Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	john_n	king_n	richard_n	10,255	5	8.9631	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66113	The authority of Christian princes over their ecclesiastical synods asserted with particular respect to the convocations of the clergy of the realm and Church of England : occasion'd by a late pamphlet intituled, A letter to a convocation man &c. / by William Wake.	Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1697 (1697)	Wing W230; ESTC R27051	177,989	444

is a Convocation that for many years past has had no Existence And the Convocation of which we are now disputing is quite another thing Is summon'd by another kind of Writ and consisted of another sort of Persons As by comparing the ancient Writs of both may evidently be discern'd So that this invincible Argument has one terrible defect in it that whether it could otherwise be answer'd or not yet 't is evidently nothing at all to the purpose But here our Author objects against himself That once upon a time the Archbishop call'd a Synod by his Own Authority without the King's License and was thereupon prohibited by Fitz-herbert Lord Chief Justice but the Archbishop regarded not his Prohibition What this is to his purpose I cannot tell nor do I see wherefore he brought it in unless it were to blame Rolls for quoting Speed for it And therefore in behalf of Both I shall take the liberty to say thus much That I know not what harm it is for a Man in his Own private Collections for such Rolls's Abridgment was tho' afterwards thought worthy of a publick View to note a memorable passage of History and make a Remark of his Own upon it Out of one of the most faithfull and judicious of all our Modern Historians I have before taken notice of this passage and that not from Speed but from Roger Hoveden from whom I suppose Speed may also have taken the Relation I shall therefore only beg leave to set this Gentleman to whom all our Historians are I doubt equally unknown right in two particulars by telling him that neither was Fitz-herbert the Man who prohibited the Archbishop nor was he Chief Justice when he did it His Name was Geoffrey Fitz-Peter He was Earl of Essex and a very Eminent Man in those days And his Place was much greater than this Author represents it even Lord Justice of England which he was first made by King Richard Anno 1198. And held in the King's absence to his death Anno 1213 In which year K. John going over into France constituted Peter Bishop of Winchester Lord Justice in his Place And now we are come to a low Ebb indeed the description of the Convocation as it stands in our Law-Dictionaries and that too like all the rest nothing to the purpose The Convocation is by them described to be a meeting of the Clergy in Parliament-time And some there were in the Long Parliament of 1641 who thought it could not lawfully be held but while the Parliament sate Well what follows Why therefore the Convocation has a Right to sit and act as often as the Parliament meets For a close Reasoner let this Author alone In the mean time I have before shewn that tho' the Convocation be Summon'd together with the Parliament yet it may sit when the Parliament do's not And we are like to have a hopefull time of it to answer such proofs where there is neither Law in the Antecedent nor Reason in the Consequence These then are the Arguments which this Author has offer'd to establish his first assertion namely That the Convocation has a Right to sit and act not only upon all such Occasions as the Necessities of the Church or Realm require it should but generally and without regard to any thing there is for them to do as often as the Parliament is Assembled I proceed II dly To consider What he has alledged for his Other Position Viz. That being met they have no need of any License from the King to empower them to act but may conferr debate and make Canons and do any other Synodical business which they think fit by their Own Authority And that either no Commission at all is needfull to enable them to do this or that if there be it ought of Course to be granted to Them In order whereunto I must in the first place observe that those who affirm that the King's License is necessary to warrant the Convocation to act do not sound their Opinion either upon the Power he has to assemble it or upon the Form of the Writ by which he Summons Them tho' that do's plainly seem to imply that some such Commission is to be expected from him But either first in General Upon that supreme Authority which Every Christian Prince as such has in Ecclesiastical Matters And by vertue whereof whenever they have admitted their Clergy to meet in Synods they have still prescribed to them the Rules by which they were to proceed in Them Or else 2dly In Particular Upon the Statute of the 25 Hen. VIII which has expressly declared this Power to belong to the King and forbidden the Clergy to presume to act Otherwise than in subordination thereunto But against this our Author excepts For first Is the Case be so Then is the Convocation an Assembly to little or no purpose whatsoever If their Tongues be entirely at the King's Will 't is improper to give their Resolutions any Title but the King's Rules and Ordinances They are to all intents and purposes His upon whose Will not only their Meeting but their very Debating depends In answer whereunto I reply First That either there is really no Inconvenience in all this Or if there be it follows not from what I am now asserting For certain it is that this was the Case of the most General and famous Councils that were ever held in the Church And which were not only call'd by the Emperour's Authority but being met acted intirely according to their prescription But indeed I cannot perceive that any of those hard things this Author so much complains of do at all follow from this supposition For what tho' the King do's propose to them the Subject of their Debates What they are to consult about and draw up their Resolutions upon Are They not still free to deliberate conferr resolve for all that Will not their Resolutions be their Own because the King declared to them the General Matter upon which they were to consult Is a Counsellor at Law of no use or has he no freedom of Opinion because his Client puts his Case to Him Or do's our Law unsitly call the Answer of a Petit-Jury its Verdict because the Judge Summ'd up the Evidence to them and directed them not only upon what points but from what proof they were to Raise it What strange Notions of things must a Man have who argues at such a Rate as this And might upon as good Grounds affirm the Parliament its self not to be free as he has deny'd the Convocation to be so because that in the main parts of their Debates That also is as much tho' not so necessarily directed by the King in what He would have them consult about I have insisted the more upon this particular because it is one of the most popular Arguments he has offer'd in defence of his Opinion tho' alas 't

and Fortune to Grandeur 12 o. Moral Maxims and Reflections written in French by the Duke of Rochfoucault now made English 12 o. Of the Art both of writing and judging of History with Reflections upon Ancient as well as Modern Historiant By Father Le Moyne 12 o. An Essay upon Reason by Sir George Mackenzie 12 o. A Divine Antidote or an Answer to an Heretical Pamphlet entituled an End to the Socinian Controversy By Dr. Francis Gregory 8 o. The Doctrin of a God and Providence vindicated and asserted 8 o. Discourses on several Divine Subjects 8 o. Both by Thomas Gregory late of Wadham College Oxford and now Lecturer of ●ulham near London Death made comfortable or the way to dye well By John Kettlewel a Presbyter of the Church of England 12 o. The Parson's Counsellor or the Law of Tyths By Sir Simon Degg 8 ● The Unlawfulness of Bonds of Resignation 8 o. Price 6 d. Let. p. 40 Let. p. 28 § 1. § 2. Let. p 28 Ib. p. 22. 〈◊〉 p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 16 § 3. Letter p. 1. 21. Ib p. 1. 2. Letter p. 20. Lett. p. 27. 〈◊〉 1. § 2. Artic xxvii Can. 1 2. H●st Eccl. praef l. v p. 259 C. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib 4. cap. 24. Vid Act. Conc. Ephes I. Part. cap. 32. Adde Epist. ad Synod Ibid. cap. 35. * De feriis de nup●●is de fide Cath. de H●reticis de Episc. Cleric c. † Lib. I. Tit. 1 2 3 4 5. * Novell v● cxxxvii cxxxi c. | Basil. F●b●ot lib. t 3 4 5. * ●eg Ed. Conf. cap. 17. Leg. Can●● ca. 11. 〈◊〉 Praefat. cap. 2. Leg. Edw. Guthr cap. 3. Alfred cap. 39 c. § 3. § 4. Pand●ct lib. 47 tit 22 l. 1. Tertull. de Je●un cap. 13. Ib. Pand. ●eg 3. 〈◊〉 5. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib. 1. cap. 1 2. * Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 8. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 7. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 7 8. * Vid. Act. Concil Eph. par 〈◊〉 cap. 32 35 c. * Vid. Act. C 〈…〉 〈…〉 d. 〈◊〉 1 † Ibid. ‖ Vid Ep. Leonis ad Theodos. Imp. Ep. 52. 54 c Ed. Ques●●ll * Vid. Ep. Imp. Con 〈…〉 C●●st ii Collat. 1 〈◊〉 p. 419 ●22 423 † Vid. Act. Concil Const. iii. Act. 1 pag 607. Tom. 6. * Concil Trull apud Bevereg Pandect Tom. 1 p. 153. E. F. † Vid. Act. Conc. Nic●en ii Act. 1. pag. 50. Tom. Lab. 7. ‖ Act. Con. 4. Const. Act. 1. Tom. 8. pag. 1279. C. § 6. * Conc●● Rom. ●ub Constant. To. 1. Lab. p. 1403. 1406. † Vid. Act. Conc. Arelat ib. pag. 14●1 Et Euseb. Hist Eccl. lib. x. c. 5. Vid. C 〈…〉 N 〈…〉 en 1. Can. v. 〈◊〉 Bal●●● in Can. Vid. Epist. Theodoret. 80 81 82. 〈◊〉 7. Concil Labb To. iv p. 11 7. ad An 484. Vid. Collat S. Avit cum Ar●ian ib. p. 1318. Ad Ann. ●02 Concil Agath An. 506. Praef. Cum in nomine Domini ex Permissu Domini nostri Gloriosissimi Magnificentissi●ique Regis in Civitate Agathensi Sancta Synodus concenisset Vid Act. Conc. Epaonens An. 517. Prooem § 8. Vid. Capit. Conc. Tolet ii in sin Vid. Act. Conc. Tol. iii. An. 589 Act Conc. Praef. Et in conclusante subscript Vid. Act. hor. Concil apud Labb To. v. p. 1735. 1739. 1740. 1749. 1836. To. vi 394 1294. 1●28 Vid. Can. 18. Conc. iii. Tolet. Concil Narbon An. 58● in Pras. Et Caesar augustan ii An. 592. § 9. Concil B●acar ii An. 563. Praef. Concil a 〈…〉 pud Lucum An. 607. V●d Act. Conc. Bracar iii. in Praefat. § 10. Hist. lib. v. cap. 28. Vid. Concil Ma 〈…〉 scon 1. in Praef. An. 581. * Greg. Turon Hist. Franc. lib. vi cap. 1. † Vid Concil Labb To. v. pag. 976. 980. 1593. c. § 11. Concil Germ. i. apud Lab. To. vi Praef Lab. Conc. ib p. 1725 1726. 1793. To. vii p. 1151. 1152. * An. 8●● vid. Act. Concil in Praefat. † Vid. Ep. Syned●c ad Praesul Hisp num iii. in Canon i. Concil Aquisgran Praef. An. 816. Vid. Epist. Ludov. Imp. ad S●char Arch. B●r●●gal ibid. Vid. Act Conc. Aquisgr ii An. 836. Vid. Conc. Magunt i. in Praef. Vid. Act. Conc. Wormat An. 868. Vid. Conc. Trebur apud Lab. To. ix p. 440. 467. Ibid p. 591. § 12. Vid. Act. Conc. Aurelian i. Praef. A●no 511. 〈◊〉 Au 〈…〉 An. 533. Praef. Con● A●vern An. 535. Praef. 〈◊〉 Tur. 〈◊〉 A 〈…〉 567. Praef. Conc. Pa● v. Praefat. Cum in dei nomir● secundum SS Patrum Constitut onem Ex Evocatione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cor 〈…〉 o Synod●li convenissemus c. Conc. Cabilon An. 650. E● Evocatione vel Ordinatione Gloriosissimi Domini Clodovei Regis Vid. Conc. Vernens in Praef. Concil * Rh●m ii Anno 813 Praef. Con. Tur. iii. I●id Praefat. † Conc. Pa●is v● An. 829. Praef. ap Labb Tom vii p. 1594. 1596. ‖ An. 849 〈◊〉 53. § 13. § 14. Vid. Frag. Hilarii p. 457 485 c. 〈…〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 § 15. § 16. Epist. ad Desiderium Capit Baluz Tom. 1. p. 143. Act C●●c 〈◊〉 lib. 1 cap. 26. Ibid. l. 3. cap. 11. Conc. apud Sapo● par 6. cap. 7. Capit. Sir Ti● 11. Episcopis 〈◊〉 instituta Can●●um Sy ●●dum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 volentibus 〈◊〉 1. 〈◊〉 R●x Caro●us e●sque apud Urbem Sucssionum Convenire p 〈…〉 pit §. 17. Vid. Leon. Epist 69. ad Ma●● Caes. p 568. Vi● 〈◊〉 Reg 〈◊〉 B 〈…〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●9 〈◊〉 IV Cap. Ann. 8●8 Tom. 1. Baluz p. 624. §. 18. Euseb. hist●r Eccl. lib. 10. cap 5. 43. Vid. Act. Eph. Con● p. 1 c. 32 Vid. Act. Con. Chalded Act. 1. pag. 99. Ed. Labb Ibid. pag 103. 10● Acta Concil Chalc●l Chalced ib. par 1. num 56. Capit. Synod Vernent n. iv p. 170. To. 1. Baluz Capit. Aquisgram Ann. 816. Prosog Imp. ibid. pag. 562. § 19. § 20. 〈◊〉 21. § 22. § 23. Euseb. de Vit. Const. lib 3. cap. 12. Ibid. cap. 〈◊〉 Ibid. lib. 4. cap. 42 43. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. 4. cap. 17. Vid. Act. Conc. Eph. ap Labb To. iii. p. 436. 〈…〉 d. par 1 cap. ●5 p. 442. Et ●●fr Conc. Eph pag. 7●4 〈◊〉 Chalced. Act. 1. p. 〈◊〉 106 107 110. Ibid. Et 37. Vid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 7 9 10 11 c. 〈◊〉 Concil Const. sub Mena Act. 4 Edit ●abb p. 61. Ibid. Act. 5. p. 100 101. Vid. Epist Justin. Collat. 1. pag. 419 422 423. Ed Labb § 24. Secundum voluntatis vestrae Consultationem Titulo● quos dedistis ea quae nobis vis●m est definitione Respondimus Con● Aurel. 1. praefat ad Clodovaeum Reg. Capit. An. 828. To. 〈◊〉 Baluz p. 654. C 〈…〉 Sues 〈◊〉 Act. 〈◊〉 La●b To. 〈◊〉 p. 9● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P 〈…〉 Act. C●nc ●r●bur apud Labb Tom. 9. p. 441. Act. Conc. Tolet. iv An. 633. Act. Conc. Tolet. xiii An. 683. Ep. Regis ad Concil † Ibid. Unde has in Commune