Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	earl_n	john_n	king_n	50,169	5	4.1692	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77858	An humble examination of a printed abstract of the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons, against the votes of bishops in Parliament. Printed by order of a committee of the honourable House of Commons, now assembled in Parliament.	Burges, Cornelius, 1589?-1665.	1641 (1641)	Wing B5672; Thomason E164_14; ESTC R21636	38,831	83

suppose the next thing too that Bishops are in the same manner there for their successors in the Land and Honour that pertaine to their places as the Earles and Barons are for their successors in their owne Lands and Honours For is there no difference betweene Successors that usually have no naturall legitimate relation to the present Bishops in any degree of consanguinity or affinity and those of Earles and Barons which are their proper heires at Law and may claime and must enjoy the same Honour which their Ancestors have held before them if not tainted in bloud No difference betweene those that can no more bee denyed place in Parliament without confusion of all than the fundamentall Lawes of the Kingdome and the government thereof can be turned up by the Roots and those who first crept in by favour to serve a Conquerors turne by taking off their dependance upon the Pope and fastening it upon himselfe and can derive no higher for sitting as now they doe in the House of Peeres than an Act of Parliament if so high and therefore by another Act of Parliament may be discharged Now where the difference of the Title is so great between a Bishop and an Earle or Temporall Baron both to their Lands and Honours and Votes in Parliament I much feare that the Nobility and Temporall Lords will hardly in their House allow this doctrine which yet is fitter for them to consider of than for me to confute and therefore I leave it only with this that if the Lords shall find cause to reject this position as heterodox and deny the Bishops to be in Parliament for their successors in Lands and Honours in the same manner or upon as good and immoveable title as the Nobility be for theirs then the Reason of the House of Commons doth stand yet good as to Earles and Barons and it is no way fit that Bishops should have the same Legislative power over the Honours inheritances persons and liberties of Earles and Barons as these have or ought to have over those of Bishops As for Bishops holding their Lands in Fee simple I can say little to it because my skill is very simple in Tenures Only I have beene told that Fee-simple Littletons Instit l. 1. c. 1. 5. 1. Cokus in Little ibid. Sect. 5. is called in Latine foedum simplex idem est quod haereditas legitima vel hareditas pura So that to speak properly Every man that hath a lawfull estate in Fee-simple hath it either by descent or purchase neither of which wayes for ought I know can the Bishop derive his Title But perhaps in some sense wherewith I am not acquainted the Bishops may bee said to hold in Fee-simple as the word may be taken in a larger and lesse proper acception Viz. Because he holdeth Lands in fee in right of his Church but this is not properly Fee-simple because he holds them not in his owne right and the right he hath in them dyes with him as to his heires But I have heard that ordinarily he that is seized of any Lands in Fee in right of his Church his tenure is either that which the Lawyers call Tenure per divine service when the Lands are given upon condition that the Donee performe some divine Service certaine expressed in the Gift or the Lands to revert or else it is * Littl. Institut li. 2. cap. 6. en Frank annoigne when Lands are freely given without any divine service certaine to be performed for them And further albeit the Bishops are usually said to hold of the King per Baroniam yet this haply may be meant rather of the Honour affixed to their place which works it up to a Dignitie than of the Lands pertaining to them which they also hold in Frank almoigne as well as the inferiour Clergy Sir Henry Spel. Not. in Concil v rolam sub Ossa Hereupon it is that in our Municipall Lawes our Bishops for that they enjoy their meanes and maintenance by the bounty and Almes of Kings are called Barones Regis Eleemosynarij The Kings Lords Almesmen or Barons of the Kings Almoignry as the Almesmen at WINDSOR are called The Kings poore Knights and the Reason is rendred out of Ranulphus de Glanvill that famous Iudge in Henry the second his time quia eorum Baroniae sunt de Eleemosyna Domini Regis Antecessorum ejus De Legib. Angl. l. 7. ca. 1. in Calic Because their BARONIES are of the Almes of the KING and his Ancestors Which being so my conceit is that what Reason so ever they have on their side yet at this time especially this free and high language that they holding their Lands in Fee-simple may with as good Reason Vote in the Honours inheritance persons and liberties of others as others may and doe in theirs might have well beene forborne without prejudice to their Cause For if Almesmen bee admitted to Vote in Parliament it will bee their wisedome I take it not to bee so much elated as to enter into termes of comparison with the highest not excepting their Benefactors or Founders themselves even in one of the highest points of honour and power 2. ANSWER to the fifth REASON Many Peeres have beene created for their lives only and the Earle of Surrey for the life of his Father who yet voted in this House EXAMEN But have any except Bishops beene created Peeres for life or otherwise that were not men of great estates and inheritance or at least of extraordinary birth and sufficiency Of such eminency were the Earles of Surrey But when you mention an Earle of Surrey whom do you meane Is it intended of the Noble Family of the Howards descended from the Mowbrayes If of these you will hardly finde any such that being an honour not so frequently communicated in former times Indeed I I find it mentioned that Iohn Lord Mowbray Sonne of Iohn Grand-child to Thomas Duke of Norfolke was by King Henry the sixth in the life time of his Father created Earle of Surrey and was after his Fathers death Duke of Norfolke but that he was a Peere of Parliament for or in the life of his Father I finde not And I have beene told by a Noble branch of that Renowned stemme and now a Peere that there was no Earle of Surrey made a Lord of Parliament upon such termes But whether so or so it matters not much this being but one single instance And how ever you may perhaps instance when you please in others not so highly descended who have had the honour to Vote as Peeres in Parliament yet they were such whose interests in the publike and share in posterity must needs weigh downe any of those that the House of Commons desire to have removed out of the Lords House For however diverse of them bee well lined with wealth yet the House of Commons are in Parliament to looke upon them as the Lawes doe to wit as upon Almesmen that are but

Parliament since the first entrance upon a Reformation in this Kingdome It is true that in the Reigne of King Henry the eight one Cranmer was active in the cause of God against those sixe bloudy Articles which cost so many their lives But of all the Hierarchie not one was found to joyne with him but all opposed and he alone for three dayes together was faine to stand to it and at length by the malice practice and potency of the Prelates hee was overcome and the cause carryed against him Acts and Monuments par 2. page 1037. edit 1610. This was in the yeare 1540. When about foure or five yeares after Cranmer in two severall Parliaments used his best endeavours to get that bloudy Law repealed and had before hand as he thought drawne over to his side the Bishops of Worcester Chichester and Rochester who promised to assist the cause in Parliament yet when it came to the tryall all the Bishops forsooke him and the cause againe In so much as the King himselfe and the Nobility stood to him so farre as to give way to a moderating of the former Law when the Bishops would not abate the least part of the rigour thereof Antiq. Britanni in Cranmero In King Edward the sixth his Reigne it is true a blessed Reformation was happily begun but by whom By the Bishops No verily Cranmer only excepted For he and the Protector were the men that advised the King and went through with the worke As for the great Bishops Gardiner of Winchester and Tonstall of Duresme Bonner and others they served to fill prisons and diverse ran away And in all Letters of the Lords for more particular Reformation it was onely Canterburie and the Nobilitie that did promote the businesse See Acts and Monuments in King Edward the sixth But in Queene Maries dayes who but Bishops for the Masse and all the grosse body of Popery both in Convocation and Parliament Cranmer and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops were soone persecuted and at length committed to the fire while the Popish Prelates being restored to their places spared no diligence to promote Popish Idolatry throughout the Kingdome and that by their Votes in Parliament whereby they might more plentifully shed bloud by a Law When GOD delivered this Kingdome from those Marian flames and set up blessed Queene Elizabeth it cannot be denyed but that in the Bill for restoring all ancient Jurisdictions to the Crown and for reestablishment of Religion and ejection of Popery the Lords Spirituall are named in the Act because the bill being carryed by the greater number of Votes the dissenting party which was the lesse are included in the rest and it becomes the Act of all in common repute and esteeme of Law But little thankes to the Bishops for any of that Reformation which was then restored We finde the Bishops of Winchester Litchfeild Chester Carlile and Lincolne appearing in open defence of Popery while that Parliament was sitting Act and Monuments par 2. page 1619. edit 1610. But these were not all that stood for that cause Witnesse the deprivation of Heath Arch-Bishop of Yorke Tunstall Bishop of Durham White of Winchester Thyrlby of Ely Watson of Lincolne Baines of Coventry and Litchfeild Bourne of Bath and Wells Christopherson of Chichester Oglethorp of Carlile Scot of Chester Morgan of Saint Davids beside Bonner imprisoned Pates of Worcester Goldwel of Saint Asaph in exile for the same Pseudo-Catholike cause None of all which can with any probability of reason bee imagined to have Voted for the restoring of the Truth they being by vertue of that Statute deprived for opposing the Truth And albeit I know nothing but by heare-say of the generall carriage of Bishops in Parliaments sithence and so doe not charge them yet how often they have with-stood bills against Non-residency * In 31. Elizabeth a Bill against Non-residents passed the House of Commons being in the other House greatly approved of much spoken for by many of the Temporall LORDS yet through the earnest labouring of the Bishops it could have 10 passage there Another Bill for reforming Ecclesiasticall Courts in King James his time passed till it fell among the Bishops and there was stayed Pluralities and other evils and defects in the Reformation of Religion and of their Courts the world hath beene sufficiently informed insomuch as the House of Commons hath already declared and resolved at a Generall Committee of the whole House Iune eleventh 1641. That the Bishops have beene found by long experience to bee great hinderances of a perfect Reformation and of the growth of Religion En majus bonum Ecclesiae produced by the Vote of Bishops in Parliaments And as their voting in Parliament in matters of Religion is ad detrimentum potius quam ad utilitatem Ecclesiae so it cannot bee imagined how their Votes there in Civilibus should conduce more ad majus bonum Ecclesiae Except the wilfull and incorrigible continuing in a course forraine and contrary to their proper Calling and such as being duely performed is a very great hinderance to the exercise of their Ministeriall Function as hath beene before declared can redound to the greater good of the Church which they seldome looke after unlesse to receive the profits of it and to plague those who are profitable in it that themselves may more splendidly and securely in Parliament and every where else Lord it over the whole heritage of God 3. ANSVVER to the first REASON The Apostles unnecessarily put themselves to more hinderances to worke for their livelihood Acts 20.24 1 Thessalo 2.9 2 Thess 3.8 EXAMEN Vnnecessarily Boldly spoken and were I sure that one of my fellowes or equalls had written it I should without breach of good manners pronounce it saucinesse little short of blasphemie Was it not necessary that the Apostles should have a livelihood And was the procuring of it by labouring with their hands although I know none but one after CHRISTS Ascension that was put unto it to avoyd the oppression of poore converts or to prevent scandall among either poore or rich converted or unconverted an unnecessary thing This may bee a straine of Policie passable enough among Spirituall Lords of Parliament but was never knowne to bee good Divinity among such as desire to approve themselves unto GOD. I have bin taught that Necessarium is put sometimes pro utili pro congruo convenienti as well as pro naturali seu debito or pro violento sua coacto And I have learned among the Schoole-men that there is a necessitie not only absolutè simplicite sic dicta but also ex suppositione conditione when a thing not simply necessary in it selfe becomes such in regard either of end meanes circumstances or otherwise When Saint Iohn 1 Epist 2.27 tells the Christians yee need not that any man teach you was his writing to them to instruct them further unnecessary When Saint Pauls abiding in the flesh was more needfull

yet both Church and Kingdome binde them to give themselves in all other particulars wholly to the Calling study and exercise of the Ministery which they have received in the Lord Collos 4 17 that they may fulfill it III. REAS. of the House of Commons BEcause Councels and Canons in severall ages do forbid them to meddle with Secular Affaires I. ANSVVER To this 3. Reason a five fold Answere is directed Councels and Canons against Bishops Votes in Parliament were never in use in this Kingdome and therefore they are abolished by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. II. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute because the Lords have declared that the Bishops vote hereby the Lawes and Statutes of this Realm and all Canons that crosse with those are there abolished III. ANSVVER So are they by the same Statute as thwarting the Kings Prerogative to call Bishops by summons to vote in Parliament IV. ANSVVER So are they by the Vote of the House of Commons 21. Maii 1641. because they are not confirmed by the Act of Parliament EXAMEN I put all these Answers together because they will not need distinct Examinations they being much what coincident at least in the maine scope which is to keepe this third Reason out of the Court as being no sufficient evidence in Law to eject the Defendants out of their holds in Parliament against some of their desires It is acknowledged that no Councels or Canons not confirmed by Parliament have here in England any power to bind the subjects either of the Clergie or of the Laitie as hath been clearly Resolved upon the Question this Parliament in both houses But whether the House of Commons referre to any Canons so confirmed I may not take upon mee to affirme or deny because they have beene pleased to forbeare to cite those to which they doe referre Nor can it bee I thinke denyed that any Canons were in use within forty yeares before the Statute of 25. Hen. 8.19 to which I conceive the Answerer hath relation against Bishops votes in Parliament and so Bishops bee shot free from such Canons if urged against them in that capacity as binding Lawes But what neede the Answerer to have taken all this paines of multiplying of Answeres to shew that no Councels or Canons not ratified by Parliaments bee binding to Bishops in this or any case whatsoever For where hath the House of Commons so urged them Surely not here They have not vouched them as Lawes to thrust the Bishops out of the House of Peeres as sitting there against the Lawes already in being but as rationall Arguments and prudentiall Grounds to induce the Parliament to use their Legislative power to abrogate the Lawes if any be for their sitting there seeing that many godly Bishops in former Ages have made divers religious and wholesome Constitutions and Provisions against such exorbitant usurpations of the Clergie For however those Canons bee not formally obligatory here yet are they really worthy the Consideration of those who have a power to reduce Bishops by a binding Law to that which heretofore so many learned and pious men of their owne Coat and Calling have pronounced and decreed to be just and necessarie Further than this the House of Commons bee not engaged And who knows not that the Bishops and their Officers have and still doe urge divers Canons of forraigne Councels and domestique too that never were confirmed by Parliament upon both Clergie and Laitie when such Canons make for the Bishops or their Officers And these must take effect like the Laws of the Medes and Persians And yet now when they see such Canons turned upon themselves although not as Lawes but as rationall arguments only how witty they be in putting off all by the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. which makes nothing at all against the House of Commons or this Reason produced by them And what offence or incongruity was it in the House of Commons to urge Canons and Councels against the Bishops in this particular when no Divine that ever complained of such usurpations of the Clergie hath held it incongruous to presse the very same against them I will not trouble my selfe or others with many instances that alone shall suffice which hath beene before * Exam. of the first Answe to the first Reason alledged out of Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterburie That Prelate taxing the excessive exorbitances and scandalous courses of the Clergie in the reigne of Richard 1. was not affraid to give this as the chiefe if not the only reason of all that prodigious breaking out Quod contra Orthodoxorum Patrum decreta c. that contrary to the decrees of the Orthodoxe Fathers the Clergie did too much intermeddle in worldly businesses If then so great a Prelate did well in laying this home to the charge of the Clergie that their not regarding the Decrees and Canons of former Councels was the maine cause of all the evills committed by them it cannot unbecome the House of Commons assembled in Parliament and passing a Bill against Bishops Votes in Parliament to produce and use the Canons and Councels of Bishops themselves against such courses held on and maintained by our Bishops against the judgement and solemne determinations of their owne Predecessors in the Prelacy in all the Churches of Christ As for the Declaration of the Lords that the Bishops Vote in Parliament by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme I meddle not with it because as I am ignorant of the Lawes and Statutes by which they vote so am I not acquainted with what the Lords have declared thereupon Only I have heard that divers Abbots voted as anciently in Parliament as Bishops yet are taken away Yea this Answerer hath informed mee Answer to Reason 7. that anciently the Bishops were assisted in Parliament with a double number of Mitred Abbots and Priors But Sir Edward Cooke could find no more in the Parliament Rolles but twenty seven Abbots and two Priors Commentary on Littleton Institutes Sec. 138. Nor doe I know the difference of the Tenures of the one or of the other or why in regard of originall right Bishops should rather vote in Parliament than Abbots and Priors so long as those Orders continued in being That great Master of Law before named tels us that both Abbots and Bishops were called to Parliament by the Kings Writ else they came not there Ibid. although they held of the King Per Baroniam Witnesse the Abbot of the Monasterie of Feversham founded by King Stephen who albeit hee held by Barony yet for that hee was not called by Writ hee never sate in Parliament And perhaps it is not simply a Barony that gives all the Bishops a right to fit there for I have read somewhere that all the Bishops of King Henry 8. his foundation have not Baronies annexed to them Yet they are called by Writ and vote as Peeres in Parliament But bee their right what it will I