Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	people_n	power_n	see_v	1,799	5	3.3938	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45227	A seasonable vindication of the supream authority and jurisdiction of Christian kings, lords, parliaments, as well over the possessions as persons of delinquent prelates and churchmen, or, An antient disputation of the famous Bohemian martyr John Hus, in justification of John Wickliffs 17 article proving by 43 arguments taken out of fathers, canonists, school-men, the supream authority and jurisidiction of princes, parliaments, temporal lords, and other lay-men, who have endowed the church with temporalities, to take away and alien the temporal lands and possessions of delinquent bishops, abbots and church-men, by way of medicine or punishment, without any sacrilege, impiety or injustice : transcribed out of the printed works of Iohn Hus, and Mr. Iohn Fox his acts and monuments printed London 1641, vol. I, p. 585, &c : with an additional appendix thereunto of proofs and domestick presidents in all ages, usefull for present and future times / by William Prynne ...; Determinatio de ablatione temporalium a clericis. English	Hus, Jan, 1369?-1415.; Foxe, John, 1516-1587. Actes and monuments.; Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1660 (1660)	Wing H3802; ESTC R8509	98,591	126

those things which the hereticks held Forsomuch as this is the word of the Lord unto all wicked men Mat. 21. The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and given unto a nation which shall do the righteousnesse thereof is it in vain which is written in the 17. chapter of the book of wisdom The just shall eat the labours of the wicked And whereas it may be objected as touching the desire of other mens goods St. Augustine answereth That by that Evidence the seven Nations which did abuse the Land of Promise and were driven out from thence by the power of God may object the same unto the people of God which inhabit the same And the Jews themselves from whom according unto the Word of the Lord the Kingdom is taken away and given unto a people which shall do the works of righteousnesse may object the same unto the Church of Christ as touching the desire of other mens goods but St. Augustines answer is thus We saith he do not desire another mans goods forsomuch as they are ours by the commandement of him by whom all things were made By like evidence the Clergy having offended their temporal goods are made the goods of others for the profit of the Church To this purpose also according to St. Augustine serveth the 14. question 4. Unto a mis-believer it is not a half-penny matter but unto the faithfull is a whole world of riches shall we not then convince all such to possesse another mans goods which seemed to have gathered great riches together and know not how to use them for that truly is not anothers which is possessed by right and that is lawfully possessed which is justly possessed and that is justly possessed which is well possessed Ergo all that which is evil possessed is another mans and he doth ill possesse it which doth evil use it If then any of the Clergy do abuse the temporal goods the temporal Lords may at their own pleasure according unto the rule of charity take away the said temporal go●d● from the Clergy so transgressing For then according to the allegation aforesaid the Clergy doth not j●●l● p●ssesse those temporal goods but the temporal Lord● proceeding according to the rule of charity do justly possesse those temporalities for somuch as all things are the just mans 1 Cor. 3. chapter All things saith the Apostle are yours whether it be Paul or Apollo or C●●●● either the world either life or death or things 〈◊〉 or things to come for all things be yours you be Christs and Christ is Gods Also in the 23. question 7. Qui●●●q●e it is written Iure divino omnia sunt just●●●● The words of St. Augustine in that place ad Vin●●●●um be these Whosoever saith he upon the occasion of this Law or Ordinance of the Emperor doth molest or persecute you not for love of any charitable correction but only for hatred and malice to do you displeasure I hold not with him in so doing And although there is nothing here in this earth that any man may possesse assuredly but either he must hold it by Gods law by which cuncta justorum esse dicuntur that is all things be said to pertain to the possession of the just or else by mans law which standeth in the Kings power to set and to ordain c. Here by the words of St. Augustine alleaged ye see all things belong to the possession of the just by Gods law Item forsomuch as the Clergy by means of their possessions are in danger of the Emperor and King it followeth that if they do offend the Emperor or King may lawfully take away their possessions from them The consequence dependeth on this point forsomuch as otherwise they were not in subjection under the Emperor or King and the antecedent is manifest by the 11. question and first Parag. His ita respondetur Whereas it is specified in Latine thus His ita respondetur Clerici ex officio Episcopo sunt suppositi ex possessionibus praediorum Imperatori sunt obnoxii ab Episcopo unctronem decimas primitias accipiunt ab Imperatore verò praediorum possessiones nanciscuntur that is to say The Clergy by meanes of their office are under the Bishop but by reason of their possessions they be subject unto the Emperor Of the Bishop they receive unction tithes and first fruits of the Emperor they receive possessions Thus then it is decreed by the Emperial law that livelihoods should be possessed whereby it appeareth that the Clergy by the possession of their livelihoods are in danger of the Emperor for him to take away from them or to correct them according to their deservings and to have the controulment of them as it shall seem good unto him Item The temporal Lords may take away the temporalities from such as use Simony because they are hereticks Ergo this Article is true The antecedent is manifest forsomuch as the secular Lords may refuse such as use Simony and punish them except they do repent For by the decree of Pope Paschasius in the first and last question it appeareth that all such as used Simony were to be refused of all faithfull people as chief and principal hereticks and if they do not repent after they be warned they are also to be punished by the extreme power For all other faults and crimes in comparison of Simoney be counted but light and seem small offences Whereupon the glosse expounding the same text saith that by this word externe is understood the laity which have power over the Clergy besides the Church as in the 17. distinct Non licuit 23. question 5. principes Whereby it is evident that the temporal Lords may take away the temporal goods from the Clergy when as they do offend Item St. Gregory in the Register upon his seventh Book and ninth Chapter writeth thus unto the French Queen Forsomuch as it is written that righteousnesse helpeth the people and sin maketh them miserable then is that Kingdom counted stable when as the offence which is known is soon amended Therefore forsomuch as wicked Priests are the cause of the ruine of the people for who shall take upon him to be intercessor for the sins of the people if the Priest which ought to intreat for the same have committed greater offences and under your dominions the Priest do live wickedly and unchastly therefore that the offence of a few might not turn to the destruction of many we ought earnestly to seek the punishment of the same And it followeth if we do command any person we do send him forth with the consent of your authority who together with other Priests shall diligently seek out and according unto Gods word correct and amend the same Neither are these things to be dissembled the which we have spoken of for he that may correct any thing and doth neglect the same without all doubt he maketh himself

of the means according as shall be convenient or meet for the measure to be made For so much then as the secular Lords ought by their power to provide for the necessary sustentation of the Christian Clergy by the reasonable measuring of their temporalities which they are bound to bestow upon the Christian Clergy it followeth that they may lawfully by their power use the taking away or putting unto of those temporalities according as shall be convenient for the performance of that reasonable matter Item it is lawfull for the Clergy by their power to take away the Sacraments of the Church from the laity customably offending for so much as it doth pertain to the office of the Christian Ministers by their power to minister the same unto the Lay people Wherefore for so much as it doth pertain unto the office of the Laity according unto their power to minister and give temporalities to the Clergy of Christ as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 9. It followeth that it is also lawfull for them by their power to take away the temporalities from the Clergy when they do customably sin and offend Item by like power may he which giveth a stipend or exhibition withdraw and take away the same from the unworthy labourers as he hath power to give the same unto the worthy labourers for so much then as temporalities of the Clergy are the stipends of the Laity it followeth that the Lay people may by as good authority take away again the same from the Clergy which will not worthily labour as they might by their power bestow the same upon those which would worthily labour according to the saying of the Gospel Mat. 21. The Kingdom shall be taken away from you and given unto a people which shall bring forth the fruits thereof Item it is also lawfull for the secular Lords by their power to chastise and punish the Lay people when they do offend by taking away of their temporalities according to the exigent of their offence for so much as the Lay people are subject under the dominion of the secular Lords as appeareth Romans 13. and many other places it is evident that it is lawfull by their power to punish the Clergy by taking away of their temporalities if their offence do so deserve Item the true and easie direction of the Clergy unto the life of Christ and the Apostles and most profitable unto the Laity that the Clergy should not live contrary unto Christs institution seemeth to be the taking away of their almes and those things which they had bestowed upon them And it is thus proved That medicine is most apt to be laid unto the sore whereby the infirmity might soonest be holpen and were most agreeable unto the patients Such is the taking away of the temporalities Ergo this article is true The minor is thus proved for so much as by the abundance of temporalities the worm or serpent of pride is sprung up whereupon unsatiable desire and lust is inflamed and therefrom proceedeth all kind of gluttony and leachery It is evident in this point for so much as the temporalities being once taken away every one of those sins is either utterly taken away or at the least diminished by the contrary vertue induced and brought in● It seemeth also most pertinent unto the Laity for so much as they ought not to lay violent hands upon their Ministers or to abject the Priestly dignity neither to judge any of the Clergy in their open Courts It seemeth also by the Law of Conscience to pertain unto the lay people for so much as every man which worketh any work of mercy ought deli●ently to have respect unto the ability of them that he bestoweth his almes upon lest that by nourishing or helping loyterers he be made partaker of his offence Whereupon if Priests do not minister of their temporalities as Hostiensis teacheth in his 3d. book of their Tither First-fruits and Oblations the people ought to take away the almes of their Tithes from them Item it is confirmed by the last chapter of the sevententh question out of the decree of rents appropriate unto the Church Quicunque Whereas the case is put thus That a certain man having no children neither hoping to have any gave all his goods unto the Church reserving unto himself the only use and profits thereof it happened afterward that he had children and the Bishop restored again his goods unto him not hoping for it The Bishop had it in his power whether to render again or no those things which were given him but that was by the law of Man and not by the law of Conscience If then by the decree of the holy Doctor St. Augustine in his Sermon of the life of the Clergy Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage had no power by Gods law to withhold that which is bestowed upon the Church for the necessity of children by the which law the wanton proud and unstable Clergy being more then sufficiently possessed and enriched do detain and keep back the temporalities to the detriment and hurt of their own state and of the whole militant Church the secular patrons being thereby so impoverished that they are compelled by penury to rob and steal to oppresse their tenants to spoil and undo others and oftentimes by very necessity are driven to beggery Item suppose that a Priest and Minister how grievously soever he do offend by what kind or sign of offence soever it be as it was in the case of Bishop Iudas Iscarioth of the religious Monk Sergius of Pope Leo the heretick and many other Priests of whom the Scripture and Chronicles make mention and daily experience doth teach us the same it is evident that as it is supposed the Priests in the Kingdom of Boheme grievously offending it is the Kings part for so much as he is supreme head next under God and Lord of the Kingdom of Boheme to correct and punish those Priests And for so much as the gentlest correction and punishment of such as be indurate in their malice is the taking away of their temporal goods it followeth that it is lawfull for the King to take away temporalities Wherefore it should seem very marvellous and strange if that Priests riding about should spoil Virgins violently corrupt and defile honest Matrons if in such case it were not lawfull for them to take away their Armours Weapons Horses Guns and Swords from them The like reason were it also if they had unlawfully conspired the death of the King or that they would betray the King unto his enemies Item whatsoever any of the Clergy doth require or desire of the secular power according unto the Law and Ordinance of Christ the secular power ought to perform and grant the same But the Clergy being letted by riches ought to require help of the secular power for the dispensation of the said riches Ergo the secular power ought in such case by the law of Christ to take

by consequent since this way should be a falshood it followeth that it would be contrary to the holy Scripture And certain it is that it is pertinaciously and strongly defended because Kings and Princes believe that it pertaineth to their Soveraignty to have this powers for grant the contrary it will follow that Ecclesiastical persons seeing they are great Trangressors may destroy both Kingdoms and their People to prevent which it may be lawfull for the King to resist the Clergy or to impugn his Charity by the ablation of his proper Almes and those Temporal goods which are the Fire exciting hereunto Now the King could not lawfully punish the bodies of such Traytors if he could not lawfully take from them and alienate their Temporal estates over which he hath a special Dominion And since this power is the chiefest Royalty of the King it would be the same thing to infringe this power and subtilly to overthrow the Government of the Kingdom Again seeing many Kings and Nobles being Catholicks have oftentimes exercised that power it were the same according to such a form to assert the assumption and afterwards to condemn the Lives and Souls of those Hereticks which the Heirs of Kings and especially their Sons have stoutly opposed for thus according to the Priests and Pharises accusing Christ of Heresie they would impose a manifest Error and Heresie on the King of whom they have so great a Temporal assistance But God when he pleaseth will move the heart of the King to overthrow their madness Again Ecclesiastical persons are either the Chief Lords of those Revenues and Temporal estates which the King hath given to them or they are not if they are it truly followeth that for the greatest part those Ecclesiastical men are the chief Lords of our Kingdoms and so as to their Temporals not subject to the King which it seemeth they themselves do conceive The first consequence is manifest by this because the Clergy-men of our Kingdom have the fourth or third part of the Revenues of it And from hence it is that they will not be called Presbyters but Lord Prelates L. Praepositors L. Canonicals L. Prebends L. Presbyters And if any man shall call them Presbyters they are presently angry as if you had called them Common-cryers or Tormentors But if the Clergy-men are not the chief Lords of those Revenues and Temporal estates which the King hath given them as holy men are of opinion who say That Ecclesiastical Persons are not Lords but Attornies or Procurers only for poor men it then followeth That the King is the Soveraign Lord of their Goods and Estates and by consequent can take them away from those Ecclesiastical persons who are Delinquents and bestow them on the poor of Christ. And from hence it is the Canon affirmeth that in the time of necessity to provide for the poors relief the Goods of the Church may be sold by the Priests 12. quest 2. cap. Sicut Ecclesiast Parag. Secundo On which St. Ambrose limiteth the cases in which they may break and sell the Vessels consecrated to the Church as it is manifest Dist. 96. Whatsoever in Gold Pearls or Iewels or in Silver or in Vestments shall appear to be less usefull which cannot long be kept or continue for the service of the Church let them be sold according to their full value and the profit thereof be given to the poor Saint Ambrose doth insist also at large upon this particular in his fifth book of Offices Again many Kings have oftentimes wholly taken away the Temporal estate from the Clergy as it is manifest by the destruction of the Templers and many other private ablations but they never did or could do so lawfully as is manifest by the Adversaries Therefore in this they did that which lawfully they could not do And moreover in this they did that which they could not do meritoriously or according to the law of God And seeing that every work of man proceeding from deliberation is either lawfull or unlawfull meritorious or demeritorious it followeth that they did it unlawfully or demeritoriously and it followeth moreover that inso doing they fell into a dangerous error and as destructive to the Soul as to the Body and that this error is directly contrary to the Catholick truth it doth appear by a threefold consideration First That Kings by so doing did that which neither was nor could be lawfull Secondly Because they took away the Goods of other men against a commandement of the second Table And thirdly Because they did it not in Almes which is against the Catholick truth Let all things what you do be done in Almes All the Antecedent is granted by the Adversaries and this error being in Fact i● Kings pertinaciously shall defend it resolving by their power as if a lawfull one to take away from Ecclesiastical persons though Delinquents their Temporal Goods they are in a Heresie From which it further followeth that Kings persisting in so doing are Hereticks and if they shall defend what they have done unto death it followeth that they are Hereticks and damned and from this again it farther followeth that Clergy-men benesiced who do believe what here is said should not pray for the said Kings deceased Again the Emperour or a King not only oughteth but it becommeth him so to indow the Church that he may lawfully take from it his gifts of Almes in case that the abuse thereof doth tend to the detriment of his Kingdom and the hinderance of the preaching of the Gospel Suppose therefore that under such a condition he hath endowed such a Church it may thereupon be thus argued If according unto that form the Emperour or the King had endowed the Church of Prague he might lawfully in the case of the Detriment of his Kingdom or in the contempt of his own person or in the case of the not preaching of the Gospel take away his gifts of Almes But the Emperour or the King could under such a condition have endowed the Church of Prague Therefore for the contempt of the Clergy he could lawfully take away the said gifts of Almes he had given The condition therefore being lawfull and honest and the custom both of the King and kingdom do show that condition in facto to be added It seemeth to be too presumptuous an assertion that our Princes cannot take from them their gifts of Alms be the faults they have commited never so enormous yea when it was properly in their power to adde such a condition And again when as those who received those gifts of Almes could commit never so grievous offences as already I have said It is manifest that our Princes have a simple and an absolute power to withdraw their gifts of Almes a possible danger being imminent and by the same rule it followeth that on the like po●sible emergencies they may do it for the time to come Again the King of Bohemia or the

Emperour indowing his Church neither ought or 〈◊〉 it to the weakning or the worsting of his kingdom For all power is from God which cannot give any power to this end But suppose it so should come to pass that a King or the Emperour had absolutely indowed a Church without such a condition to be understood yet such a condition ought to be understood and by consequent when such a condition of the Clergy doth fall out the King by taking the Temporals from them into his own hands doth do no injury to the Clergy the condition being dissolved and made null by his or their defect The minor of the Argument is thus proved If all those Goods with which our Church is indued did immediately and directly so pertain to the Pope that the King had no interest neither in the possessions nor the persons the fourth part of the kingdom and more being devolved to a Mortmayn it would follow that our King is not King of all Bohemia more than the fourth part thereof being fallen into a Mortmayn for the Clergy and the possessions of the Clergy every day increasing and the possessions of the Barons Knights and other Seculars every day decreasing it may easily come to pass that the whole possession of the Kingdom of Bohemia may be devolved to the Clergy as it hath come to passe in the Rhene If this comes to pass the Dominion of our King and of the Barons will be extinguished and by consequence all Soveraignty for it is not lawfull for the King as the Clergy do affirm to interpose in matters concerning themselves or their possession be their offences never so haynous neither is it lawfull for the King to meddle with their Temporals how great soever the abuse doth tend to the indangering of the kingdom because they say they are exempted from all Kingly jurisdiction both in Body and in Goods and immediately subject to the Pope And thereupon committing insolencies in the kingdom they will not be corrected by the King but are like good or evil Angels not subject to the King in his own kingdom Again according to the Decrees of Gregorie 2. quaest 3. He ought altogether to lose his privilege who abuseth the Power that is committed to him but every Clergy-man abusing the Kings gifts of Almes doth abuse the power committed to him That indowment therefore being a Privilege it directly followeth that he ought altogether to lose it And to whom but to the King who did impriviledge him for it is his priviledge to interpret and to defend or take away whose priviledge it is to make It is confirmed by that of Matthew Chap. 23. To every one that hath it shall be given and he shall abound and to him that hath not even that shall be taken which he hath When the King is obliged so to abound by the Title of his Justice it seemeth that the Ablation or the taking away from him whom he hath indowed with Church gifts ought to proceed from the King himselfe it being supposed it may so come to pass that he may seem to have those gifts of Almes which he hath not It is confirmed also by the law and due of these Spiritual gifts of Almes for the King is bound by the laws of God and of his Kingdom to preserve Justice for the safety of his Liege-people But the chief work of such a mercy which belongeth to a King is a coactive castigation to continue such works of Almes which he ought to see performed The Clergy-men therefore who take the greatest offence at the taking away of Temporals do yet challenge that the Seculars do defend the gifts of their Progenitors remaining in their strength which cannot be unlesse the Church hath the profit from such gifts of Almes in such a manner that being put together it may remain upon the account of Priviledge or of free gifts of Almes which is extinguished when the said Clergy-men do abuse their gifts according to the Decrees of Gregory alledged in the foregoing confirmation If therefore the Temporal Lords as the Clergy-men who enjoy these Gifts of Alms do challenge are bound to continue the charitable Donations of their Fathers whose Heirs they are they are then bound to conform themselves to that which followeth for otherwise they would be obliged to Contradictories against the possibility of the Divine law viz. both to continue the said Gifts of Almes and to defend their abuses in the several species of them according to which sense they do want the form and the very essence of a spiritual Gift of Alms. Therefore when Kings and Secular Lords are bound to continue the Almes of their Progenitors in the perpetuity of them they are obliged also by the law of Spiritual almes to chastise their Liege-people abusing them They are obliged also by that Obligation to do justice to their Subjects and to extinguish those injuries which most dangerously tend to the ruine of their Subjects It is manifest that in some case they are bound to restore their Goods to the Holy Church and to take them away from the Despisers of God and his Kingdom for this was the condition of the first and antient Donation Therefore if our King have not the power over these his Peers to correct the abuse of Almes in his Clergy he hath not the power of governing politickly over all his Kingdom But yet if we do well attend to the holy Scripture we shall know what is spoken of the priviledge of the King to wit that he hath a coercive power over the Clergy and the Clergy have a priviledge also that they have such a One set over them to whom deservedly they may submit themselves Again Kings and Princes and all Lords Temporal are bound to a Brotherly correction some circumstances concurring which require such a correction But it may well come to pass that a Clergy-man may transgresse with such a circumstance that a Brotherly correction of him may be most needfull and effectual by merely taking away from him those Temporals which he abuseth Therefore it may so come to pass the Temporal Lords by the Law of Christ are bound unto it neither doth it any thing avayl to say that the Dispens●cion of the Pope or any Priviledge or Exemption doth exclude it for God forbid that a Catholick should affirm that it is lawfull for Christs Vicar to do that by his Traditions which may hinder or derogate from the Practick law of Christ and impede Catholick Lords from an effectual and a profitable correction of the Church for it is not lawfull for a man so to exempt any as if he shall fall into a sin it shall not be in his Power to correct him Upon this account it is that St. Bernard in his third Book to Pope Eugenius calls a Dispensation which is not for the Publick good a Dissipation And hereupon he hath these words What Do you forbid to dispence No but to dissipate I

given unto the Church of Christ by the devotion of the Faithfull the power and authority of the Secular power reserved lest there might happen any confusion Forsomuch as God himself cannot allow any disordered thing Whereupon oftentimes the worldly Princes do grant the bare use of the Church and oftentimes use and power to exercise Justice which the Clergy cannot exercise by any Ecclesiastical Minister or any other person of the Clergy Notwithstanding they may have certain Lay-persons Ministers unto that office But in such sort saith he that they do acknowledge the power which they have to come from the Secular Prince or Ruler and that they do understand th●ir Possessions can never be alienate away from the Kings power but if that necessity or reason do require the same Possessions in all such case of necessity do owe him obeysance and service For like as the Kings power ought not to turn away the defence or safegard which he oweth unto other so likewise the Possessions obtained and possessed by the Clergy according to the duty and homage which is due unto the Patronage of the Kings power cannot by right be denyed Thus much writes Hugo with whom Iohn Hus concludes his Disputation Mat. 5. 39 40. But I say unto you that you resist not evil And if any man will sue thee at the Law and take away thy Coat let him have thy Cloak also Phil 3. 8 17 18 19 20. Yea doubtless I count all things but l●sse for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the losse of all things and do count them but dung that I may win Christ. Brethren be followers together of me and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example For many walk of whom I have told you often and now tell you weeping that they are the enemies of the Cross of Christ whose end is destruction whose God is their belly whose glory is their shame who mind earthly things But our conversation is in heaven Col. 3. 1 2 c. If ye then be risen with Christ seek those things which are above where Christ sits at the right hand of God Set your affection on things above not on things on the earth for ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God Mortifie therefore your members which are upon the earth inordinate affection evil concupiscence and covetousness which is idolatry for which things sake the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience A supplemental Appendix to the premised Disputation of John Hus irrefragibly evidencing the Supream Iurisdiction of our Kings Lords and Parliaments not only over the Persons Liberties Lives of our Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Church-men in cases of High Treason Rebellion Disobedience Contumacy and Disloyalty but likewise over their Temporal Lands and Estates to seise and confiscate them without Sacriledge or Injustice HAving presented the Readers with the memorable Disputation of this famous learned Bohemian Marty Iohn Hus in justification of our English Apostle and prime Assertor of the Reformed Religion we now profess whose Doctrine spread it self into Bohemia Germany and other parts to the subversion of the Popes and Prelates usurped Authority over Kings Popery by degrees It will not be unseasonable by way of Appendix to subjoyn some memorable domestick Evidences Presidents in all Ages to justifie their opinions in point of practise Not with the least intention to deprive the faithfull painfull Ministers and Preachers of the Gospel or any true Evangelical Bishops of the antient Glebes Tithes Dues belonging to their respective Parochial Churches or of that liberal competent Maintenance or double Honor which belongs unto them by a divine right and common natural Justice for their labour in the work of the Ministry which I have publickly and largely asserted But only to vindicate the just Prerogative of our Kings and Jurisdiction of the Temporal Lords and Commons in Parliament over the Persons and superfluous large Temporal Mannors Lands and Possessions of delinquent Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors Deans Chapters Monks and other religious Persons which are not of Divine or Apostolical but mere Humane institution and not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church of Christ as true Evangelical Bishops and Ministers are whose principle office and duty is frequently to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments not to domineer over their people or suspend them from the Lords supper Mat. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 1 Cor. 5. 7 18 21 c. 9. 14 to 19. 2 Tim. 4. 2 5. Rom. 10. 19 20. 1 Pet. 5. 2 3. To this end I shall desire our Archbps. Bps. and other Cathedralists to consider 1. That Gratian the Canonist Peter Lombard the School-man with most other Canonists and Scholmen in their Glosses or Commentaries on their Texts Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury Mr. Iohn Fox William Harrison Richard Grafton Iohn Speed and no lesse than thirty more of our antient Historians and other Authors quoted by Archbishop Vsher for this purpose affirm That the antient Britains before their conversion to Christianity had 28. Flamines and 3. Archflamines in this our Island to whom the other Priests were subject having distinct Cities Sees Diocesses and Temples wherein they resided and exercised their Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions that King Lucius upon his conversion to Christianity about the year of our Lord 175. by Pope Elutherius his direction took away their Sees Lands and Temples from them and placed 28. Bishops and 3. Archbishops in their steads turning their Sees into Archbishopricks and Bishopricks and their Temples into Cathedral Churches Yea Gratian himself Distinctio 21. and the Glossers on him resolve That the distinction among Priests whence some are stiled Priests simply others Archpriests others Choral Bishops others Bishops others Archbishops or Metropolitans others Primates others Chief Priests WAS PRINCIPALLY INTRODVCED BY THE GENTILS not the Apostles or Primitive Christians who called their Flamines some simple Flamines others Arch-flamines others Proto-flamines If then these their Hierarchical orders were originally derived from they succeeded the Pagan Flamines Arch-flamins Proto-Flamins in their Sees Jurisdictions Temporalties and Cathedrals which King Lucius took from them without sacriledge or impietie then by the like reason and president our Kings or Temporal Lords and Commons in Parliament may devest our peccant Prelates of their Sees Temporalties Cathedrals convert them to other uses for the publik ease and benefit of the Kingdom when they see just cause being originally dedicated to these Flamines Arch-flamines Proto-flamines and their Pagan Gods 2ly That admit these former Authors relations touching Flamines Arch-flamines and King Lucius erecting Bishops and Arch-bishops in their Sees to be false and fabulous as Bishop Iewel Bishop Godwin Bishop Vsher Doctor Suteliffe and Sir Henry Spelman repute them yet it is agreed by all that the primitive

Archbishoprick at Litckfield took away six Bishopricks formerly subject to the See of Canterbury and detained the Lands above thirty years till at last restored by the judgement of two or three Parliamentary Great Councils after many Petitions and Complaints upon full hearing and examination Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury for refusing to Crown King William the Conqueror and holding the Bishoprick of Winchester in Commendam with his Archbishoprick together with many other Bishops and Abbots was deprived by the Kings procurement and kept Prisoner at VVinchester during his life receiving only a small allowance out of the Exchequer to support him dying in Prison his Bishoprick remained void two years space in the Kings hands no lesse than twenty five Manors being taken away from it till recovered by ● ansraue his Successor in a famous Council of the Noble and Elders of England held at Penindene King VVilliam Rufus banished Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury out of the Realm for Treason against him and his Soveraign Power and seised his Temporalties till his death after which King Henry the first recalling him he most trayterously and obstinately oppugned the Kings Prerogative of investing Bishops in their Bishopricks by a Ring and Pastoral-slast and refusing to do homage to the King or to consecrate any Bishops who received Investitures from him or did Homage to him for which he was banished for three years out of the Realm all his Temporalties and Goods moveable and immoveable seised into the Kings hands with the Temporalties Goods of those Bishops who renounced their Investistures by the Kings donation by Anselmes perswasion King Stephen seised all the Goods and Temporalties of Theobuld Archbishop of Canterbury and banished him the Realm for departing out of England to Rome upon the Popes summons contrary to his expresse royal Prohibition and for interdicting the King and whole Realm After which being restored to his Archbishoprick by the other Bishops mediation his Goods and Temporalties were again consiscated and seised into the Kings hands Anno 1152. for refusing to Crown Eustace King Stephens Son he forced to flye the Realm which he caused to be infested with fire sword and bloudy wars Thomas B●cket Archbishop of Canterbury an infamous perjured Traytor to and Rebel against King Henry the second his advancer and indulgent Soveraign grand Oppugner of his Royal Prerogatives and of the Customs of the Realm contrary to the Oath and Recognition of himself and all the Bishops Clergy and Temporal Lords in the famous Great Council of Clarindon endeavouring totally to exempt the Clergy from all Temporal power jurisdiction and judicature for the most detestable Crimes and Murders had all his Goods and Moveables by judgment of the Bishops and Peers condemned and confiscated to the King his Temporalties seised into the hands all his Moneys Jewels Plate confiscated together with all the Clergy-men goods who adhered to him all his Kindred Man Woman and Child secured and afterwards banished the Realm together with himself for sundry years and was at last slain in the Cathedral Church at Canterbury for his manifold Treasons Rebellions against the King to the great disturbauce both of the Churches and Kingdoms peace King Iohn An. 1205. seised upon all Archbp. Huberts Lands and Possessions after his death for his manifold Contempts and Oppositions against his Royal authoritie and resolutions during his life Stephen Langhton his next Successor in the Archiepiscopal See of Canterbury for his manifold Treasons and Rebellions against King John had all his Temporalties and Goods seised by the King and was suspended from his Archbishoprick and threatned to be deprived of it by the Pope Archbishop Boniface being commanded by King Henry the third to relinquish his Archbishoprick and depart the Realm by reason of the grievous Complaints both of the Clergy and Commonalty against him thereupon selled his Woods leased out his Lands extorted what moneys he could from his Tenants and carried all with him in to Savoy where he dyed King Edward the first Anno 1301. put Robert Winchelsie Archbishop of Canterbury with all the other Bishops and Clergy out of his Protection and the Parliament House and seised the Archbishops Temporalties Goods Debts After which divers High Treasons and Rebellious Conspiracies were laid to his Charge by the King who thereupon the second time seised all his Temporalties and Goods moveable and immoveable appealed him to the Pope banished him the Realm forbidding any of his Subjects under grievous penalties to harbour him and seised all the Lands of the Monks of Canterbury and banished them the Realm for furnishing this Arch-traytor secretly with necessaries King Edward the second caused all the Goods of Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury to be seised and his Temporalties to be sequestred into his hands whiles Bishop of Winchester for taking that Bishoprick by Provision from the Pope against his Royal command After which being advanced to Canterbury by King Edward the third he was soon after accused of Treason Treachery and Conspiracy with the French and Pope against the King whose designs against them he crossed all he could whereupon the King resolved to commit him Prisoner to the Tower of London whither he sent the Bishop of Chichesier then Lord Chancellor and the Bishop of Lichfi●ld then L. Treasurer Prisoners for the like offences Wherupon this Archbp. flying to Canterbury and there standing on his Gard refused to render himself carrying himself very insolently and rebelliously against the King both in his Sermons and Excommunication saying That he had received no honor nor advancement from the King but ONLY FROM GOD and that he would give an account of his Actions in no. Court and to no Person but in Parliament Whereupon a Parliament was summoned and divers hainous Crimes charged against him by the King which the King after great suit and intreaty pardoned Simon Langham Archbishop of Canterbury Chancellor of England Anno 1371. was put from his Office his Temporalties seised and stripped of all his Archiepiscopal ensigns for receiving from Pope Vrban the Cardinalship of St. Sixtus without King Edward the third his privity who was highly offended with him for it Anno 1386. Simon Sudbury Archbishop of Canterbury in the insurrection of Iack Straw was beheaded on Tower-Hill his Head fixed on a Poll and set on London Bridge as a Traytor and Enemy to the King and People King Rich. the 2d highly offended with Will. Courtney Archbishop of Canterbury for receiving his Archbishoprick by provision from the Pope against the Law and his Prerogative Royal and for other Misdemeanours commanded all his Goods and Temporalties to be seised and forced the Archbishop himself to hide his Head for fear of imprisonment till he made his peace with him Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury was impeached and condemned of High Treason against the King in the Parliament of 21 Rich. 2. by judgement of Parliament for which he was

Act I shall annex Pope Iulius his Letters and Reasons sent to Queen Mary Anno 1554. for the granting of the forecited Dispensation which occasioned this Statute That all such as by just Title according to the Laws or Statutes of this Realm for the time being have any Possessions Lands or Tenements lately belonging to Monasteries Priories Bishopricks Colleges Chantries Obits c. whether they have purchased them for their money or are come to possesse them by gift grant exchange or by any other legal means whatsoever may retain and keep the same in their Possessions and have the same ratified and established unto them by the confirmation and dispensation of the Sea Apostolick Causes and Reasons why such Dispensations may be justly granted with honour and conscience 1. The State of the Crown of this Kingdom cannot well be sustained to govern and rule with honour if such Possessions be taken from it for at this day the greatest part of the Possessions of the Crown consisteth of such Lands and Possessions 2. Very many men have with their monies bought and purchased great portions of those Lands from the most Excellent Kings Henry the VIII and Edward the VI. who by their Letters Patents have warranted the same of which Lands and Possessions if the Owners should now be dis-possessed the King should be bound to repay unto them all their money which would arise to such an huge Masse that it would be a very hard matter for the Crown to restore it 3. The Nobles and Gentry of this Realm most of whom have sold and alienated their antient inheritances to buy these new cannot live according to their degrees if these Possessions should be taken from them 4. The Purchasors or Owners of such Lands and Possessions in as much as they came to them by just Title according to the Ordinance of the Kings of this Kingdom have held and do still hold a good and justifiable course in obtaining of them 5. The enjoying of such Lands and Possessions is so common unto every state and condition of Men Cities Colleges and Incorporations that if the same be taken from them there will necessarily follow thereupon throughout the Kingdom a sudden change and confusion of all Orders and Degrees 6. Seeing the Goods and Possessions of the Church even by the authority of the Canon Laws may be aliened for the redemption of Captives and that the same may be done by that Church only to whom such Possessions do belong It is fit and reasonable that such Dispensations should be granted for continuing of possession already gotten for so great a good of publick concord and unity of the Church and preservation of this State as well in body as in soul. The consideration of this Statute Letter and Reasons of the Pope himself and our Popish Prelates Clergy in Queen Maries daies may perswade our present Prelates and Cathedral men to the like Moderation Candor and Ingenuity for the satisfaction of the King Parliament Purchasors and preservation of the Kingdoms Churches Tranquility now and hereafter Finally because there is now an extraordinary great clamour against Sacriledge in most Pulpits new Pamphlets and in the Commons House it self by many who understand not truly and thoroughly what Sacriledge is I shall for a close of this Appendix inform them 1. That the word Sacriledge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only once and no more used in sacred writ Rom. 2. 22. What the Apostle there means by committing Sacriledge and what this Sin should be both old and new Expositors do very much disagree I shall render them an account of 10. several opinions of Expositors concerning it who comment on this Text neither of them suiting with that which now alone is declamed against as the sole and only Sacriledge 1. Origen Ambrose and some others interpret Sacrilege The Iews violating of Christ the true Temple of God by crucifying him with their sins stealing him out of the Scripture and denying Christ MAGNO SACRILEGIO 2ly Chysostome Theodulus Theophylact Peter Martyr Dr. Willet expound it to be the Iews sparing of Idols and using of things consecrated to idolatry out of covetousness to their own private commodity which by the Law of God they should have destroyed which Calvin and Gualter mislike not And Peter Martyr thence infers Potest quidem Respublica Magistratus noster ea quae superstitiosa sunt auferre et corum pretia in usus pios et bonos convertere without any Sacriledge 3ly Gorhan defines this Sacriledge to be the giving of divine worship unto Idolls 4ly Calvin and Piscator expound it to be the contempt of the Divine Majesty 5ly Haymo informs us that Spiritual sacrilege est sacrorum verborum prevaricatio the praevarication of Gods word but according to the Letter he defines it Sacrarum rerum surtum verbi gratia Quisquis de the sauro Ecclesiae vel de substantia Dei familiarium aliquid occulte abstrahit Sacrilegium perpetrat which extends only to Goods not Lands with whom Lyranus the Syriack interpretation some Popish Commentators accord 6ly Peter Martyr and Lucas Osiander interpret it to be the buying and selling of the Priests Office Orders Benefices Bishopricks as many have done and still do who are really guilty of Sacrilege as well as Symony 7ly Paraeus and others expound it of polluting Gods Service with Iewish and humane inventions 8ly Grynaeus understands it of arrogating to their own merits that which was peculiar to the grace of God 9ly Peter Martyr applyes it to Fly his Sons and such other Priests who violently took away and appropriated to themselves the things offered and consecrated unto God 10ly Primasius Bishop of Vtica in Africk St. Augustine Disciple flourishing in the year 440. in his Commentary on this Text resolves SACRILEGIVMEST QUOD PROPRIE IN DEVM COMMITTITVR QVASI VIOLATIO VEL PRAEVARICATIO MANDATORVM Adding that the Apostle in the next words Per praevaricationem legis Deum inhonoras EXPOSVIT SACRILEGIVM Rhemigius and Haym● concur in substance with him And indeed this definition of Sacriledge that it is the breach or violation of the sacred law of God is most agreeable to the Apostles meaning and proper etymology of the word Hence Laurentius de Pinue a great Canonist and Angelus de Clavafio in his Summa Angelica Sacrilegium derive and define Sacrilegium quasi Sacrae legis lesio a more proper etymology than that of Innocentius the Pope quasi Sacriledium Now none of all these antient or modern Expositors define Sacrilege to be a taking away alienating or selling the Lands of Bishops Deans Abbots Priors Cathedrals Covents or Chapters never intended by the Apostle in those primitive times of the Gospel when the Apostles themselves and Evangelical Bishops in and immediately after their Age had neither Silver nor Gold nor Temporal Lands or Possessions to take away plunder steal or alienate as is evident by Acts 3. 5 6.

of Iohn King first Bishop there was kept vacant ten years An. 1568. after Henry Curwin the second Bishop it was kept void twenty one years together An. 1592. after Iohn Vnderhill the third Bishop it continued void 11. years so little want was there of a Bishop in that poor See An. 1559. the new created Bishoprick of Gloucester after Iames Brooks the third Bishop his death was kept vacant three years An. 1578. as long after Edmond Cheyney An. 1538. the new erected Bishoprick of Bristoll after Paul Bresh the first Bishop was kept vacant four years An. 1578. three years after Richard Cheyney which See continued void otherwise than by Commendam thirty one years together An. 1593. it continued vacant ten years together So little need was there of a Bishop in this See An. 1397. the Bishoprick of St. Davids after Iohn Gilberts death was vacant four years An. 1592. after Marmaduke Middleton almost two years An. 1133. the Bishoprick of Landaffe upon Vrbans decease was kept void six years An. 1183. after Nicholas ap Georgant five years An. 1240. after Elias de Raynor above four years An. 1287 after VVilliam de Brews nine years An. 1213. the Bishoprick of Bangor after Robert of Shrewstury was kept vacant two years An. 1374. as long after Iohn Gilbert An. 1378. after Iohn Swassham twenty years An. 1266. after Amanus the first Bishop of Rangor that See was vacant two years An. 1313. after Lew●lin six years An. 1406 after Iohn Trevour five years An. 1439. after Robert five years An. 1017. after Aldbanus of Durham that See continued void above three years An. 1096. as long after VVilliam Carlapho An. 1140. after Geoffry Rusus above five years An. 1207. after Philip of Poytiers above ten years An. 1226. above two years the King threatning the Covent that they should have no Bishop in seven years An. 1237. after Richard P●ore two years till Ethelmate his half Brother whom he commended to the Monks election should be of age An 1505. after William Severus two years An. 1587. after Richard Barnes almost two years An. 1577. the Bishoprick of Chester was kept vacant two years If then all our Bishopricks in several ages to omit the long vacancies of later times have been thus kept void 2,3,4,5 6,7,8,10,15,20 30. years or more together at divers times to omit all annual vacancies without any prejudice to the Church or State and with very great benefit to the Kings of England who enjoyed the Temporalties in the mean time then certainly Diocaesan Bishops are no such necessary Creatures of divine institution in the Church of Christ as some esteem them but that they may be spared and their Lands Temporalties sold or leased as well as thus seised by our Kings without Sacriledge or Injustice when as no Parish Churches can spare or want their Parochial Ministers who are of Gods institution above six months at most After which if the Patron present not in the interim an able and sufficient Clerk the Ordinary by the Canon Common-law may collate and sequester the profits in the mean time only to defray the officiating of the Cure which must be at no time intermitted or neglected because of Divine institution and so absolutely necessary both for the Peoples instruction and salvation which these long vacancies prove Diocaesan Bishops are not 4ly That as our Bishops Abbots Priors did originally for some hundreds of years receive their actual Investitures into their Churches Temporalties from the King alone per Annulum Baculum by a Ring and Pastoral staff delivered to them in nature of a Livery and seilin extorted from our Kings by the violence and tyranny of Pope Vrban and Pascal the 2. and Treason of Archbishop Anselme against the Right of the Crown and Custom of the Realm so they did likewise hold all their Baronies and Temporalties from swear Fealty and do Liege Homage to our Kings for the same as their Supream Liege Lords like other Barons and were as far forth responsible for them to the Kings Iustices and Ministers as Lay-Barons and Tenants were which they all acknowledged in their Recognition to King Henry the second in the Council of Clarindon as our Histories assure us and were lyable to forfeit them for their Treasons Rebellions Disloyalties and Contempts against the King and his Crown as well as Lay-men our Kings being alike Soveraign Lords and Kings to them as well as other Subjects and Tenauts and that Iure Domini as their Supreme Landlords and Patrons from by and under whom alone they held their Temporalties 5ly That the Kings of England as Supream Heads and Governours under Christ of the Church of England have in all ages enjoyed and exercised a Soveraign Power and Jurisdiction over all Archbishops Bishops Deans Chapters Abbots Priors and other Ecclesiastical Persons in all Causes whatsoever as well as over their Temporal Subjects to visit reform order correct restrain amend punish all their Errors Heresies Offences Contempts Enormities Treasons Rebellions against their Persons Crowns Dignities and Royal Authority punishable by any Spiritual Ecclesiastical or Temporal Authority or Iurisdiction and to punish their Persons by imprisonments banishments death scisure sequestration confiscation of their Temporalties Bishoppricks real and personal Goods and Estates as is enacted by the several Statutes against Provisors and the express Statutes of 25 H. 8. c. 19 21. 26 H. 8. c. 1 3. 27 H. 8. c. 10. 28 H. 6. c. 7. 10. 31 H. 8. c. 14. 32 H. 8. c. 22 24 26. 33 H. 8. c. 29. 34 35 H. 8. c. 17 19. 37 H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1 Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. 13 Eliz. c. 12. and other Acts The several Writs De Excommunicato capiendo De Excommunicato deliberando De Cautions admittenda Quare impedit Quare incumbravit Quare non admisit Quod Episcopus admittat Ne admittas Ne exeas Reguum Vi Iacca removenda and especially by the several Writs of Prohibition and ad Iura Regia and Capias pro contemptu wherewith our Records and Law-books are full fraught I shall only recite some memorable Presidents of our Kings and Parliaments proceedings against our Archbps. Bishops in seising their temporalties confiscating their Estates banishing them the Realm suspending from and depriving them of their Bishopricks yea in imprisoning executing their Persons for their rebellions Treasons Conspiracies Contempts against them and their Royal Prerogatives in former ages worthy their and our most serious consideration and remembrance To begin with our Archbishops about the year of Christ 765. Offa King of Mercians being highly offended with Iambertus or Lambert as some stile him Archbishop of Canterbury for his oppositions against him seised and took away all his Temporalties within his Kingdom detaining some of them to himself and giving the rest of them to his Souldiers and Courtiers and moreover by the Popes consent erected a new