Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	son_n	33,152	5	6.0091	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97178	Church-lands not to be sold. Or, A necessary and plaine answer to the question of a conscientious Protestant; whether the lands of the bishops, and churches in England and Wales may be sold?	Warner, John, 1581-1666.	1647 (1647)	Wing W900; Thomason E412_8; ESTC R204017	67,640	87

verbum Ba●on Sr Henry Spelman informe me right then it cannot hold that all Bishops in England hold their lands by or in the right of their Baronies for he affirmes that the title of Baron was not known in England till the time of William the Conqueror whereas most I dare say of some Bishops lands were given some one some two some three some foure hundred years before the Conquerors time and then judg whether those lands were given to hold per Baroniam Againe the same Author sayes that in England there were three sorts of Barons the first who were made by William the Conqueror and these hold their Honors and Places in all Courts by Prescription rather then by Tenure and were therefore called Barones Praescriptitii The second sort were called Rescriptitii who in the time of Henry the Third were called by Writ to the Kings Courts The third sort called Diplomatici who by the Kings Patents were first created in the time of Henry the Second and in that right had their places Now can any say but that ever since there have been great Councils in England the Bishops had their places there and so were to hold them by Prescription rather then by Tenure And if by the great Charter the Rights and Liberties of the Church be inviolable i. e. such as rightly cannot be broken then this Right Custome or Privilege cannot justly be taken away I conceive this true that the two Kings Williams Father and Son and after them King Henry the Second out of spleen ambition or avarice have impaired the first antient Dignity of Bishops in England and may have changed some of their Lands to be held per Baro●iam which at first were granted in puram perp●tuam El●emosynam Whereupon Sr Henry Spelman cals the now Bishops Barones El●emosynaries yet doth it follow that if some have unjustly changed their Tenure therefore others more unjustly may take away their Lands Had it been ill in David to have cut off the lap of Sauls garment might he therefore have killed the King The case then as I conceive it is briefly this The Saxon Kings first chief Donors of much if not of the most of the Bishops Lands in England gave and confirmed them to be held either in Franc-Almoigue free from all Service or for Divine Service and they to hold them as Gods Almes-men and Servants and this continued to King Edward the Confessor after which time some Kings how justly judg you as Conquerors of this Land altered the Tenure making some or most of their Lands yet not all for two are excepted Carble and Rochoster so an antient Register to hold per Baroniam After which King Henry the Third whether moved in conscience or upon some other good causes restored the Lands to their antient just Rights for his Charter could intend no lesse to the Church it looking back to the time of Edward the Confessor at least So that the Question is whether the Lands of Bishops in England should now hold per Baroniam as changed by the Conqueror or his Successors or as at first they were granted and after restored by the great Charter to their first Rights and Liberties 1 Part Instit p. 94. 2. Instit c. 1. Ibid. which was either in Franc-Almeigne or for Divine Service Sr Edward Coke affirmes this later and further saith By the great Charter all the Rights are confirmed to the Church and Church-men which they had before or at their first Grant And in the same place more fully saith The Church shall be fres i. e. freed By which saith he a restitution is graved of all such Immunities and Freedomes as they enjoyed before and to free them from all such changes as have been usurped and encroached upon by any power whatsoever And I believe that if the case were put concerning your own Lands you would soon resolve that they shouldhold as by the first Donors grant and after by the great Charter confirmed rather then by that imposition of a Conqueror And why the same judgment should not be given on Bishope Lands as on the Lands of other Free-men of England I see not Argum. 14 But some to take a shorter course will perswade that to take and sell these Lands of the Bishops is not Sacrilege because theft is onely in things moveable in which condition or acceptation Lands cannot be understood Resp Sr Edward Coke cites the Canon Law and approves of this as agreeable to our Law which saith Wh●● things are gi●●● to the Church 2 Instit. p. 489. are holy Offerings whether they beres solide or mobiles whether they be moveable or immoveable Now doth our law say there is no theft in things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only saith it theft is in moveables If this and not that then why for the honor of our Law that it may not appeare to cross Gods may we not say that our Law hath onely made theft in moveables punishable because it doth not conceive how land in the proper and strict sense of robbing can be taken away and stoln But because Sacrilege or taking things immoveable is not by our Law punishable doth it therefore follow that it is no sin or punishable by Gods Law Suppose we have no Law to punish an Atheist an Idoater one that takes Gods Name in vaine who prophanes the Lords day who dishonoureth his Parents who tels or makes lies are therefore these no sins punishable by the Law of God And that by Gods Law defrauding God or man of immoveables be it of Lands is a sin be pleased first to bethink your self 1 King 21. whether King Ahah sinned in taking away Naboths Vineyard an immoveable I conceive in your sense and acceptation and if he sinned in this then what Commandement brake he Was it not the eighth which saith Thou shalt not steale And then doth it not plainly follow that theft may be in immoveables And that God may be robbed of immoveables which is Sacrilege And doth not God by his Prophet Ezekiel speaking not only of Tithes and Offerings but of the holy Lands say Ezek. 48.14 Thou shale not sell nor alienate them which to doe is Sacrilege Argum. 15 But now followes the Argument which will admit no Answer There is a necessity lies upon the State to sell the Bishops Lands for without it the publike debts cannot be paid and without yeelding to this the Church and State are in hazard to be utterly ruined for till this be done there will be no peace in the Land Resp Indeed we say necessity hath no law and it is a sad oase that without or against Law divine or humane nedessity must sweep all before it but before I answer fully will you give me leave to ask you a Question or two 1. How and by whom is this necessity brought on 2. If not by Bishops but others why not the Trespassers in stricter language the Debters to discharge the debt rather then the Bishops 3. If

received thanks and two thousand pounds per annum bestowed upon him for his later service Doe Protestants think you maintain the Popish Tenent remissâ culpâ remanet po●●a to punish after pardon Yea which is more to punish after pardon and reward Or may not Gods example work somewhat for preserving the Bishops Lands which did proclaim it selfe for the saving of all Sodom that if but ten of so many thousands could be found for God he would spare all those thousands grievous sinners for the sakes of those ten Or did God when ten could not be found involve Lot and his family in the general judgement of Sodom And shall the Lands of that Bishop who hath deserved so well of the two Houses be sold with the rest for the Ordinance concludes the sale of all If it be yet said as what hath not been said no matter how untruly that the late Archbishop of Canterbury promoted this last War yet was it any part of the charge at his trial And saith not our Law for Treason of dead persons not attainted or judged in their lives time 34 Ed. 3.12 their Lands shall not be impeached nor challenged And if not their own then as I conceive much lesse shall the Lands be impeached which they held of the Church But I proceed have all the Bishops promoted this War which none yet with any shadow of truth hath said for ought I ever could hear and if not why I pray shall Robert be punished for Richard And if any of the Bishops have promoted the War have they been called or suffered to answer the charge And was it ever found agreeable to Justice Law or Reason to give sentence before the party was heard if he may be found Sr Edward Coke saith it is against the Charter nay 2 Instit c. 29. was the late Impeachment of the eleven Members though by a special charge written and professed to be proved I say was this Impeachment Voted and Declared illegal and unjustifiable as to the suspending their Votes but for a time And shal such a general charge as this against the Bishops be held legal and sufficient for the selling away the Lands of all Bishops in England born and unborn without summoning hearing or giving the charge against any And if upon trial some Bishop shall be found guilty according to Law which I presume never shall be yet shall the punishment of one or more personal Delinquents extend to others who are innocent Yea to Successors which are not heirs at Law Or shall the Lord of the Land which is God lose his interest for the offence of his Assign or Tenent which is the Bishop Or is this sin in the Bishops greater then that vast damning original sin in Adam to condemn all not onely that come of his seed and race but all his Successors who are as little kin to his body or his soul as to his offence Nay yet shall the insensate thing that is the Land be prophaned and let the pretended Delinquent the Bishop goe unquestioned which is as if a Judge should take away the Sword and break it in pieces because it killed the man but let the murtherer escape the while The Charter saith 〈…〉 Nullus liber homo c. that no Free man shall be amerced or punished but according to the quality of the offence and yet so as with a salvo sibi contenemento where the Interpreter saith this Free man extends to Bishops and expounding contenementum to be his countenance saith That as the Bishop is a Scholar his books are his countenance and as he is a man of holy Function an honourable maintenance should be his countenance which if it might have held then some Bishop in this Land should not have had not onely all his maintenance Spiritual and Temporal for these four years utterly taken away not allowing him in all this time one shilling but not his bedding all houshold-stuffe and goods yea and all his books not leaving him one nor all or any of these taken by the plunder of rude Souldiers but by the Warrant of an honourable Committee although without any Ordinance The Charter goes on and saith That no Ecclesiastical person shall be amerced or punished according to his Ecclesiastical but to his Lay fee whereas here the clean contrary is published and practiced by this Ordinance ●●od 32. Aaron the high Priest made a golden Calf Ver. 28. and built an Altar before it and proclaimed a Feast for it and said To morrow is a Feast to the Lord for which abominable act 1 Sam. 21. Moses caused three thousand men to be slain Abiwelech the Priest victualed and armed David against his King for which act Saul the furious King caused fourscore and five of the Priests to be slain 2 Reg. 1.7 1 Reg. 2.26 And K. Solomon said to Abiathar the Priest who had helped Adonijah to be King against Solomon Thou art worthy of death I could instance in many more acts of these Priests most displeasing to their Kings and some really sinful before God yet doe we find that any went about for all these acts to deprive the Priests of their Lands and maintenance for ever Might I not put you in mind that we have had in the time of Popery a Becket a Langton a Wolsey and other Bishops who instigated by the blind false Principles of their Religion have fallen into grosse treasonable acts yet did the King and the two Houses for their offences sell away the Lands of the Church which they held I read in the Reign of King Henry the Third that the Jewes in England were forced to pay the third part of their estates Mat. Par. p. 489 that they might enjoy their peace but must Bishops be worse used by Christians and their Countrey-men contrary to all Law then Jews And may not the Bishops truly say what the eleven Members give for their Answer in their printed Papers viz. We must be removed and that we may so be we must be represented to be what we are not and what ever is amisse in the Kingdom we are made the cause and must bear the blame of it Christianos adignem what publike calamity soever befell in the Primitive Persecutions the poor Christians were said to be the cause and must be made the expiatory Sacrifice for all But let men say what they will Elijah the Prophet of God was never the more the troubler of the Kingdom because he was called so and therefore we will say as Job Our witnesse is in heaven and our record is on high Thus far they and so the Bishops But for the close of all supposing the Bishops were what is here or elsewhere unjustly charged upon them yet give me leave to put you a Scripture case and Gods judgement thereupon and I shall leave it to your judgment and conscience to make the Application the case is set down Numb 16. where three ringleaders and