Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	king_n	law_n	supremacy_n	3,288	5	10.6148	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

the worke and ministery of a Bishop and in questions to the person to be consecrated a Bishop Are you perswaded that you be truly called to this Ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus c. I beseech you Sir consider whether these words or this prayer could fall from any man not possessed with this Tenet that Episcopacy was of divine right For if the three orders may be found by reading the holy Scriptures together with ancient Authors if men are taught to pray that God by his Spirit has appointed divers orders in his Church and this made the ground of praying for the present Bishop if the person to be consecrated must professe that he conceives he is called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ either all this must be nothing else but pure pagentry and then the Parliament mocked God by their Confirmation or else Episcopacy is grounded in Scripture is appointed by the Spirit of God is according to the will of our Lord Jesus and all this hath not been said of late nor countenanced only by some few of the more Lordly Cleargy And we have the lesse reason to doubt that this Tenet was countenanced in this Church of ours because we find it in those parts that have lost Episcopacy for we are told by Doctor Carlton after Bishop of Chichester and that wrote against the Arminians more then twenty five yeares since that sitting at Dort he then protested in open Synod That Christ instituted no parity but made twelve Apostles the chiefe and under them seventy Disciples That Bishops succeeded to the twelve and to the seventy Presbyters of an inferiour ranke he affirmed this order had been still maintained in the Church and then challenged the judgement of any learnned man that could speake to the contrary Their answer was silence which was approbation enough but after saith he discoursing with diverse of the best learned in the Synod he told them how necessary Bishops were to suppresse their then risen Schismes their answer was That they did much honour and reverence the good order and Discipline of the Church of England and with all their hearts would be glad to have it established among them but that could not be hoped for in their State Their hope was that seeing they could not do what they desired God would be mercifull unto them if they did but what they could If they hoped for mercy that might pardon what they did sure they must suppose that what they then did was sinfull Nay they thought their necessity it selfe could not totally excuse their sinne for then in that particular there had been no need to hope for Gods mercy nor could they well thinke otherwise since being pressed they denyed not but that Episcopacy was of Christs own institution and yet they were no Lordly Clergy nor do I well see how either by charitable or civil men they can at all be taxed either for want of reason or honesty 1. Indeed some seem to startle at this Tenet that Episcopacy is of Divine right as if because Divine it might therefore seem to endanger Monarchal power But under favour I conceive this fear to be among us very groundlesse for since the Tenents of our Church are in this particular the very self same with the ancient times as that the Bishops have no power but what is meerely directive only that all power co-active either in them or in others is derived meerly from the Royal authority that they cannot legally make use no not so much as of this directive power but only by the Kings leave So that if the temporall Lawes should forbid them to preach that which in point of salvation is necessary to be spoken yet they cannot preach but upon the forfeiture of their Heads and those being demanded by the Kings Lawes they must submit to a Martyrdome though t were sinne in them that demand it so that in the execution of all ecclesiastical power the supremacy is in the King alone these I say being so much the Tenets of our Church that I conceive there is no learned man amongst us who would not readily subscribe to them I cannot see at all where in the opinion we defend any danger lies to this Monarchy But examine the Presbyterian principles and you will clearely find Kings and they cannot stand together for either you consider that new government in the Scotish sence which allowes no appeale to any other power and then t is plaine that where men admit this they admit of a supremacy which doth not reside in the King and by consequent of two severall supremacies within the bounds of the selfe same Kingdome which can no more stand with Monarchy then it can with Monogamy to be maried to two severall wives And though t is said that this Presbyterian government meddles only with spirituall things which concerne the good of the soule and so it cannot hurt Regall power yet this is but onely said and no more for it is well known that in ordine ad spiritualia and all things may by an ordinary wit be drawn into this ranke as they have been by the Church of Rome this government intrudes upon what things it pleaseth and indeed where a supremacy is once acknowledged no wise man can thinke that it will carry it selfe otherwise So that King James his maxime was undoubtedly most true upon this same ground we are on No Bishop no King For that most prudent Prince did soone discerne that if a power were once set up which at least in the legall execution of it did not derive it selfe from the King there was no doubt to be made but it would ere long destroy the very King himselfe Or consider Presbyterian government in the English sense as it is now set up by the Two Houses at Westminster which is a government limited by an appeale to the Parliament for either by Parliament here they meane the Two Houses excluding the King and then t is as plain as before they set up two supremacies his Majesties and their owne or else by Parliament they meane the King with both Houses and then it will follow that either there must be a perpetuall Parliament which sure neither King nor Kingdome can have cause to like or else the supremacy will be for the most part in the Presbytery because when ever a Parliament sits not there will be no Judge to appeale to or if it be said the Parliament may leave a standing Committee to receive appeales in such ecclesiasticall causes then either in this Committee the King hath no negative and in that case t is clear that the ecclesiasticall supremacy will be not at all in the King or else the King hath a negative but yet is joyned with persons whom he himself chooses not and so most probably will be check'd and affronted in any sentence he intends to give and this clearely overthrowes that which is already declared by Parliament to

is no theft in the Civill Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure t is neither intimated by the Greek nor the Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Authors on the Subject so that I must set down an assertion I conceive well grounded too point blanck against this Londoner and affirme there may be a sacriledge properly so call'd which is not a theft in the Civill law-sense which has been grounded in the third Assertion and then we need not trouble Sir Robert Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other busines nor his fellow Lawyers for I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will thinke that this Epistler hath met with a Civill Law quirke which he knew not well how to weild But to say truth he deales clearely with the Doctor and tels him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I believe and do not only wonder he would gibe at another man in a point he could no better Master But these Arguments it seemes are but only the forlorne-hope the main Battell is yet to come He calls this the main quere and desires patience from the Doctor First saith he I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any Lands True the Clergy under the Gospell hold not their lands by a Divine command but they do by a Divine acceptation by Christs most gracious acceptance of such goods and possessions which have been given him by good Christians and this title you now heare will go as farre as a law and that is we conceive farre enough for it gives God a propriety in such lands and so keeps men from a re-assumption He goes on The hire of a Labourer at most as fitting maintenance is all that can be challenged I but that maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians shall use God like no other men farre worse I am sure then do Pagans And when such a maintenance hath been once given in lands the acceptation of Christ will soone make it irrevocable so that it signifyes little to say the Apostles had no Lands for they who had the money for lands fold might no man can well doubt have still kept the lands had they liked it but the Church was straight to be in hot persecution the Disciples were to fly and Lands we know are no moveables and it were very strange if not ridiculous to affirme that Ananias and his wife sinned in taking back● that money which they promised but if in specie they had given their Lands they might have revoked that gift without sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundlesse argument upon the Lands and portions allotted to the tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministere have no succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belongs to that Tribe by Leviticall right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a morall interest and what wee read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much obli●ge Christians as if it were found in the Now And 〈…〉 that they enjoy their 〈◊〉 by the 〈…〉 others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title Out into 〈◊〉 Have Church-men no title to those possessions they enjoy but by the law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christs acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law evangelicall their Lands are Gods own propriety and so they hold from him by the Law morall too and therefore though by the lawes of the land they hold estates in Fee-simple and so may alienate without punishment from the law of England yet they cannot do it without the guilt of sinne as being a breach of the law evangelicall and morall except then only when they better themselves by some gainfull or at least by some not hurtfull permutation Besides were the argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their owne act might alienate their lands but no man else without their consent And I conceive it would not now prove so easie a taske to bring Church-men to such an alienation But the Parliament may do it for sayes he I am sure it will be granted that by the Lawes of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or Goods hath them with this inseparable limitation and condition viz. that the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure This you have oft told me Sir is strange Doctrine for either the Parliament I hope he meanes the King in Parliament doth this as being the supreame power or as being representative and so including the consent of the whole People of England If as being the supreame power it will follow that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like and yet this hath been ever held tyrannicall in the Great Turk as being against the rules of justice and humanity Indeed Samuel 〈◊〉 the Israelites that since they would needs change their Theocracy the immediate government of God himselfe though it were into Monarchy the best of all humane Governments the King should take their sons and their daughters their fields and their vineyards c. and they should cry and should find no help Yet the best Divines think that this would be most unjust most sinful in their King and expresly against the law of Moses who leaves every man his propriety onely the Prophet there averres it should be not punishable in him they should have no remedy since being the supreame power 't was in no Subjects hands to judge him So if the King in Parliament should take away Church-lands there is I confesse no resistance to be made though the act were inhumanely sinfull Or secondly the Parliament does this as representing the whole people and so including their consent for they who consent can receive no injury and then I understand not which way it can at all touch the Clergy who are neither to be there by themselves nor yet God knowes by representation Or if againe they were there I would gladly know what Burgesse or what Knight of a shire nay what Clerke or what Bishop doth represent Christ whose Lands these are and by vertue of what deputation Nor doe I beleeve that any Subject intends to give that power to him that represents him in Parliament as to destroy his whole estate except then onely when the known Laws of the Land make him lyable to so high a censure But grant that this were true in Mens lands yet sure it will not hold in God's For since in Magna Charta that hath received by Parliament at least 30. Confirmations the Lands we speak of are now given to God and promise there made That the Church shall hold her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable Sure the Kingdome must keep what she hath thus promised to God

he did accept them So that his Priests and his Poore being sustained by them he calls it in a more peculiar manner His meat His drinke and His cloathing And then if in point of acceptance with God there be great difference between feeding his Priests and feeding them that doe him no such service there must needs be as much difference between Lands set out unto that sacred use and Lands of a more common employment He gives a second reason Were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is done by you daily How come they to change or dispose any thing Yes they may change or dispose or alter many kinds of things for so without doubt any Usufructuary may doe so he wrong not his Lord by an abuse done to his Propriety Thus he may change his Corne into Clothing or if he please his Wool into Books Nay he may alter the property of his possessions too if he have expresse leave of his Lord And God himself did tell Levi That he was well content that men should alter some things that belonged to him so it were for the Tribes advantage Levit. 27. 13 The Letter goes on Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for Temporall uses as for holding the Vice chancellors Court the University Convocation or their yeerly acts He might as well have asked Why not as well for temporall uses as for temporall uses For if those he names be not so his argument is naught and if they be so t is not well put downe His meaning sure was for other temporall uses as well as for those And truly Sir to put a Church to any such kind of use is not to be defended and therefore I excuse not the University especially she having had at least for a good time so many large places for those meetings Yet something might be said for the Vice-Chancellours Court because t is partly Episcopal something for the act at least in Comitiis because t is partly Divine but I had rather it should receive an amendment then an excuse Though it follow not neither that because this Church is sometimes for some few houres abused therefore it may be alwayes so as if because sometimes t is made a profane Church t is therefore fit 't were no Church at all He proceeds And as for their curses those Bug-beare words I could never yet learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any there from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation No warrant from the Word of God I conceive there is a very cleare one our Mother-Church commends it to the use of her sons in the expresse words of her Commination Cursed be he that removeth away the mark of his neighbours lands and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 17. If he be accursed that wrongs his neighbour in his Lands what shall he be that injures God If a curse light upon him and a publique curse confirmed by an Amen made by all the people who removes but the mark whereby his neighbours Lands are distinguisht sure a private curse may be annexed by a Benefactor unto his Deed of Donation in case men should rob the very lands themselves that have been once given to their mother That such curses restraine the Parliament in its lawfull undenyable Rights is you have told me but a great mistake For though the Parliament may Impunè which in some sense is called lawfully take away the Church Lands though it may doe it without punishment because the King being there it is the highest power yet that Court it selfe cannot do it Justè cannot doe it without sinne and that a fouler sinne then the removing a Land-marke and then a fouler curse may follow it Let the Epistler then take heed of these more then bug-beare words For believe it Sir in such curses as these there is much more then Showes and Vizards And if you will give trust to any Stories at all many great Families and Men have felt it His last Argument is for all the rest is but declamation Aske your Bishops whether Church Lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I thinke they will not deny if so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Layhands they-professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery I conceive the Bishops answer would be that t is no sacriledge to transferre lands from one Church to another but yet there may be much rapine and injustice the Will of the Dead may be violated and so sinne enough in that Action many may be injuriously put from their estates in which they have as good Title by the lawes of the land as those same men that put them out To say then the Church lands may be totally given up because the Epistler hopes the Parliament will commit no sacriledge is a pretty way of perswasion and may equally worke on him to give up his own lands because he may as well hope to be re-estated again in that the Parliament will do no injustice And now Sir having thus observed your commands I should have ceased to trouble you yet one thing more I shall adventure to crave your patience in and t is to let you know that if this Epistler had been right in both his Conclusions That Episcopacy is not of Divine institution that Sacriledge is no sinne yet if you cast your Eyes upon His Majesties Coronation Oath wherein he is so strictly sworne to defend both the Episcopall Order and the Church-lands and possessions you would easily acknowledge that the King cannot yeeld to what this Letter aims at though he were in danger of no other sinne then that of Perjury And though I must needs guesse that the Epistler knew well of this juratory tye yet you will the lesse blame him for a concealment of this kind because he was not retained of the Churches Counsell His Majesties Oath you may read published by himselfe in an Answer to the Lords and Commons in Parliament 26. May 1642. It runnes thus Episcopus Sir Will you grant and keepe and by your Oath confirme to the People of England the Lawes and Customes to them granted by the Kings of England your lawfull and religious Predecessors and namely the Lawes Customes and Franchizes granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward your Predecessour according to the Lawes of God the true profession of the Gospell established in this Kingdome and agreeable

to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient Customes of this Realme Rex I grant and promise to keepe them Episc. Sir will you keepe Peace and godly agreement entirely according to your power both to God the holy Church the Clergy and the People Rex I will keepe it Episc. Sir will you to your power cause Law Justice and Discretion in mercy and truth to be executed in all your judgements Rex I will Episc. Will you grant to hold and keep the Lawes and rightfull Customes which the Commonalty of this your Kingdome have and will you defend and uphold them to the honour of God so much as in you lyeth Rex I grant and promise so to do Then one of the Bishops reads this Admonition to the King before the People with a loud voice Our Lord and King Wee beseech you to pardon and grant to preserve unto us to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that you would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be a Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under his government The King answereth With a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintaine to you and the Churches committed to your charge all Canonicall priviledges and due Law and Justice and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my power by the assistance of God as every good King in his Kingdome by right ought to protect and defend the Bishops and Churches under his government Then the King ariseth and is led to the Communion table where he makes a solemne Oath in sight of all the People to observe the promises and laying his hand upon the Booke saith The Oath The Things that I have before promised I shall performe and keep So helpe me God and the contents of this Booke In the First Clause t is plaine he makes a promissory Oath unto the whole People of England a word that includes both Nobility and Clergy and Commons that he will confirme their Lawes and Customes And in the second Paragraph thereof he sweares peculiarly to the Clergy that he will keepe the Lawes Customes and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King S. Edward And more plainly in the fift clause he makes like promissory Oath unto the Bishops alone in the behalfe of themselves and their Churches that he will reserve and maintaine to them all Canonicall Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that he will be their Protector and Defender Where first since he sweares defence unto the Bishops by name t is plaine he sweares to maintain their order For he that Sweares he will take care the Bishops shall be protected in such and such Rights must needs sweare to take care that Bishops must first be For their Rights must needs suppose their Essence And where a King sweares defence what can it imply but defence in a Royall Kingly way Tu defende me gladio ego defendam te calamo is the well known speech of an old Church-man to a Prince For sure where Kings sweare defence to Bishops I do not thinke they sweare to write Bookes in their behalfe or attempt to make it clear to the People that Episcopacy is jure divino But a King whose propriety it is to beare the Sword sweares to weare it in the defence of Bishops for though t is against the very Principles of the Christian Faith that Religion should be planted or reformed by bloud yet when Christian Kings have by Law setled Christian Religion and sworne to defend those persons that should preach it he ought sure to beare his Sword to defend his Lawes and to keepe his soule free from perjury And by Canonicall priviledges that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implyed the honour of their severall Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all their due Rights and Jurisdictions The words Due Law and Justice cannot but import that His Majesty binds himselfe to see that justice be done to them and the Churches according to the Law then in force when he tooke that Oath And when the King sweares Protection and Defence that Clause must needs reach not only to their persons but to their rights and estates for he sweares not onely to men but to men in such a condition to Bishops and their Churches and those conditions of men grow little lesse then ridiculous if their estates be brought to ruine so that such a protection were neither at all worth the asking nor the swearing if the King should protect a Bishop in his life and yet suffer him to be made a begger since to see himselfe in scorne and contempt might more trouble him then to dye And whereas He sweares to be their Protector and Defender to his power by the assistance of God these words to his power may seem to acquit him of all the rest if he fall into a condition wherein all power seemes taken from him But that Sir will prove a mistake for one of the greatest Powers of the King of England is in the Negative in Parliament So that without him no Law can be enacted there since t is only the power-royall that can make a Law to be a Law so that if the King should passe a Statute to take away the Church-lands he protects it not to his power since t is plaine that so long as a man lives and speakes he hath still power to say No For it cannot be said that the Church in this case may be as it were ravished from the King and that then he may be no more guilty of that sinne then Lucrece was in her rape for though a chaste body may suffer ravishment yet the strength of a Tarquin cannot possibly reach unto a mans will or his assent Now in all promissory Oathes made for the benefit of that Party to whom we sweare t is a rule with Divines that they of all others do more strictly bind except then alone when remission is made Consensu illius cui facta est promissio So although the King sweare unto the People of England that he will keepe and confirme their Lawes yet if you their Commons desire these said Lawes be either abrogated or altered t is cleare that Oath binds no further because remission is made by their own consent who desired that promise from him and upon this very ground t is true that the King sweares to observe the lawes only in sensu composito so long as they are Lawes But should the desire either to alter or abrogate either Law or Priviledges proceed from any other but from them alone to whose benefit he was sworne t is cleerely plaine by the rules of all justice that by such an act or desire his Oath receives no remission For the foundation of this promissory Oath is their interest he was sworn to

be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or sacriledge committed by aliening Church-Lands I pray aske your friend Holbourne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question As for the main quere touching the lawfulnes of aliening Church-lands I use the expression for the lands of Bishops Deanes and Chapters good Doctor give me your patience to heare my reasons And first I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any lands the hire of a labourer at most a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands which I mention to avoid the groundlesse arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministers have no succession and then it will follow that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others doe and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title which being granted I am sure it will not be denyed that by the Law of the Nation he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple by an implyed power may lawfully alien though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary which being so makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament to be lawfull being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple as the Bishop with the Deane and Chapter hath Then further I am sure it will be granted that by the Law of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or goods hath them with this inseparable implyed condition or limitation viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes enable a Tenant for life to sell an estate in Fee-simple and not at all unlawfull because of that limitation or condition before mentioned and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation which would silence all disputes whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied it is as much as if in plaine words expressed of which your Lawyers if Reason need a helpe from them can easily resolve Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donor of the Lawes should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entituled to their Lands then to his whole Creation and were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is by them done daily Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for temporall uses as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court the University Convocation or their yearly acts And for the Curses those bug-beare words I could yet never learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation If this doth not satisfie the former doubts in your Bishops for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied aske them whether Church-lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I think they will not deny If so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Lay-hands they professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery which prevents all disputes upon the last question but if they shall hereafter do otherwise you know my opinion Onely mistake me not in this free discourse as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times what is fittest to be done when I take it Mistresse Necessity in all things indifferent or not unlawfull must be obeyed in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church and further peradventure then wise men would have done but at an ultra posse you and we must give over especially for an imaginary right And think seriously with your selfe whether after all other things granted it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State the King and his posterity and Monarchy it selfe onely upon the point of Church-government by Bishops or aliening the Church-lands or rather whether the Kings Councell in duty ought not to advise him the contrary who should be wise as well as pious yet herein may be both for I doe not thinke Conveniencie or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull what ever States-men maintain to the contrary your interest with the King is not small and your power with the Lords who are guided by reason very considerable you cannot doe better then make use of both at this time If they have a desire to preserve the Church it were wel their thoughts were fixed upon some course for setling a Superintendencie in the Presbyteriall Government which no way crosseth the Nationall Covenant and preserve the Revenues in the Church which I beleeve at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted what ever it will be now I have given you my sense upon the whole businesse Si quid novisti rectius Candidus imperti si non his utere J. T. So farewell Doctor I give you commission to shew this to my Lord Dorset who by and something else can guesse my name and to as many more as owne Reason and Honesty An Answer to the foregoing Letter superscribed to D. Samuel Turner c. Sir YOu have put an odde taske upon me in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford with a commission to shew it to the Lord of Dorset and to as many more as own reason and honesty for this is the Postscript and many the like passages in the Letter as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason and I know you too great a master of reason to be unsatisfyed makes me