Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	english_a	king_n	lord_n	1,488	5	3.5153	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33129	Diaphanta, or, Three attendants on Fiat lux wherein Catholick religion is further excused against the opposition of severall adversaries ... and by the way an answer is given to Mr. Moulin, Denton, and Stillingfleet.; Diaphanta	J. V. C. (John Vincent Canes), d. 1672.	1665 (1665)	Wing C427; ESTC R20600	197,726	415

our very Justices of peace and Constables But in ecclesiastical affairs the proper businesses of the Church and matters of religion as distinct from civil this is the plea which the good Quakers use against the Byshops and Priests of not only the Roman but even this our English Church which Whitby defends Why say they to them why are we harrassed imprisoned beaten and spoiled so many wayes by your instigation who have made your selves drank with the blood of Saints Do not we either confront the evidence of Scriptur against you or the intent of the Apostles or rather of God himself and tell you expresly that you oppose the evidence of Gods word in your observances and ordinations in your tythes and Lents and Mass-tides in your lawn sleeves and cassocks and canonical girdles in your Pulpits Universities and Steeple-houses in your Chapters and Deanaries in your orders and degrees in your oppressions of conscience and jurisdictions in your surplices copes and preaching for hire c. Is it not enough to shew our innocence in not accepting these things becaus in the beginning it was not so nor were any of these things to be found amongst the apostles Especially when you know we hold and we know also you hold that in matters of faith and religion it is all one to be beside Scriptur and to be against it Are your Chapters and Deanaries your lawn sleeves and surplices your Lents and common-prayers your tythes and livings of five or six hundred a year your universities and steeple-houses in Scriptur and Christian Gospel yea or no If they be there shew it us If they are besides scriptur or not in it then are they by your own confession here against it Ch. 4 5 6 7 8. from p. 17. to 90. These five following chapters speak against ecclesiastical Supremacy either amongst the apostles or any other succeeding prelates And with so much earnestnes and little heed doth Mr. Whitby whiff away all your defence of it that he strikes off that authority not only from the Popes head but from any Prince or Prelate whatsoever not caring so the Roman fall if the English Prelacy sink too So earnest indeed is he bent against it that he professes p. 39. he would sooner perswade himself of the truth of Mahomets fables then any such pretension Thus well is he disposed against the coming of the Turk These few propositions he advances here amongst others 1. That the apostles had an equality of power and jurisdiction or dignity over the rest But whence then comes our English Hierarchy of byshops arch-byshops ministers and deacons Whitby himself denies that our Kings are the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England Who ever thought so quoth he p. 88. I think I could show him out of the statutes and laws of the Land that our English Episcopacy and their whole jurisdiction is from the King as the sole fountain and root of it But if it be not so and no such subordination as here he affirms was ever found amongst the apostles whence is our English Hierarchy If it neither come from God nor from the King it may not irrationally be suspected to be from an insufficient if not an ill original His second is that such an ecclesiastical jurisdiction is useles and unable to prevent schismes whether they rise from breach of charity or difference of judgement p. 20. And if it be useles for that for Gods sake what is it good for Third is that to submit to one is to slight the judgment of thousands that may be as wise as he and to endanger the very being of religion Ibid. And is it so indeed why then are so many millions here in England subjected to one Byshop much people to one minister all the people ministers and byshops to one King Is this to slight all that are subjected or to endanger the very being of religion Fourth is that general causes cannot be dispatched by one supreme governour over all as may particular by inferiour superintendents And other such like fanatick assertions he has which do as much evacuate the subordination of our English as the Roman Church and civil government as well as ecclesiastical hierarchy I am sure they have done both even in this our Kingdom and in our own dayes a thing which will not be soon forgotten And little did I think to see any prelatick minister broach such whimsies again here in our land so lately made desolate thereby What he means by it I cannot tell But I am sure he is not so unadvised but he understands the consequence For p. 423. upon his grant of a liberty of judging to particular persons in matters of religion whence all our wars and animosities here in England do first flow even so far as to deny obedience therupon to their spiritual superiours he speaks thus Would a gracious King think you presently condemn all those to the utmost severity who in such cases after consultation and deliberation duly made by reason of som prejudices or weaknes of reasoning should be induced to think it their duty to follow the mutinous party he craftily uses the phrase of utmost severity the better to palliate his more secret judgment who by his own principles here and elsewhere not obscurely expressed must needs conceiv them liable to no severity at all But that you may see Sir this adversary of yours what a lively spark he is he makes in his 5 chapter the very Popes themselvs when significantly they would express their own supremacy either to say nothing for it or altogether against it If Pope Agatho speak of his own solicitude over the Churches of God even to the utmost bounds of the ocean Whitby hence infers that his headship therfor is not universal becaus it is bounded Is not this witty And thus the great Prophet when he describes the vaste unlinited extent of the Messias his dominion dominabitur à mari usque ad mare à flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrarum must be understood to limit and confine it Again if Pope Julius defend his acts of power and jurisdiction by ancient cannons and custom Whitby concludes from thence that it is not therfor of divine institution for custom and cannons are but humane Witty still Thus a master when sending his servant on an errand he tells him he may well go for that he gave him lately a pair of new shooes loses therby all his other claim of commanding him Again if St. Gregory prefer the Apostolicall See before other Churches That is quoth Whitby not for it self but for the Emperours seat And for the same reason must the Byshop of London or Abbot of Westminster if any now were be preferred before the Byshop of Canterbury If Pope Leo derive his autority from St. Peter prince of the apostles That may infer quoth he a precedency of order but not any dignity A Prince it seems signifies only one that is to go before not one

he such an immediate head to all beleevers or no if he be to all then is no man to be governed in affairs of religion by any other man and Presbyterian Ministers are as needless as either Catholik or Protestant byshops On the other side if he be not immediate head to all but ministers head the people and Christ heads the ministers this in effect is nothing els but to make every minister a byshop Why do you not plainly say what it is more than manifest you would have All this while you heed no more the laws of the land than constitutions of gospel As for gospel That Lord who had been visible governour and pastour of his flock on earth when he was now to depart hence as all the apostles expected one to be chosen to succeed him in his care so did he notwithstanding his own invisible presence and providence over his flock publikly appoint one And when he taught them that he who were greatest among them should be as the least he did not deny but suppose one greater and taught in one and the same breath both that he was over them and for what he was over them namely to feed not to tyrannize not to domineer abuse and hurt but to direct comfort and conduct his flock in all humility and tendernes as the servant of all their spiritual necessities And if a byshop be otherwise affected it is the fault of his person not his place As for the laws of the land it is there most strongly decreed by the consent and autority of the whole Kingdom not only that byshops are over ministers but that the Kings majesty is head of byshops also in the line of hierarchy from whose hand they receiv both their place and jurisdiction This was establisht not onely by one but several acts and constitutions both in the reign of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth So that by the laws of the land ther be two greeces between ministers and Christ which you cut off to the end you may secretly usurp the autority and place of both to the overthrow at once both of gospel and our law too By the laws of our land our series of ecclesiastical government stands thus God Christ King Byshop Ministers People the Presbyterian predicament is this God Christ Minister People So that the Ministers head in the Presbyterian predicament touches Christs feet immediately and nothing intervenes You pretend indeed that hereby you do exalt Christ but this is a meer cheat as all men may see with their eyes for Christ is but where he was but the minister indeed is exalted being now set in the Kings place one degree higher than the byshops who by the law is under both King and byshop too You will here say to me What is the Papists line of Church government There the Pope must sit next Christ and Kings under his feet Sir I have not time in this short letter to discours this subject as it deserves Nor does it now concern me who have no more here to say than only this that my argument for prelacy howsoever in your words you may disable it is not weakned by you in deeds at all and as far as I can perceiv not understood Yet two things I shall tell you over and above what I need in this affair also First is that Roman catholiks do more truly and cordially acknowledg the respective Christian King of any Kingdom to be supream head of his catholik subjects even in affairs of religion than any other whether Independents Presbyterians or even prelate Protestants have if we speak of truth and reality ever done And this I could easily make good both by the laws and practises of all catholik kingdoms upon earth in any age on one side and the opposite practises of all Protestants on the other Second is that for what reasons Roman catholiks deny a prince to be head of the Church for the same ought all others as they deny it in deeds so if they would speak sincerely as they think and act to deny it in words also as well as they For catholiks do beleev him to be head of the Church from whom the channel of religion and all direction in it is derived and flows for which reason a spring is said to be head of a river But neither does any King upon earth except he be priest and prophet too ever trouble himself to derive religion as the Pope has ever don neither does either Protestant Presbyterian or Independent either in England or elswhere ever seek for religion from the lips of the king or supplicate unto him when any doubt arises in those affairs as they ought in conscience and honesty to do for a final decision any more than the Roman catholik does So that whatever any of them may say all Protestants do as much deny the thing in their behaviour as catholiks do in words and catholiks do in their behaviour observ as much as Protestants either practise or pretend What is the reason that Roman catholiks in all occurring difficulties of faith both have their recours unto their papal Pastour unto whom Kings themselvs remit them and acquiesce also to his decision and judgment but only becaus they beleev him to be head of the Church And if Protestants have no such recours nor will not acquiesce to his Majesties autority in affairs of religion but proceed to wars and quarrels without end the prince neglected as wholly unconcerned in those resolvs they do as manifestly deny his headship as if they profest none Nay to acknowledg a headship in words and deny it in deeds is but mockery By these two words Sir it may appear that the Kings majesty is as much head of the Church to Roman Catholiks as to any Protestants and these no more than they either derive religion or decision of their doubts from the kings chair i th interim it is a shame and general scandal to the whole world that we in England should neither supplicate nor acquiesce in affairs of religion to his Majesties judgment whom in words we acknowledg head of the Church but fight and quarrel without end and yet have the confidence to upbraid Roman catholiks with a contrary beleef who although they ever looked upon their papal patriarch as spiritual head and pastour and deriver of their faith unto whom they so submit that he who after his decision remains contumacious forfeits his Christianity yet have they notwithstanding in all ages and kingdoms resigned with a most ready cordial reverence unto all decisions orders and acts of their temporal princes even in spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs as well as civil so far as their laws reached as supreme head and governours of their respective kingdoms And all kings and princes find in a very short space however others may utter hypocritical words of flattery that indeed none but catholik subjects do heed and fear and observ them universally in all whatever their commands being taught