr. Peter Heylyn, and the author, Thomas Fuller.	Fuller, Thomas, 1608-1661.	1659 (1659)	Wing F2410; ESTC R5599	346,355	306

fol. 10. gives us some other in their stead which he thinks unanswerable Fuller I deny not that P. Eleutherius might or did send a Letter to K. Lucius but I justly suspect the Letter novv extant to be but-pretended and forged I never thought by the vvay hovv came the Animadvertor to knovv my thoughts my Arguments unanswerable but now I say they are unanswered standing in full force notvvithstanding any alledged by the Animadvertor to the contrary I confesse a Memory-mistake of Sicilia for Galatia and as it is the first fault he hath detected in my Book so shall it be the first by me God Willing amended in the next Edition Dr. Heylyn Our Author First objects against the Popes answer to the King that Fol. 11. It relates to a former letter of King Lucius wherein he requested of the Pope to send him a Copy or Collection of the Roman Lawes which being at that time in force in the I le of Britain was but actum agere But certainly though those parts of Brittain in which Lucius reign'd were governed in part and but in part by the Lawes of Rome yet were the Lawes of Rome at that time more in number and of a far more generall practice then to be limited to so narrow a part of their Dominions Two thousand Volumes we find of them in Iustinians time out of which by the help of Theophilus Trebonianus and many other learned men of that noble faculty the Emperour compos'd that Book or body of Law which from the universality of its comprehension we still call the Pandects Fuller One who hath taken but two Turnes in Trinity hall Court in Cambridge knowes full well what PANDECTS are and why so called All this is but praefatory I waite for the answer to the Objection still to come Dr. Heylyn In the next place it is objected that This letter mounts King Lucius to too high a Throne making him the Monarch or King of Britain who neither was the Supreme nor sole King here but partial and subordinate to the Romans This we acknowledge to be true but no way prejudiciall to the cause in hand Lucius both was and might be call'd the King of Britain though Tributary and Vassal to the Roman Emperors as the two Baliols Iohn and Edward were both Kings of Scotland though Homagers and Vassals to Edward the first and third of England the Kings of Naples to the Pope and those of Austria and Bohemia to the German Emperors Fuller A Blank is better then such writing to no purpose For first both the Baliols in their severall times were though not SUPREME SOLE Kings of Scotland So were the Kings of Naples and the King of Austria there never being but one the first and Last viz. Fredoritus Leopoldus and the Kings of Bohemia in their respective Dominions Not so Lucius who was neither Supreme nor Sole King of Brittain Besides the Baliols being Kings of Scotland did never Style themselves or were Styled by other Kings of Brittaine The Kings of Naples never entituled themselves Kings of Italy Nor the Kings of Austria and Bohemia ever wrote themselves or were written to as Kings of Germany Whereas Lucius Ruler onely in the South West-part of this Isle is in this Letter made King of Brittain more then came to his share an Argument that the Forger thereof was unacquainted with the Constitution of his Kingdom And this just Exception stands firme against the Letter what ever the Animadvertor hath alledged in the excuse thereof Dr. Heylyn Nor doth the next objection give us any trouble at all that is to say that The Scripture quoted in that Letter is out of St. Hieroms Translation which came more then a hundred years after Unless it can be prov'd withall as I think it cannot that Hierom followed not in those Texts those old Translations which were before receiv'd and used in the Western Churches Fuller See the different tempers of men how some in point of Truth are of a tenderer constitution than others The Primate Armach was so sensible of the strength of this reason that it made him conclude against the authenticallnesse of the Letter Dr. Heylyn Lesle am I mov'd with that which follows viz. That this letter not appearing till a thousand years after the death of Pope Eleutherius might probably creep out of some Monks Cell some four hundred years since Which allegation being admitted the Monks Cell excepted it makes no more to the discredit of the letter which we have before us then to the undervaluing of those excellent Monuments of Piety and Learning which have been recovered of late times from the dust and moths of ancient Libraries Such Treasures like money long lock't up is never thought lesse profitable when it comes abroad And from what place soever it first came abroad I am confident it came not out of any Monks Cell that generation being then wholly at the Popes devotion by consequence not likely to divulge an Evidence so manifestly tending to the overthrow of his pretensions The Popes about four hundred years since were mounted to the height of that power and Tyranny which they claimed as Vicars unto Christ. To which there could not any thing be more plainly contrary then that passage in the Pope's letter whereto he tells the King That he was Gods Vicar in his owne Kingdom vos estis Vicarius Dei in Regno vestro as the Latin hath it Too great a secret to proceed from the Cell of a Monk who would have rather forg'd ten Decretals to uphold the Popish usurpations over Soveraign Princes then published one onely whether true or false to subvert the same Nor doth this Letter onely give the King an empty Title but such a Title as imports the exercise of the chief Ecclesiastical Power within his Dominions For thus it followeth in the same The people and the folk of the Realm of Britain be yours whom if they be divided ye ought to gather in concord and peace to call them to the faith and law of Christ to cherish and maintain them to rule and govern them so as you may reign everlastingly with him whose Vicar you are So far the very words of the letter as our Author rendereth them which savour far more of the honest simplicity of the Primitive Popes then the impostures and supposititious issues of the latter times Fuller I confesse some pretious pieces of Antiquity long Latent in Obscurity have at last broke forth into the Light with no little advantage to Learning But then such were intire Books and we know how when where and by whom they were found out and brought forth Whereas this loose Letter secretly and slily slid into the World unattended with any such Cicumstances to attest the Genuinesse thereof Children casually lost are no whit the lesse Legitimate and beloved the more when found and owned of their Parents But give me leave to suspect that Babe a Bastard which is left on a bulk or

alive to present it intire defecated from the calumniations of his Adversaries and therefore impossibilities are not to be expected from me Yet am I not such an Admirer of Wickliffe but that I beleeve he did defend some grosse Errors and it had been no wonder if it were but had been a miracle if it had not been so considering the frailty of flesh darknesse of the Age he lived in and difficulty of the Subject he undertook But because the Animadvertor referres to something following in my fifth Book I will also reserve my self for his Encounter in time and place appointed Dr. Heylin Our Author proceeds Fol. 152. He lies buried in the South Isle of St. Peters Westminster and since hath got the company of Spencer and Drayton Not Draytons company I am sure whose body was not buried in the South-Isle of that Church but under the North wall thereof in the main body of it not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses This I can say on certain knowledge being casually invited to his Funeral when I thought not of it though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of Fuller I follow the Information in his Epitaph on his Tombe near the South dore in Westminster Abbey Doe Pious Marble let the Readers know What they and what their Children owe To DRAITONS name whose sacred Dust We recommend unto thy trust Preserve his Memory and protect his Story Remain a lasting Monument of his Glory And When thy Ruine shall disclaim To be the Treasurer of his name His name which cannot dye shall be An Everlasting Monument to thee Have Stones learnt to Lye and abuse posterity Must there needs be a Fiction in the Epitaph of a Poet If this be a meer Cenotaph that Marble hath nothing to doe with Draitons Dust but let us proceed Dr. Heylin Our Author proceeds Fol. 153. The right to the Crown lay not in this Henry but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March descended by his Mother Philippa from Lionel Duke of Clarence elder son to Edward the third I shall not now dispute the Title of the House of Lancaster though I think it no hard matter to defend it Fuller I think it is not onely difficult but impossible except the Animadvertor can challenge the Priviledge of the Patriarch Iacob to crosse his Hands and prefer the younger before the Elder Child in succession Again the Title of Lancaster may be considered either 1. As it was when Henry the fourth first found it 2. As it was when Henry the sixth last left it The latter of these was countenanced with many Laws corroborated with three descents and almost threescore years possession Know Reader my words are of the right where it was when Henry the fourth first seized the Crown and then he had not a Rag of Right to cover his Usurpation Instead of justifying whereof let us admire Gods free Pleasure in permitting the House of Lancaster to last so long his Iustice in assisting York afterwards to recover their Right and his Mercy at last in uniting them both for the happinesse of our Nation Dr. Heylin And much lesse shall I venture on the other controversie viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing Fuller If seems the Animadvertor finds little in my Book above ground for his purpose to cavil at because fain to Mine for my insinuations But let the Reader judge whether any man alive can from those my words the right lay not in this Henry but in Mortimer Earl of March infer an INSINUATION that Kings may legally be deposed This Insinuation must be in Sinu in the Bosom of the Animadvertor which never was in the breast of the Author More perspicacitie must be in the Organ than perspicuity in the Object to perceive such an Insinuation Dr. Heylin But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry though I finde him better studied in it than in matter of History And certainly our Author is here out in his own dear Element Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence and Mother of Roger Mortimer Earl of March whom Richard the second to despite the house of Lancaster declared Heir apparent to the Kingdome of England 'T is true this Edmund was the Son of another Philippa that is to say of Philip Montacute wife of a former Roger Earl of March one of the founders of the Garter So that in whomsoever the best Title lay it lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it Fuller It is a meer casual slip of my Pen Edmund for Roger and this is the first time I crave the Benefit of this Plea in my defence Dr. Heylin Our Author proceeds Fol. 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing Characters betwixt the Temporal and Spiritual Lords that the former are to be tryed per Pares by their Peers being Barons of the Realm Not shall I here dispute the point whether a Bishop may not challenge to be tryed by his Peers but whether the Bishops were not Barons and Peers of the Realm Our Author intimates that they were not but I think they were Fuller From a late Insinuation the Animadvertor now proceeds to a new Intimation of mine utterly unextractable from my words But know it never came into my minde to think that Bishops were not Peers who to my power will defend it against any who shall oppose it Dr. Heylin And this I think on the authority of the learned Selden in whom we finde that at a Parliament at Northampton under Henry the second the Bishops thus challenge their own Peerage viz. Non sedemus hic Episcopi sed Barones Nos Barones vos Barones Pares hic sumus that is to say We sit not here as Bishops onely but as Barons We are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also verified in terminis by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land And for further proof hereof Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury if I remember it aright being fallen into the displeasure of King Edward the third and denyed entrance into the House of Peers made his Protest that he was Primus par Regni the first Peer of the Realm and therefore not to be excluded from his place and Suffrage Fuller This indeed is one of the most ancient and pregnant Evidence of our Bishops sitting as Peers in Parliament But I suspect it may be mis-improved by the Back-friends to Bishops that they sate there onely in the Capacity of Peers and not a THIRD ESTATE Dr. Heylin But of this Argument enough if not too much as the case now stands it being an unhappy thing to consider what they have been formerly and what they are