Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	england_n	lord_n	seal_n	2,973	5	8.8632	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43716	Patro-scholastiko-dikaiōsis, or, A justification of the fathers and the schoolmen shewing, that they are not self-condemned for denying the positivity of sin. Being an answer to so much of Mr. Tho. Pierce's book, called Autokatakrisis, as doth relate to the foresaid opinion. By Hen: Hickman, fellow of Magdalene Colledge, Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1911A; ESTC R217506	59,554	166

right unto two Fellowships one for Mr. Thomas and another for Mr. Pierce how else am I but one of his Receivers Let 's try whether by a few questions we can make him more sober 1. What would hee have me pay him Arrears for the usus fructus is mine why else am I said to be made usufructuary An usufructuary wanteth nothing but the title he hath jus in re though not ad rem Well sith he doth so please himself in a title to yearly revenues at Magd. Coll. I shall desire him to look over his Post-predicaments once more and there hee shall finde that the modus habendi uxorem is by Logicians called pessimus by which they mean that it is the most improper but to a Fellow of a Colledge it is the worst on another account because it doth evacuate and nullifie his title to all Academical enjoyments 2. Had he not better have said nothing than said any thing which might look like an affirmation that he suffered the losse of his sweetest enjoyment for being suspected to be Author of a Libel When as we all know that he was turned out not by the Visitors but by the Comittee of Lords and Commons for non submission to the Authority of Parliament in visiting the University for the doing of which a liberty was reserved in the Articles granted by the Lord Fairfax at the surrender 3. Is it not impudence to say that the Visitors authorised by the two Houses under the broad Seale of England could not make me his legitimate successour Let him also say that the Honourable Judges are Murderers or else tell us how the Parliament which could give them power to take away mens lives could not also give power to others to take away his Fellowship I have all this while gratified him in his ungrounded supposition upon which his pen did run ryot viz. my being in his Chamber and succeeding him in his Fellowship but the truth is and that Mr. P. had opportunity to know his place was void before I was so much as Demy nor am I in possession of the Chamber which was once his For a conclusion I shall desire this my Adversary to commune with his own heart and impartially to enquire whether it be not envy and not conscience which maketh him to exclaim with so much bitterness against the late ejections sequestrations deprivations and whether he was so much offended at those who enjoyed the places of such Heads or Fellows of Colledges as were ejected whilest Oxon being a Garrison was not Oxon and whether our late sequestrations which yet I undertake not in all things to acquit were not more justifiable than those proceedings in the late Archb. times when men were suspended ab officio beneficio meerly for not reading the Book of Sports Having removed the rubbish we may now come at the question which is Whether moral evil as such be a privation Concerning which the termes being explained 't will be no difficult matter to determine What evill in general is can perhaps scarce be declared by any one common definition nor hath such a definition been attempted by any but Voetius the son in his Theol. Nat p. 539. sometimes things very perfect and positive are called evil as the venemous qualities in Plants not that they are evill in themselves but by extrinsecall denomination in regard of their efficiencie of this kind of evill we now dispute not And indeed nothing is properly said to be evill but that which is such by intrinsecal denomination as wanting some either natural or moral perfection that it ought to have The most common division of evill is into evill of punishment and evill of sin called by Tertullian malum supplicii and malum delicti by Basil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Our debate is of the evill of sin which onely can be called morall evill The next term is the restrictive particle as by which we understand malum formaliter sumptum sin considered abstractly from that either act habit or faculty in which it is and unto which it gives denomination The not distinguishing betwixt the sinfull act and the sin of the act is the stone at which Mr. P. hath all along stumbled He tells me that sin being a complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all cannot admit of an abstraction and yet remain the complexum that it was before abstraction p. 164. very wisely and warily spoken as who should say I cannot abstract but I must abstract I cannot indeed abstract sin from a sinfull action so as it should still remain sinfull nor can I abstract whitenesse from a white wall so as that it should still remain white for 't is constituted white by whitenesse But though it be the whitenesse that makes it white yet it is not the whitenesse that makes it a wall and therefore I may consider the whitenesse and the wall apart The Abstract and Concrete word doe both signifie the same form but not in the same way because the Concrete doth in obliquo connote that subject unto which the denominating forme agrees but if at any time the Concrete be used with a reduplication then it is all one with the Abstract saith Smiglesius indeed album qua album and albedo differ little Sinfull signifies both the subject that is sinfull and it's sinfulnesse sin or sinfulness the meer pravity and irregularitie Bus this will not down with Mr. P. therefore he tells us p. 83. 1. That action and quality are both accidents 2. That an accident is not the subject of an accident 3. That some accidents are separable from their subjects of inhesion some not as risibility from a man Blush all you that have any respect for Magd. Coll. to finde that one that was for some years Fellow of that Foundation should be ignorant of that which Freshmen of two Terms standing commonly know May not an Accident be the immediate subject of inhesion to an accident though onely substance can be the ultimate If not then the Question An fides sit in Intellectu an in voluntate with six hundred more of the like nature are at an end Or what if the Action were but the Subject of Denomination might not its evill bee distinct from it Nor would this exact Gentleman if he had to do with a Sophister escape the lash for calling Risibilitie an Inseparable Accident it being the most common instance of a Propriety betwixt which and an Inseparable Accident there is a most grosse difference But if hee think that the evill quality doth as necessarily flow from the Essence of an Action as Risibility doth from the Essence of a man which he must think unlesse hee hath written ridiculous impertinencies I conceive he hath not one man alive of his judgement Yet at last in a lucid intervall he tells us p. 84. He can discern a difference betwixt the Action and its quality by which it is evil Let him but stick to that distinction and I

those who are not wont much to deal in any books but our new Pamplets of a Catechisme set forth by Authority for all Schoolemasters to teach in King Edw. 6. daies the very year after the composing of the publick Articles the King prefixed his royal Epistle wherein he commands and chargeth all Schoolmasters whatsoever within his Dominions as they did reverence his Authority and as they would avoyd his royal displeasure to teach this Catechisme diligently and carefully c. In that Catechisme how doe Master and Scholar plainly declare themselves to be no friends to any of the Tenents which Mr. P. contends for If this Book be not at hand let the Bible printed by Rob. Barker Anno 1607. be consulted and at the end of the Old Testament there will be found certain Questions and Answers touching the Doctrine of Predestination which are as full and punctual against Arminianisme as may be But lest all this should not bee thought evidence sufficient we will produce our Arguments to prove the Church of England not to bee Arminian and if not Arminian much lesse could she account Anti-arminianism Blasphemy 1. Who were the Composers of our 39 Articles were they not all the Disciples and Auditors of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr or at least such as held consent with them in Doctrine Dr. Alexander Nowel was Prolocutor of the Convocation in the time of Qu. Eliz. And whether he had any Communion with Arminians let his Catechisme speak I mean the English one dedicated to the two Archbish To the Church doe all they properly belong as many as do truly fear honour and call upon God altogether applying their minds to live holily and godly and which putting all their trust in God do most assuredly look for the blessednesse of eternall life they that be stedfast stable and constant in this faith were chosen and appointed and as we term it predestinated to this so great felicity pag. 44. and paulo post the Chuch is the body of the Christian Common-weale i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the faithfull whom God through Christ hath before all beginning of time appointed to everlasting life Shall we think that he and others engaged with him in the same Convocation were so ignorant that they understood not what they put into the Articles or so infatuated by God as to put in things that were quite contrary to their own judgement 2. If the Church of England did consent to the opinions commonly called Arminian how came she to dispose of her places of greatest influence and trust to such as were of a contrary perswasion no places in our Church are more considerable for leavening the Clergy than the Archbishoprick of Canterbury and the two Chaires in the University both these have been occupied by those who detested Arminianisme as the shadow of death Parker Grindall Whitgift Bancroft Abbot are all known particularly in the time of Bishop Bancroft came forth the book called The Faith Religion Doctrine professed in the Realm of England and Dominions thereof said in the Title page to be perused and by the lawful authority of the Church of England allowed to be made publick Let Mr. P. or any one for him name the Dr. of the Chaire in Oxon that did not totis viribus oppose such a Platform of Gods Decrees as men would faign obtrude upon us now In ●ambridge indeed we may find one Dr. Overall who may bee suspected a little to Arminianise but his opinion is disliked by Mr. Playfer in his Apello Evangelium and therefore is not that which Mr. P. stickleth for In the Conference at Hampton Court he did declare himselfe against the totall or finall falling away of Gods elect And would Mr. P. but come over to us in the point of Election Gods invincible working on the hearts of his chosen ones we should soon agree or else very easily bear with one another in our differences 3. If Mr. P. go the way that the Church of England hath taught him how came it to passe that as many as trod the Arminian path were wont to be suppressed censured so soon as they beganne to discover themselves Who is such a stranger in the History of the University that hath not heard of Barrets Recantation made in the University Church 10. of May 1595 And these are the words of the Order appointing him that penalty Habitâ maturâ deliberatione nec non visis diligenter examinatis positionibus praedictis quia manifesto constabat positiones praedictas errorem falsitatem in se continere nec non aperte repugnare religioni in Ecclesia Anglicanâ receptae ac stabilitae ideo judicaverunt c. See more in Mr. Th. Fuller Peter Baro's Arminianisme cost him the loss of his place and which was worst lost him the Affections of the University Mr. Edward Sympson a fine Critick preached a Sermon before King Iames at Royston taking for his Text Iohn 3.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh hence he endeavoured to prove that the Commission of any great sinne doth extinguish Grace and Gods Spirit for the time in man Hee added also that St. Paul in the seventh Chapter to the Romanes spake not of himself as an Apostle and Regenerate but sub statu legis Hereat his Majesty took publickly expressed great distaste because Arminius had lately been blamed for extracting the like exposition out of the Works of Faustus Socinus whereupon hee sent to the two Professors in Cambridge for their judgement herein who proved and subscribed the place ad Rom. 7. to bee understood of a Regenerate man according to St. Augustin his later opinion In his Retractations and the Preacher was enjoyned a publick recantation before the King which was performed accordingly Mr. Mountagues Appeale had almost been strangled in the womb by Archbish Abbot When it saw light how exceedingly it was disliked may appear by the several Answers made to it by Bish Carleton Dean Sutliffe Dr. Featly Mr. Yates Mr. Wooton all Episcopal Presbyt Mr. Francis Rouse Independ Mr. Henry Burton Nor doe his Respondents object any thing more than his dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England He was censured for it by the Parliament Mr. Rim from the Committee for Religion made this Report to the House of Commons April 18. 1626. That hee had disturbed the peace of the Church by publishing Doctrines contrary to the Articles of the Church of England and the Book of Homilies that the whole frame and scope of the booke was to discourage the well affected in Religion from the true Religion established in the Church and to encline them and as much as in him lay to reconcile them to Popery Let mee here insert an Order made by the House of Commons 28 Ian. 1628. after a large Debate We the Commons now assembled in Parliament do claim profess and avow for truth the sense of the Articles of Religion which were established in Parliament 13