Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	king_n	lord_n	swear_v	2,902	5	8.4775	4	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

And it cannot therefore be remitted but by them alone for whose sake the Oath was taken So that when in the second Paragraph of the first clause and more plainly in the fift he sweares a benefit to the Bishops alone in the behalfe of them and their Churches t is apparent that this Oath must perpetually bind except a remission can be obtained from the Bishops themselves and their Churches he was sworne to This then must be confessed to be the sense of the oath that when the King hath first sworn in generall to grant keepe and confirme the Lawes and Customes of the people of England he farther yet particularly sweares unto the Clergy to preserve their Lawes and Priviledges and Customes because since they are not able to make a negative in Parliament so that the Clergy may easily be swallowed up by the People and the Lords Therefore in a more particular manner they have obtained an oath to be made unto them by the King which being for their particular benefit it cannot be remitted without their expresse consent so that although an Act of Parliament being once passed by the Votes of the King and both Houses it doth Sir as you have told me bind the whole People of England yea the whole People as it includes the Clergy too yet it concernes the King by vertue of his Oath to give his Vote unto no such Act as shall prejudice what he hath formerly sworne unto them except he can first obtain their expresse consent that he may be thereby freed from his juratory obligation It may be said perhaps that in the consent given by both Houses of Parliament the consent of the Clergy is tacitely implyed and so it is say our Lawyers as you have told me Sir in respect of the power obligatory which an Act so passed obtaines upon them for they affirme that it shall as strongly bind the Clergy as if they themselves had in expresse termes consented to it Although Bishops being men barred from their Votes in Parliament And neither they nor their inferiour Clergy having made choice of any to represent them in that great Councell their consents can in no faire sense be said to be involved in such Acts as are done as well without their representative presence as they once without their personall But the Question is whether a tacite consent though it be indeed against their expresse wils can have a power remissory to absolve the King from his Oath he that affirmes it hath must resolve to meet with this great absurdity that although besides his Generall Oath unto the whole People of England His Majesty be in particular sworne unto the Rights of the Clergy yet they obtaine no more benefit by this then if he had sworn onely in generall which is as much as to say that in this little draught Oathes are multiplyed without necessity nay without signification at all and that the greater part of the first and the whole fourth clause are nothing else but a meere painfull draught of superfluous tautologies For his yeelding to the two first lines swears him to keep and confirme the Lawes and customes of the whole people of England which word People includes those of the Clergy too and therefore in generall their Lawes and Customes are confirmed no doubt in those words and so confirmed that they cannot be shaken but at least by their tacite consent in a Parliamentary way But since the King condescends to afford to their Rights a more particular juratory tye there is no doubt but it binds in a way too that is more particular so that His Majesty cannot expect a remission of this oath without their consents clearely expressed For as when the King sweares to keep the Lawes of the People in general he cannot be acquitted but by the expresse consent of the people or by a body that represents the People quatenus the people so that when in particular he sweares unto the Lawes and Customes of the Clergy this Oath must needs bind until it be remitted in an expresse forme either by the whole Clergy themselves or by some Body of men at least that represents the Clergy quatenus the Clergy and not only as they are involved in the great body of the People so that he that shall presume to perswade His Majesty to passe an Act in prejudice of this ecclesiastical Body to whom he is thus sworn without their expresse consent first obtained councels him to that which is both grosly injurious unto his fellow Subjects nay which is indeed a most damnable wickednesse against the very soule of the King Sir as I conceive t is now plaine enough that if the Parliament should destroy the Episcopall Order and take away the Lands of the Church the Houses in that Act would runne themselves into two sinnes and His Majesty into three and upon this supposition the Epistler and I are agreed I do not thinke saith he Conveniency or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull and before that he calls the contrary the Tenet of the Romanist or Jesuited Puritan Onely I would beseech him for his own soules sake to consider how great a scandall he hath given to mankind in defence of such sinnes as these For I conceive that Durand offended more in holding Fornication was no sinne against the Law naturall then Shechem did who was onely under that Law in his Lust upon old Jacobs Daughter Fraudem legi facere saith the Civilian is worse then Legem violare it argues a more un-Subject-like disposition for a man to put tricks and quirks upon his Prince his Lawes then to runne himselfe into a down-right violation And God we know is King I am a great King saith the Lord of Hosts and a King in whose hand is vengeance Malach. 1. 14. T is true Sir we are thus put into a very sad condition when the only Option that seemes left us now is either to choose sinne or ruine but yet if well used t is a condition glorious a condition wherein all that noble Army of Martyrs stood before they could come at Martyrdome and if in preparation of mind we thus lay our lives downe at the feet of Christ I am undoubtedly perswaded t is our only way to preserve them FINIS 25. H. 8. c. 19. Epist. Ans. Epist Ans. Epist. Ans. 2 Sam. 7. Act. 27. 8. Mal. 3. 8. Aquin. 2. 2. qu. 39. Art 1. Ibid. Art 3. 〈◊〉 verum de Furto Gel. l. 11. c. ●lt L. verum

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

appeare without all doubt a plain robbery of God for he that steales from men yea though a whole community of men though bona universitatis yet he sinnes but against his Neighbour t is but an offence against the second Table of the Law in these words Thou shalt not steale but Sacriledge layes hold on those things which the Latine Lawes call Bona nullius it strikes downright immediately at God and in that regard no Idolatry can out doe-it as this is t is a breach of the first Table of the Law and both these crimes are equally built upon the self-same contempt of God the offenders in both kinds the Idolater and sacrilegious person both thinke him a dull sluggish thing the first thinkes he will patiently looke on while his honour is shared to an Idol the other imagines he 'l be as sottishly tame though his goods be stoln to his face This was without doubt the sense of all ancient churches for upon what ground could they professe they gave gifts to God but only upon this that they presumed God did stil accept them So S. Iraeneus We offer unto our God our Goods in token of thankefullnesse So Origen By gifts to God we acknowledge him Lord of all So the Fathers generally so Emperours and Kings so Charles the Great To God we offer what we deliver to the Church in his well known Capitulars And our own Kings have still spoken in this good old Christian language We have granted to God for Us and Our Heires for ever that the Church of England shall be free and have her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable they are all the first words of our Magna Chart. Her whole Rights Liberties words of a very large extent and imply farre more then Her Substance and yet these and all these Lands and Honours and Jurisdictions all these have beene given to God yea and frequently confirmed by the publique Acts of the Kingdome and yet if Ananias might thus promise and yet rob God consider I beseech you whether England may not do so too 2. Proposition God gets this Propriety as well by an acceptation of what is voluntarily given as by a command that such things should be presented to him For the second t is plaine in the Text that God did as much take the Temple to be his as he did the Jewes Tithes and Offerings These last indeed were his by expresse law command but the Temple was the voluntary designe of good David and the voluntary work of King Solomon Nay God expresly tels David that he had been so far from commanding that house that he had not so much as once asked this service And therefore in his Apologie Saint Paul tels the Jewes Neither sayes he against the Law of the Jewes nor against the Temple have I offended any thing For he might in some case offend against the Temple and yet not against the Law Notwithstanding all this God pleads as much for his Temple in the Prophet Haggai as he doth in Malachi for his tithes In this his words are Ye have robbed we in tithes and offerings in the other Is it time for you O ye to dwell in sieled houses and this house lie waste therefore ye have sowne much and bring in little ye eate but have not enough so Hag. 1. 4. And to affirme that God in the New Testament doth accept of meat and drink and cloathing as it is plaine Mat. 25. he doth accept of money land was sold for as in the case of Ananias and yet that he doth not accept Land it selfe is so contrary to all reason so contrary to the practice not onely of the Christian but humane world so contrary to what God himselfe has expressed in the Old Testament and no where ●●called it in the New that he that can quiet his conscience with such concepts as these may I doubt not attaine to the discovery of some Quirkes which in his conceipt may either palliate murthers or adulteries For to think that those possessions are indeed Gods which he doth command but not those which he doth accept is to use God so as we would neither use our selves nor our neighbours for no man doubts but that 's as properly mine which I accept as a gift from others as what I attaine to by mine owne personall acquisition be it by a just war by study by merchandice or the like 3. Proposition That to invade those things consecrated be they moveable or immoveable is expresly the sin of Sacriledge Sacriledge is then committed say the Schooles and the Casuists and they speak in their owne profession quando reverentia rei sacrae debita violatur When we violate that reverence due to a thing sacred by turning it into a thing profane so as the violation may be committed either per furtum by theft strictly so taken by stealing a thing moveable or per Plagium which is the stealing of a man or per invasionem which is a spoiling men of lands or of things immoveable for as any one of these done against our neighbour is no doubt in Scripture phrase a theft a sin against the 8. Commandment Thou shalt not steale So done against God t is no doubt a Sacriledge and a breach of the first Table be it either against the first or the second Commandement I stand not now to dispute for the word used in the New Test to expresse this sin is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Praeda or spolium So that Sacriledge is not to be defined onely by theft strictly taken but t is a depredation a spoliation of things consecrated and so the word extends it selfe as properly if not more to Lands as it doth to things moveable And hence Aquinas is plaine that Sacriledge reaches out its proper sense ad ea quae deputata sunt ad sustentationem ministrorum sive sint mobilia sive immobilia For it would be very strange to affirme that in the sacking of Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar was sacrilegious when he transported the holy vessels but not at all when he burnt the Temple 4. Proposition That this sinne is not onely against Gods positive Law but plainly against the Morall Law For this common reason hath taught all even Pagan nations to hold Sacriledge a sinne So that Lactantius observes and he was well read in humane learning which made him to be chose Tutor to a sonne of Constantine the Great Inomni Religione nihil tale sine vindicto God did still remarkably revenge this sinne not onely in the true but amongst men of the most false Religions And 't were easie to shew that never any Nation did yet adore a God but they thought he did accept and did possesse himselfe of some substance I omit those proofs that would be thought far too tedious t is enough to quote the Prophets words Will a man rob God yet ye have robbed me Mal.

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