Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	call_v	england_n	king_n	6,694	5	3.8986	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88612	A landskip: or a brief prospective of English episcopacy, drawn by three skilfull hands in Parliament: anno 1641.	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; Fiennes, Nathaniel, 1607 or 8-1669.; Vane, Henry, Sir, 1612?-1662.; England and Wales. Parliament. House of Commons.	1660 (1660)	Wing L324; Thomason E1045_13; ESTC R202705	20,959	20

to undermine the Kings Prerogative and to suppresse the Subjects Liberty or both And now Sir I beseech you to consider how they have'd sined this high and great point They have dealt with us in matter of Divinity as the Judges had done before in matter of Law They first took upon them to determine a matter that belonged not to their Judicature but only to the Parliament and after by their judgment they overthrew our propriety and just so have these Divines dealt with us they tell us That Kings are an Ordinance of God of Divine Right and founded in the Prime Lawes of nature from whence it will follow that all other Formes of Government as Aristocrasies and Democraties are wicked Formes of Government contrary to the Ordinance of God and the Prime Lawes of Nature which is such new Divinity as I never read in any Book but in this new Book of Canons Mr. Speaker We all know That Kings and States and Judges and all Magistrates are the Ordinances of God but Sir give me leave to say they were the Ordinances of men before they were the Ordinances of God I know I am upon a great and high point but I speak by as great and as high a warrant if Saint Peters chair cannot erre as Saint Peters Epistles cannot thus he teacheth us Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supream or to the Governour at to him that is sent by him c. Sir It is worthy noting that they are Ordinances of men but that they are to be submitted unto for the Lords sake and truely their Power is as just and their Subjects allegiance as due unto them though we suppose them to be first ordinances of men and then ednfirmed and establined by God Ordinance as if we suppose them to be immediate Ordinances of God and so received by men But there was somewhat in it that these Divines aimed at I suppose it was this If Kings were of Divine Right as the Office of a Pastour in the Church or founded in the prime Lawes of Nature as the power of a Father in a Family then it would certainly follow that they should receive the fashion and manner of their Government only from the Prescript of Gods Word or of the Lawes of Nature and consequently if there be no Text neither of the Old nor New Testament nor yet any Law of Nature that Kings may not make Lawes without Parliaments they may make Lawes without Parliaments and if neither in the Scripture nor in the Law of Nature Kings be forbidden to lay Taxes or any kinde of Impositions upon their people without consent in Parliament they may do it out of Parliament and that this was their meaning they expresse it after in plain termes for they say That Subsidies and Taxes and all manner of aides are due unto Kings by the Law of God and of Nature Sir if they be due by the Law of God and of nature they are due though there be no Act of Parliament for them nay Sir if they be due by such a right a hundred Acts of Parliament cannot take them away or make them undue And Sir that they meant it of Subsidies and Aids taken without consent in Parliament is clearly that addition that they subjoyn unto it that this doth not take away from the Subject the propriety he hath in his goods for had they spoken of Subsidies and Aids given by consent in Parliament this would have been a very ridiculous addition for Who ever made any question whether the giving Subsidies in Parliament did take away from the Subject the Propriety he hath in his Goods whenas it doth evidently imply they have a propriety in their goods for they could not give unlesse they had something to give But because that was alleadged as a chief Reason against ship-money and other such illegal Payments levied upon the people without their consent in Parliament that it did deprive them ●f their right of propriety which they have in their goods These Divines would seem to make some Answer thereunto but in truth their Answer is nothing else but the bare assertion of a Contradiction and it is an easie thing to say a contradiction but impossible to reconcile it for certainly if it be a true Rule as it is most tru● Quo meum est sine consensu meo non potest sieri alienum To take my goods without my consent must needs destroy my propriety Another thing in this first Canon wherein they have assumed unto themselves a Parliamentary Power is in that they take upon them to define what is Treason beside what is determined in the Statute of Treasons They say To set up any coactive Independent Power is treasonable both against God and the King The Question is not whether it be true they say or no but whether they have power to say what is treason and what not But now Sir that I am upon this point I would gladly know what kind of power that is which is exercised by Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons c. Coactive certainly it is all the Kingdome feels the lash thereof and it must needs be Independent if it be jure Divino as they hold it for they do not mean by an Independent power such a power as doth not depend on God Besides if their Power be dependant of whom is it dependent not of the King for the Law acknowledgeth no way whereby Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction can be derived from his Majesty but by his Commission under the great Seal which as I am informed they have not I speak not of the High Commission but of that Jurisdiction which they exercise in their Archiepiscopal Episcopal Archidiaconal Courts c and therefore if their own Sentence be just we know what they are and what they have pronounced against themselves But Sir it were worth knowing what they aimed at in that Independent coactive Power which they terme Popular I will not take upon me to unfold their meaning but we know Doct. Beal had a hand in making of these Canons and if we apply his Paraphrase to the Text it may give us some clearnesse I remember amongst other Notes of his this was one shat we did acknowledg the Kings Supremacy but would joyn unto him an Assistant viz. the People meaning this House which being the Representative body of the COMMONS of England and claiming as it is so a share in the Legislative Power Doctor Beal calleth this a joyning of an Assistant to the King in whom solely he placeth the Power of making Lawes and that it is but of grace that he assumeth either the Lords or Commons for the making of Lawes with him Now Sir The Legislative power is the greatest Power and therefore coactive and it is the Highest power and therefore Independent and if every Estate for the Proportion it hath therein should not have such a power it should not have it of

Master Speaker I am content to take away all those things from them which to any considerable degree of probability may again beget the like mischiefs if they be not taken away If their temporal Titles power and employment appear likely to distract them from the care of or make them look down with contempt upon their Spiritual duty and that the two great distance between them and those they govern will hinder the free and fit recourse of their Inferiours to them and occasion insolence from them to their inferiours Let that be considered and cared for I am sure neither their Lorships their judging of Tithes Wills and Marriages no nor their voices in Parliaments are Jure divino and I am as sure that these Titles and this power are not necessary to their Authority as appears by the little they have had with us by them and the much that others have had without them If their revenue shall appear likely to produce the same effects for it hath been anciently observed that Religio peperit divitias Filia devoravit matrem Let so much of that as was in all probability intended for an attendant upon their temporal Dignities wait upon them out of the doores Let us only take care to leave them such proportions as may serve in some good degree to the dignity of Learning and the encouragement of Students and let us not invert that of Jeroboam and as he made the meanest of the people Priests make the highest of the Priests the meanest of the people If it be feared that they will again employ some of our Lawes with a severity beyond the intention of those Lawes against some of their weaker Brethren that we may be sure to take away that power let us take away those Lawes and let no Ceremonies which any number counts unlawful and no man counts necessary against the Rules of Policy and S. Paul be imposed upon them Let us consider that part of the Rule they have hitherto gone by that is such Canons of their own making as are not confirm'd by Parliament have been or no doubt shortly will be by Parliament taken away that the other part of the Rule such Canons as were here received before the Reformation and not contrary to any Law is too doubtfull to be a fit Rule exacting an exact knowledg of the Canon Law of the Common Law of the Statute Law knowledges which those who are thus to govern have not and it is scarce fit they should have Since therefore we are to make new Rules and shall no doubt make those new Rules strict Rules and be infallibly certain of a triennial Parliament to see those Rules observ'd as strictly as they are made and to encrease or change them upon all occasions we shall have no reason to fear any innovation from their tyranny or to doubt any defect in the discharge of their duty I am confident they will not dare either ordain suspend silence excommunicate or deprive otherwise than we would have them And if this be believed I am as confident we shall not think it fit to abolish upon a few dayes debate an Order which hath lasted as appears by Story in most Churches these Sixteen hundred years and in all from Christ to Calvin or in an instant change the whole face of the Church like the scene of a Maske Master Speaker I do not believe them to be Jure Divino nay I believe them not to be Jure divino but neither do I believe them to be Injuria humana I neither consider them as necessary nor as unlawfull but as convenient or inconvenient But since all great Mutations in Government are dangerous even where what is introduc'd by that Mutation is such as would have been very profitable upon a primary foundation and since the greatest danger of Mutations is that all the dangers and inconveniences they may being are not to be foreseen and since no wise man will undergo great danger but for great necessity my Opinion is That we should not root up this Ancient tree as dead as it appears till we have tryed whether by this or the like lopping of the branches the sap which was unable to feed the whole may not serve to make what is lest both grow and flourish And certainly if we may at once take away both the inconveniences of Bishops and the inconvenience of no Bishops that is of an almost universal Mutation this course can only be opposed by those who love Mutation for mutations sake Master Speaker To be short as I have reason to be after having been so long this Tryal may be suddenly made let us commit as much of the Ministers Remonstrance as we have read that those Heads both of Abuses and Grievances which are there fully collected may be marshal'd and ordered for our debate If upon that Debate it shall appear that those may be taken away and yet the Order stand we shall not need to commit the London Petition at all for the cause of it will be ended if it shall appear that the abolition of one cannot be but by the destruction of the other then let us not commit the Lond. Pet. but grant it FINIS A SPEECH made in the HOUSE of COMMONS Anno 1641. Mr. Speaker NOw that we are about to brand these Canons in respect of the matter contained in them it is the proper time to open the foulnesse thereof and though much of this hath been anticipated in the general Debate yet if any thing hath been omitted or if any thing may be farther cleared in that kinde it is for the Service of the House that it should now be done Sir I conceive these Canons do contain sundry matters which are not only contrary to the Lawes of this Land but also destructive of the very principal and fundamental Lawes of this Kingdome I shall begin with the first Canon wherein the framers of these Canons have assumed unto themselves a Parlamentary power and that too in a very high Degree for they have taken upon them to define what is the Power of the King what the Liberty of the Subjects and what propriety he hath in his goods If this be not proper to a Parliament I know not what is Nay it is the highest matter that can fall under the consideration of a Parliament and such a point as wherein they would have walked with more tendernesse and circumspiction than these bold Divines have done And surely as this was an act of such Presumption as no Age can parrallel so it is of such dangerous consequence as nothing can be more For they do not only take upon them to determine matters of this nature but also under great Penalties forbid all Parsons Vicars Curates Readers in Divinity c. to speak any other wayes of them than as they had defined by which means having seised upon all the Conduits whereby knowledg is conveyed unto the people how easie would it be for them in time

the Law of this Land it is against the Law and Light of Nature it is against the Law of GOD it is against the Lawes of this KINGDOME and that no obscure Lawes nor concerning any mean or petty matters It is against the Law of the Kings Supremacy in that it maketh Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. to be jure Divino whereas the Law of this Land hath annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm not only all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but also all Superiority over the Ecclesiastical STATE and it is to be derived from him by Commission under the Great Seal and consequently it is Jure humane Again it is against the Oath of Supremacy established by Law point-blanck for therein I am sworn not only to consent unto but also to assist and to the uttermost of my power to defend all Jurisdictions Preheminences c. annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm of which this is one and that which immediately precedeth this Oath in the Statute and whereunto it doth especially relate that his Majesty may exercise any Jurisdiction or Ecclesiasticall Government by his Commission under the Great Seal directed to such persons as he shall think meet so that if he shall think other Persons meet than Arch-Bishops Bishops c. I am sworn in the Oath of Supremacy not only to assent thereunto but to assist and to the utrermost of my power defend such an appointment of his Majesty and in this new Oath I shall swear never to consent unto such an alteration In the like manner it is against the Law and Light of Nature that a man should swear to answer c. to he knowes not what It is against the Law and Light of Nature that a man should swear never to consent to alter a thing that in its own nature is alterable and may prove inconvenient and fit to be altered Lastly It is against the Law of God for whereas there are Three Rules prescribed to him that will swear aright that he swear in Judgement in Truth and Righteousness He that shall take this new Oath must needs break all these three Rules He cannot swear in judgment because this Oath is so full of ambiguities that he cannot tell what he swears unto not to speak of the unextricable ambiguity of the c. there is scarce one word that is not ambiguous in the principal part of the Oath as first what is meant by the Church of England whether all the Christians in England or whether the Clergy only or only the Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans c. or whether the Convocation or what In like manner it is as doubtfull what is meant by the Discipline and what by the Doctrine of the Church of England for what some call Superstitious Innovations if others affirm to be consonance to the Primitive and that the purest Reformation in the time of Edward the 6. and in the beginning of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth and so for the Doctrine of the Church of England if all the Positions that of later years have been challenged by some of our Divines to be Arminian and Popish and contrary to the Articles of our Religion and which on the other side have been asserted and maintained as consonant to the Doctrine of our Church and the Articles of Religion were gathered together they might make a pretty Volumne nay Sancta Clara will maintain it in despire of the Puritans That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is the Doctrine of the Church of England Truly it were very fit that we knew what were the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England before we swear to it and then Sir give me leave to say that I should be very loath to swear to the Discipline or to the Doctrine and Tenents of the purest Church in the World as they are collected by them farther than they agree with the Holy Scriptures Lastly It is as doubtfull what is meant by the Doctrine and Discipline established and what by altering and consenting to alter whether that is accompted or established which is established by Act of Parliament or whether that also that is established by Canons Injunctions c. and whether it shall not extend to that which is published by our Divines with the allowance of Authority and so for consenting to alter whether it be only meant that a man shall not be active in altering or whether it extend to any consent and so that a man shall not submit to it nor accept of it being altered by the State More ambiguities might be shewen but these are enough to make it clear that he that shall take this Oath cannot swear in judgment Nor can he swear in truth for it is full of untruths It is not true that Discipline is necessary to Salvation It is not true that Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. are Jure Divino as they must needs be if the Law-makers ought of right to establish them as they are established for the Law-makers are not bound as of right to frame their Lawes to any other than the Lawes of God alone Now whether Bishops be Jure Divino we know it is a Dispute amongst the Papists and never did any Protestant hold it till of late years but that Arch-bishops Deans Arch-Deacons c. should be Jure Divino I do not know that ever any Christian held it before and yet he that taketh this Oath must swear it Lastly As he that taketh this Oath cannot swear in judgment nor in truth so neither can he swear in righteousness for it is full of unrighteousness being indeed as hath been well opened a Covenant in effect against the King and Kingdome for if the whole STATE should finde it necessary to alter the Government by Arch-Bishops Bishops c. a great part of the Kingdome especially of the Gentry for not onely the Clergy but all that take degrees in the Universities are bound to take it will be preingaged not to consent to it or admit of it Again it is a great wrong to those that shall be Parliament men that their freedome shall be taken away being bound up by an Oath not to consent to the altering of a thing which it may be fit and proper for a Parliament to alter And suppose that for the present it be no hinderance to the service of God nor yet burdensome to the King and Kingdome yet if it should prove so hereafter for a man to be bound by an Oath never to consent to alter it may be a great wrong to God in his service and to the King and Kingdome in their peace and well-fare and therefore this Oath cannot be taken in righteousnesse For the other Oath de parendo juri Ecclesiae stando mandatis Ecclesiae though it make lesse noise than the other yet is it not of leste dangerous consequence If I remember well the Story this was the Oath that the Pope made King John to take and when he had

the right stating whereof we must remember the Vote which past yesterday not only by this Committee but the House which was to this effect That this Government hath been sound by long experience to be a great impediment to the perfect Reformation and growth of Religion and very prejudicial to the civil State So that then the Question will lie thus before us Whether a Government which long experience hath set so ill a Character upon importing danger not only to our Religion but the civil State should be any longer continued amongst us or be utterly abolished For my own part I am of the opinion of those who conceive that the strength of reason already set down in the Preamble to this Bill by yesterdaies Vote is a necessary decision of this Question For one of the main ends for which Church-government is set up is to advance and further the perfect reformation and growth of Religion which we have already voted this Government doth contradict so that it is destructive to the very end for which it should be and is most necessary and desirable in which respect certainly we have cause enough to lay it aside not only as useless in that it attains not its end but as dangerous in that it destroys and contradicts it In the second place we have voted it prejudicial to the civil State as having so powerful and ill an influence upon our Laws the Prerogative of the King and Liberties of the Subject that it is like a spreading leprosie which leaves nothing untainted and uninfected which it comes near May we not therefore well say of this Government as our Saviour in the fifth of Matthew speaks of salt give me leave upon this occasion to make use of Scripture as well as others have done in this debate where it is said that salt is good but if the salt hath lost its savour wherewith will you season it It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and troden under foot of men so Church-government in the general is good and that which is necessary and which we all desire but when any particular form of it hath once lost its savour by being destructive to its own ends for which it is set up as by our Vote already pasted we say this hath then furely Sir we have no more to do but to cast it out and endeavour the best we can to provide our selves a better But to this it hath been said that the Government now in question may be so amended and reformed that it needs not be quite pulled down or abolished because it is conceived it hath no original sin or evil in it or if it have it is said regeneration will take that away Unto which I answer I do consent that we should do with this Government as we are done by in regeneration in which all old things are to pass away and all things are to become new and this we must do if we desire a persect reformation and growth of our Religion or good to our civil state For the whole Fabrick of this building is so rotten and corrupt from the very foundation of it to the top that if we pull it not down now it will fall about the cars of all those that endeavour it within a very few years The universal rottenness or corruption of this government will most evidently appear by a disquisition into these ensuing particulars First Let us consider in what soil this root grows Is it not in the Popes Paradise do not one and the same principles and grounds maintain the Papacy or universal Bishop as do our Diocesan or Metropolitan Bishops All those authorities which have been brought us out of the Fathers and antiquity will they not as well if not better support the Popedom as the order of our Bishops So like wise all these arguments for its agreeableness to Monarchy and cure of Schism do they not much more strongly hold for the acknowledgment of the Pope than for our Bishops and yet have Monarchies been ever a whit the more absolute for the Popes universal Monarchy or their Kingdoms lesse subject to schismes and seditions whatsoever other Kingdoms have been I am sure our Histories can tell us this Kingdom hath not and therefore we have cast him off long since as he is forteign though we have not been without one in our own bowels For the difference between a Metropolitan or Diocesan or universal Bishop is not of kinds but of degrees and a Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop is as ill able to perform the duty of a Pastor to his Diocess or Province as the universal Bishop is able to do it to the whole world for the one cannot do but by Deputies and no more can the other and therefore since we all confess the grounds upon which the Papacy stands are rotten how can we deny but these that maintain our Bishops are so too since they are one and the same In the second place let us consider by what hand this root of Episcopacy was planted and how it came into the Church It is no difficult matter to find this out for is not the very spirit of this order a spirit of pride exalting it self in the Temple of God over all that is called God First exalting it self above its fellow-Presbyters under the form of a Bishop then over its fellow Bishops under the title of Archbisnops and so still mounting over those of its own profession till it come to be Pope and then it sticks not to tread upon the necks of Princes Kings and Emperors and trample them under its feet Also thus you may trace it from its first rise and discern by what spirit this order came into the Church and by what door even by the back-door of pride and ambition not by Christ Jesus It is not a plant which Gods right hand hath planted but is full of rottenness and corruption that mystery of iniquity which hath wrought thus long and so fit to be plucked up and removed out of the way Thirdly Let us consider the very nature and quality of this tree or root in its self whether it be good or corrupt in its own nature we all know where it is said A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit nor a corrupt tree good fruit Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles By its fruit therefore we shall be sure to know it and according as the fruits of the Government have been amongst us either in Church or Common wealth so let it stand or fall with us In the Church 1. AS it self came in by the back door into the Church and was brought in by the spirit of Antichrist so it self hath been the back-door and in-let of all superstition and corruption into the worship and doctrine of this Church and the means of hastening us back again to Rome For proof of this I appeal to all our knowledges in late years past the memory whereof is