Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	cause_v	zeal_n	zealous_a	24	3	9.4198	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61839	Episcopacy (as established by law in England) not prejudicial to regal power a treatise written in the time of the Long Parliament, by the special command of the late King / and now published by ... Robert Sanderson ...	Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663.	1661 (1661)	Wing S599; ESTC R1745	38,560	153

by the State as a Law indeed foolish and pernicious how specious and plausible soever it seemed at the first appearance because saith he it would but encourage busie active spirits to be alwayes innovating some thing or other in the State which might finally tend to the subversion of all ancient Lawes and Customes and consequently of the whole Government it self Now that the Reformation in King Edwards dayes as to this particular in that Statute concerned was subject at least to this frailty we may very probably gather a posteriori from this that after it was once repealed they that had to do in the Reformation ever since thought it sit rather to let it lye under that repeal then to revive it XXIII There can be no doubt but that to an objection made from the force of a Statute it is a sufficient answer if it be true to say that the said Statute hath been repealed and so continueth Yet the adversaries of Episcopacy are so pertinaciously bent to hold their Conclusion in despite of all Premisses that they seem to be nothing satisfied there withal but dividing the answer turn the former part of it viz. that of the Repeal to their own advantage For say they that Repeal being made by Queen Mary who was a professed Papist and a Persecuter of the Protestant Religion was certainly an Act of hers done in favour of Popery and so is a strong confirmation that the form of proceeding formerly used by the Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts prohibited by the Statute of King Edward but restored by that her Repeal was a popish practice and more besitting Papists then Protestants to use XXIV To return a full answer hereunto first it shall be willingly granted that Queen Mary being a zealous Papist did cause that Statute made in the first of her Brothers Raign to be repealed out of pure zeal to the Romish Religion and in favour of the Pope and of his Iurisdiction Both bee use she conceived which was true that her late Brother being a Protestant had by that Statute prohibited the Bishops to do sundry things in their own names of purpose thereby to lessen the Popes authority within his Realms as also because their using of the Kings name in their Processes and Acts carried with it as we formerly granted a more express and evident acknowledgment of the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastical then the contrary custome doth XXV But then secondly this being granted it will by no means follow either first that the repeal of that Statute is not to be valued by any Protestant or that secondly the custome of the Bishops prohibited by the Statute and restored by the Act of Repeal was Popish or thirdly that our former answer was unsufficient not the first because we are not to look upon the Statute and upon the Act of Repeal as they were made the one by a Protestant the other by a Papist for that were to judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with respect of persons but to consider whether the reasons whereupon the Statute was grounded were in veritate rei such as that it ought not to have been repealed either by Papist or Protestant Which reasons how they have been valued appeareth upon the post-fact in this that a Papist Princess by the principles of her Religion could do no less then repeal that Statute and a Protestant Princess without prejudice to the principles of her Religion might continue that Repeal XXVI Not the second because that very Statute of I. Edward the Sixth by which it is ordained that all Summons Citations and other Processes Ecclesiastical be made in the name and with the style of the King doth it self sufficiently absolve the contrary custome formerly used by the Bishops acting in their own names from being either Popish or otherwise derogatory to the Kings Supremacy Inasmuch as by Proviso's in the said Statute the Bishops are still permitted in some cases to use their own names without any mention at all to be made of the King as namely the Archbishop of Canterbury to grant Faculties and Dispensations and every other Bishop to make Collations Presentations Institutions and Inductions of Benefices Letters of Orders and Dimissories c. under their own names and seals as by the words of the said Statute doth plainly appear Which sure would not have been permitted in any case had the thing it self been by them conceived to have been simply and de toto genere either Popish or prejudicial to the Regal Power XXVII Not the Third because they disjoynt our former answer that they might make their advantage of the one piece of it severed from the other For the strength of the answer it being copulative was not to lye in either part alone but in both together taken joyntly and indeed more principally in the later part which they slightly put off then in the former whereat they take advantage We do not say that the objecting of that Statute is of little moment against us because it was repealed by Queen Mary though that repeal alone is sufficient to make it void and invalid as to all effects in Law but because being then repealed it was never after revived in the Raigns either of Queen Elizabeth King Iames or his Majesty that now is which sheweth that the Act of Repeal as to the point now in dispute was by them approved of and intended to continue in force And it will thence follow further and most clearly that in the judgement of all these wise and religious Princes there was a great difference between the Papal and the Episcopal Iurisdiction as they had been either of them exercised within these Realms and that the Papal was prejudicial to the Regal Power and Supremacy but the Episcopal was not XXVIII Neither doth that suffice which is put in by way of Reply hereunto to alledge that the continuance of the old custome after the repeal made happened either through inadvertency of the State or by reason of the great power some or other of the Bishops ever had with those Princes For it cannot be doubted but that the State having before them a Precedent of so late and fresh memory as the Statute of 1. Edw. 6. would at some time or other within the space of fourscore years especially there being no want in those dayes of enough greedy Great-ones and factious Disciplinarians to remind them of it have taken a time to frame and pass a Bill for the reviving of that Statute if they had deemed the custome therein forbidden Popish or derogatory either to the Kings honour or power or had not rather found sufficient reason to perswade them that the said Statute was inconvenient or at leastwise useless And as for the Bishops they that understand the condition of those first times well know that under God and his good providence they stood in a manner by the immediate and sole favour of Queen Elizabeth The Papists on the one side hated them above all