Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	court_n	king_n	plea_n	2,093	5	10.1113	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36249	The doctrine of the Church of England concerning the independency of the clergy on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely spiritual, reconciled, with our oath of supremacy, and the lay-deprivations of the popish-bishops in the beginning of the reformation / by the author of The vindication of the depriv'd bishops.	Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing D1813; ESTC R10224	66,791	94

Commission to the same purpose As little reason I can see why he should say that Cranmer was once of that opinion as if he had afterwards retracted it The Papers upon the Consult were written in Henry the VIIIth's time in the year 1540. And then even by the Bishops observation the change of his Opinion had lost his interest with the King if is Interest had been grounded on that Opinion But Cranmer kept to the same Opinions in the Reign of K. Edward the VIth Then it was he took out his Commission The young King himself seems to have been of the same Opinion in his 2d Paper of the Bishops Collections which I can ascribe to nothing more probably than to the Instructions of his Godfather Nor does it appear the ABp chang'd his mind afterwards The only thing insisted on by our Historian to prove it is his subscribing a Book set out soon after which teaches the contrary But having already shewn that he still retained the same opinion in the time of Edward the VIth his subscription cannot prove any change of his opinion but that he complyed whatever his Opinion was when he found his non-complyance could not hinder the contrary Opinion from being acceptable But indeed that Book was not so clear in that point that his subscribing it would argue any change from his former Opinions But our Historian says that when Cranmer maintained that opinion he did it out of Conscience Perhaps it might have been so But I am sure it is but an ill Argument to prove it so that his interest in the King was so visibly promoted by it Yet if he had frequently followed Opinions contrary to worldly Interest that I grant might have been an Argument that though his Interest was indeed promoted by this Opinion yes that might have been no inducement to him why he did embrace it But on the contrary in the great actions of his Life it was the serviceableness of his Opinions to the Princes designs that principally recommended him It was notoriously his Opinion for the divorce from Q. Katharine that first brought him into the Court and into the Kings knowledge Nor is it denyed by our Historian that it was so And in the Case of presuming consummation of Marriage from bedding he gave contrary Judgments concerning the Marriage with Queen Katharine and that with Anne of Cleve exactly according to the Kings inclinations and his own Interests in gratifying them In Queen Katharin ' s Case he allowed it for a good presumtion but not so in the Case of Anne of Cleve Nay when the Protestant Reformation it self was against his Interest with the Prince then in Possession he renounced even that and was the only Bishop of our Church who did so Nor did he recant that recantation at least he gave no publick signification of his recanting it till he was assured by Dr. Cole in a Sermon before him at St. Maries that even his compliance should avail him nothing for the saving of his Life And even in that compleater Collection published by Bishop Burnet none of the other Bishops or Divines consulted on that occasion is so perpetually thorough-paced for the Kings inclinations as he was Which singularity alone not only against the Interests but the suffrages of his function in favour of Encroachments sufficiently shew how far he was from being impartial in Questions of this nature And it is but a poor recommendation of him as a Friend of our Church that he made a Conscience of maintaining Opinions by which she might be ruined by which she must be ruined and her Enemies obliged in Conscience to ruine her § IX FAR be it from me to disparage the glory of his Martyrdom His Repentance how late soever will excuse the scandal of his fall And his Martyrdom however involuntary at first will not lose its reward with him who mercifully considers his servants frailties though it may justly diminish his Authority in comparison of others who were more forward and withal more constant in suffering for the same Cause For be it from me in the least to detract from whatever was praise worthy in him Our Historian may freely commend him for his constancy to his deolining friend and for his diligence in collecting and examining the Testimonies of Antiquity upon the Points wherein he was consulted But certainly an Historian ought to distinguish between particular and general commendations if he would indeed benefit Mankind by his Histories Just Characters are not to be denied those whose Examples are otherwise proposed as fit rather to be abhorred than imitated if they have at least some few commendable qualities among many other very bad ones deserving imitation But none are to be commended simply none are to have Elogies bestowed on them none are to be represented as Heroes as Patterns and Standards of the Age they lived in and as Copies for Posterity but they whose Virtues were greater than their Vices whose Virtues were particularly signal and remarkable in the History of their Times and greatly contributive to the good events of it and therefore fit to be imitated by generous Posterity when the like Exigencies shall return and the like Cases are again to be transacted Particularly in a History of the Reformation of Religion none ought to be commended but such as had a great zeal for Religion and whose abilities and prudence greatly contributed to the Promotion of it Nay even they who did indeed promote Religion will not all of them deserve commendation for it St. Paul observed those in his own times who preached Christ out of contention and was glad of the event that Christ was preached even on those terms as being no doubt sensible of the good success it had But he does not therefore think it becoming him to bestow Encomiums on those who were indeed accessary to good events but with very ill intentions Such there were also many in those Reigns under which the Reformation was transacted who very much promoted the Reformation but with no good designs on Religion or Reformation I need not instance in the King himself who begun it Next the King himself none had a more active part in the Reformation than Cromwell whom notwithstanding the Bishop observes to have declared himself of the Roman Communion at his Execution The like also was the Case of the Duke of Northumberland He had also pretended a great zeal for the Reformation in setting up the Lady Jane Grey Yet at his death he also declared that he had always been in his heart a Romanist Had it therefore been fit to set up these Persons as Heroes and Patterns fit for imitation Our Historian himself did not think fit to do so Their Case was not indeed the same with that of the Archbishop Nor do I produce them as such All I design in mentioning them is only to shew that his having actually promoted the Reformation is not alone sufficient to make him praise-worthy for

them indeed a liberty of remonstrating But what can even that avail them when they neither have power to enter their Remonstrances on any Records or to oblige their Adversaries upon their pleading such Records not to suffer such violences to be Precedents for future practice § V. THUS if our common Mothers Authority be urged by our Adversaries as an Argument of their good will to her I cannot see how they can in that regard pretend to rival us They may indeed tell us that our Mother has by her own Act and Deed in the surrendry of the Clergy in King Henry the VIII ths time devested her self of that Authority which before that surrendry was justly her due Whatever the belief of this would signifie to shew our good will to her I am sure we might by doing as the Objectors do better signifie our good will to our selves if we could consistently with our Duty to her qualifie our selves for the favours of the Invaders of her Rights and Priviledges as far as gratifying flesh and blood can be taken for consulting our own Interests But still methinks it should be a greater Argument of our good will to our common Mother to be unwilling that she should on any terms be deprived of whatever was once her due Still it would become well-wishers to her not to be too easie in believing such a cession of Rights though by her self till it were well proved and proved still to be obliging Still it would become well-meaning Children to be willing to contribute as much as lay in them to recover such Rights at any rate of inconvenience to themselves that may be less to the Publick than the loss of such Rights of so great importance for the Publick Interests of Souls And all worldly inconveniences would be reputed less by generous and affectionate Judges of the Publick Interests Such would still be favourable Auditors of what might be produced for discharging her from such Obligations of Conscience which if still in force may make it unlawful now to retrieve and challenge her lost Rights They would be ambitious of prudent and lawful occasions of testifying their love to her at the expence of worldly losses when they might be once secured from any danger of sin in incurring them I am sure it must needs argue more love and good-will to be so Nor could they think it imprudent to retrieve publick Spiritual Rights by losses only private and temporary Especially where there might be the least appearance of Duty that might oblige them to it That very Duty would over-rule loving and dutiful Children beyond all worldly and carnal considerations to the contrary Much more it would do so when the Duty incumbent were pretended of so great importance as this here is by us as that without it we could not have a Church or a Communion any longer than it should please the Civil Magistrate that without it we could have no Principles that might cement us under a Spiritual Government in a state of Persecution at least that might oblige us to do so as most certainly Christ has done When these things were pretended they would at least let us know what might satisfie them if it could not us how these consequences intolerable to a true lover of the Church and Religion might be avoided And till they could do so they could not think the considerations hitherto insisted on by them of an irresistible force c. sufficient to make amends for so abominable consequences But hitherto they have not signified that solicitude for avoiding such consequences which would certainly have become them as hearty lovers of Religion Nor have they attempted any thing on their part for a re-union with such as differ from them in things which would be as much their interest as ours for us all to be unanimous in if they really took the subsistence of our Church and our Communion for our common Interests How then can they even in this regard of their so easily yielding in matters of so intolerable consequence pretend to rival our good will to our common Church and Communion § VI. BUT we must not suffer even our good will to our Mother to mislead us into any Acts of undutifulness to her though it were on pretence of saving her Uzzah laid hold on the Ark with a good design when he thought it in danger of falling Yet God struck him dead upon the place for venturing on his own judgment to shew his zeal for him beyond what was allowable to his Station So among the Romans Fabius Rullianus with great difficulty escaped punishment for venturing on his private Judgment though with as probable a prospect and as great success as his General himself Papirius Cursor could have desired and that for fear of the many ill consequences that might follow on it for the future if such a Fact had been by its impunity recommended to posterity for a precedent But I have already shewn that not to be our case here We do not oppose our private Judgments to any Authority at all But we oppose the publick Judgment of a greater to that of a lower Authority Yet we have no need of insisting on that Plea at present We can fairly reconcile our sense in this affair with the imposed Sense of our dear Mother the Church of England even as established by Law and with the full design of the Legislators as far as that can be gathered from the Cases in prospect of which the Laws were made and with Authentical Interpretations of the meaning of the Legislators themselves allowed by both Powers concerned in them as well the Civil which has imposed them by Civil as the Spiritual which has done the same by Spiritual coercions I know not what our Adversaries themselves can desire more And I cannot but look on it as a peculiar over-ruling Providence that this is capable of being performed in a Reformation wherein the Ecclesiasticks have been so manifestly overborn by the Laity and a Laity headed by a Prince so impatient of restraint as Henry the VIII was Who could expect that where the encroachers made themselves Judges in their own Case and the true Proprietors were forced to submissions and surrendries of their Rights the determinations could be just and equal on both sides § VII IN Henry the VIII th time under whom the Oath of Supremacy was first introduced the Invasions of the Sacred Power were most manifest Yet so that even then they appear to have been Innovations and Invasions But who can wonder at his success considering the violent ways used by him So many executed by him for refusing the Oath The whole Body of the Clergy brought under a Premunire for doing no more than himself had done in owning the Legatine Power of Cardinal Wolsey and sined for it and forced to submissions very different from the sense of the majority of them He did indeed pretend to be advised by some of the