Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	church_n	father_n	word_n	3,081	5	4.2090	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93888	An ansvver to a letter vvritten at Oxford, and superscribed to Dr. Samuel Turner, concerning the Church, and the revenues thereof. Wherein is shewed, how impossible it is for the King with a good conscience to yeeld to the change of church-government by bishops, or to the alienating the lands of the Church.	Steward, Richard, 1593?-1651.; J. T.; Turner, Samuel, D.D.	1647 (1647)	Wing S5516; Thomason E385_4; ESTC R201455	34,185	56

it And hence t is plaine that though we should yeeld that the Apostles only did institute Bishops yet in this Revel. Christ himselfe immediately in his own person and the holy Spirit withall did both approve and confirme them And the Learned observe that the Bishops of those Sees are therefore called Angels by S. Iohn who was born a Jew because in Palestina their chief Priests were then called their Angels and so this appellation was taken up by the Apostle in that place because the Bishops were those Churches Chiefes this truth appeares not only from those cleare Texts but from the mutuall consent and pactise for more then 1500. yeares space of all the Christian Church So that neither S. Hierome nor any other Ancient did ever hold orders to be lawfully given which were not given by a Bishop nor any Church jurisdiction to be lawfully administred which was not either done by their hands or at least by their deputation I know there are men lately risen up especially in this last Century which have collected and spread abroad far other Conclusions and that from the authority of the Text it selfe But as t is a Maxime in Humane Lawes Consuetudo optima Legum Interpres Custome and Practice is the best Interpreter So no rationall man but will easily yeeld it as well holds in Lawes Divine For I would gladly aske What better way can there be for the interpreting of Texts then that very same meanes whereby I know the Text it selfe to be Text Sure the same course whereby I know the Epistles to Timothy and Titus to have been written by S. Paul must needs be the best course to understand the sense of those Epistles and if I therefore beleeve them to be written by that Apostle because the Universality of the whole Christian Church has brought me to that beliefe and there 's no other rationall way of beleeving it why doe I not beleeve the same Christian sense which the universal consent assures me they were written in Shall I beleeve and yet disbeleeve that selfe-same consent which is the best ground of my beliefe This is as it were in cleare terms to say that I beleeve such a tale for the Authors sake who hath told it and yet I doe now hold the selfe-same man to be a lyar Men doe beleeve the testimony of universall consent in the sense it gives of single termes and why not in the sense it gives of sentences or Propositions without the help of this Consent which is indeed the ground of our Dictionaries how shall we know that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies the Resurrection of the body which the Socinians at this day deny And I know no such way to confute your error as by the authority of your consent Admit then of that Rule that consent universall is the best interpretation of Texts and then I am sure it is as cleare as true that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolicall Right yea and that proposition There can be no Ordination without the hands of a Bishop will clearely appeare to be as well grounded as this There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister which is good Divinity amongst our new Masters in Scotland and Antiquity allowed of it Extra casum necessitatis For I aske upon what Text doe they ground this Rule I suppose they will say upon our Saviours words to the Eleven Matth. 28. Go teach all Nations and baptize them But in the institution of the Eucharist He spake those words too but only to the Twelve Drinke yee all of this Matth. 26. I demand then how shall I know that when our Saviour spake those words unto the Eleven he spake them only as to lawfull Ministers but when he spake the other to the Twelve he spake at large as unto them that did represent all Christian men So that though only Ministers may Baptize yet all Christians may receive the Cup Perhaps they will say that the generall practise of receiving the Cup is manifest from 1 Cor. 11. and I thinke so too where S. Paul seems to chide the whole Church for their irreverence at that great Sacrament But if a quarreler should reply that he there speaks but of the Presbyters alone whereof many were at that time at Corinth As when in the 5. Chap. he seemes to chide the whole Church for not excommunicating the incestuous Person yet t is plain he meanes none but the men in government as sure all Presbyterians will allow me I know not what could be said but to make it appeare out of the Fathers and others that the whole Christian Church never tooke the words in that sense And if to stop the mouthes of wranglers we must at length be constrained to quote the Authority of Universall consent and the Common practise of Christs Church then you will easily see that those two named Propositions do stand fast on the same bottome There can be no Baptisme without a lawfull Minister extra casum necessitatis for so the consent and practise of the Universall Church hath still interpreted that Text And againe t is true There can be no Ordination without the Hands of a Bishop for so those Texts both out of Timothy and Titus have been understood and practised for 1500. yeares together by the consent of the whole Church of Christ T is true that this precept Go ye teach c. runnes not in exclusive words yee Apostles or yee lawfull Ministers and none but yee yet extra casum necessitatis no man was allowed to baptise but a lawfull Minister so though these commands Lay hands suddenly on no man and Do thou ordaine Elders in every City runne not in verbis exclusivis thou and none but thou or men of thine Order only yet the Church understanding and practising them in an exclvsive sense no man for 1500 yeares in any setled Church was held rightly ordained without the hands of a Bishop Nay that there is something Divine in the Episcopall Order will appeare clearely by this that immediately from the times of Christ his Apostles yea within the reach of those times t was universally spread throughout the whole face of the Churches so that no man can name a Nationthat was once wonne unto the Christian Faith but he shall soon find that there were Bishops so that there must needs be an Uunversall Cause for an Effect that was so Universall Generall Councell there was none about it at which all Christians might have met and might have thence obeyed her directions Nor can any name a Power to which all Christians should submit for they were soone fallen into Factions but only the authority of Christ or of his Apostles from them then must needs flow the Episcopal Order and at that Fountaine I shall leave it I say within the reach of the Apostles times for before S. Iohn dyed there are upon good Church Records above 20. Bishops appointed to the several Sees as at

be of things moveable even by the Civil Law and how theft can be of Lands or sacriledge committed by aliening Church-Lands I pray aske your friend Holbourne and his fellow Lawyers for ours here deride us for the question As for the main quere touching the lawfulnes of aliening Church-lands I use the expression for the lands of Bishops Deanes and Chapters good Doctor give me your patience to heare my reasons And first I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any lands the hire of a labourer at most a fitting maintenance is all to be challenged nor do we read that the Apostles had any Lands which I mention to avoid the groundlesse arguments upon the lands and portions allotted to the Tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministers have no succession and then it will follow that they enjoy their lands by the same Law of the State as others doe and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title which being granted I am sure it will not be denyed that by the Law of the Nation he that hath an estate in Lands in Fee-simple by an implyed power may lawfully alien though there be an expression in his Deed of purchase or donation to the contrary which being so makes the alienation of Bishops Lands even without any Act of Parliament to be lawfull being done by those who have an estate in Fee simple as the Bishop with the Deane and Chapter hath Then further I am sure it will be granted that by the Law of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or goods hath them with this inseparable implyed condition or limitation viz. That the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure Hence it is they sometimes dispose some part in Subsidies and other Taxes enable a Tenant for life to sell an estate in Fee-simple and not at all unlawfull because of that limitation or condition before mentioned and who ever will be owner must take them according to this Law Now hence comes the mistake by reason there is not such an expresse condition or limitation in the Deed of Donation which would silence all disputes whereas it is as cleare a truth that where any thing is necessarily by Law implied it is as much as if in plaine words expressed of which your Lawyers if Reason need a helpe from them can easily resolve Besides it were somewhat strange that the Donor of the Lawes should preserve them in the hands of the Bishops from the power of the Parliament which he could not doe in his owne and give them a greater and surer right then he had himselfe Nor doe I understand their meaning who terme God the Proprieter of the Bishops Lands and the Bishop the Usufructuary For I know not how in propriety of speech God is more entituled to their Lands then to his whole Creation and were Clergie-men but Usufructuaries how come they to change dispose or alter the property of any thing which an Usufructuary cannot doe and yet is by them done daily Aske them by what Divine Law S. Maries Church in Oxford may not be equally imployed for temporall uses as for holding the Vice-chancellours Court the University Convocation or their yearly acts And for the Curses those bug-beare words I could yet never learne that an unlawfull curse was any prejudice but to the Author of which sort those curses must needs be which restraine the Parliament or any other from exercising a lawfull and undenyable power which in instances would shew very ridiculous if any curse should prejudice anothers lawfull right I am sure such curses have no warrant from the Law of God or this Nation If this doth not satisfie the former doubts in your Bishops for I know you to be too great a Master of Reason to be unsatisfied aske them whether Church-lands may not lawfully the Law of the State not prohibiting be transferred from one Church to another upon emergent occasions which I think they will not deny If so who knowes that the Parliament will transferre them to Lay-hands they professe no such thing and I hope they will not but continue them for the maintenance of the Ministery which prevents all disputes upon the last question but if they shall hereafter do otherwise you know my opinion Onely mistake me not in this free discourse as if I did countenance or commend the Parliaments proceedings in their new Reformation but as a caution to you in the exigencies of times what is fittest to be done when I take it Mistresse Necessity in all things indifferent or not unlawfull must be obeyed in which cases the most constant men must be contented to change their resolutions with the alteration of time Your party have been resolute enough to preserve the rights of the Church and further peradventure then wise men would have done but at an ultra posse you and we must give over especially for an imaginary right And think seriously with your selfe whether after all other things granted it will be fit to run the hazard of the very being of this Church and State the King and his posterity and Monarchy it selfe onely upon the point of Church-government by Bishops or aliening the Church-lands or rather whether the Kings Councell in duty ought not to advise him the contrary who should be wise as well as pious yet herein may be both for I doe not thinke Conveniencie or Necessity will excuse Conscience in a thing in it selfe unlawfull what ever States-men maintain to the contrary your interest with the King is not small and your power with the Lords who are guided by reason very considerable you cannot doe better then make use of both at this time If they have a desire to preserve the Church it were wel their thoughts were fixed upon some course for setling a Superintendencie in the Presbyteriall Government which no way crosseth the Nationall Covenant and preserve the Revenues in the Church which I beleeve at Uxbridge Treaty would have been granted what ever it will be now I have given you my sense upon the whole businesse Si quid novisti rectius Candidus imperti si non his utere J. T. So farewell Doctor I give you commission to shew this to my Lord Dorset who by and something else can guesse my name and to as many more as owne Reason and Honesty An Answer to the foregoing Letter superscribed to D. Samuel Turner c. Sir YOu have put an odde taske upon me in commanding my judgement on a Letter lately sent to a Doctor in Oxford with a commission to shew it to the Lord of Dorset and to as many more as own reason and honesty for this is the Postscript and many the like passages in the Letter as that the more wise and honest party would make use of their reason and I know you too great a master of reason to be unsatisfyed makes me

is no theft in the Civill Law sense there is none of this kind of Sin I am sure t is neither intimated by the Greek nor the Latine word nor I believe delivered by any learned Authors on the Subject so that I must set down an assertion I conceive well grounded too point blanck against this Londoner and affirme there may be a sacriledge properly so call'd which is not a theft in the Civill law-sense which has been grounded in the third Assertion and then we need not trouble Sir Robert Holborne that learned Gentleman may have other busines nor his fellow Lawyers for I doubt not there are enough besides who will here smile at this passage and will thinke that this Epistler hath met with a Civill Law quirke which he knew not well how to weild But to say truth he deales clearely with the Doctor and tels him that for his particular he doth not yet understand which for my part I believe and do not only wonder he would gibe at another man in a point he could no better Master But these Arguments it seemes are but only the forlorne-hope the main Battell is yet to come He calls this the main quere and desires patience from the Doctor First saith he I lay this as a foundation that there is no divine command that Ministers under the Gospell should have any Lands True the Clergy under the Gospell hold not their lands by a Divine command but they do by a Divine acceptation by Christs most gracious acceptance of such goods and possessions which have been given him by good Christians and this title you now heare will go as farre as a law and that is we conceive farre enough for it gives God a propriety in such lands and so keeps men from a re-assumption He goes on The hire of a Labourer at most as fitting maintenance is all that can be challenged I but that maintenance must be honourable or else we Christians shall use God like no other men farre worse I am sure then do Pagans And when such a maintenance hath been once given in lands the acceptation of Christ will soone make it irrevocable so that it signifyes little to say the Apostles had no Lands for they who had the money for lands fold might no man can well doubt have still kept the lands had they liked it but the Church was straight to be in hot persecution the Disciples were to fly and Lands we know are no moveables and it were very strange if not ridiculous to affirme that Ananias and his wife sinned in taking back● that money which they promised but if in specie they had given their Lands they might have revoked that gift without sacriledge He proceeds Which I mention to avoid the groundlesse argument upon the Lands and portions allotted to the tribe of Levi by Gods appointment to whom our Ministere have no succession Our Ministers challenge nothing which belongs to that Tribe by Leviticall right but where things are once given to God for the use of his Ministers they there get a morall interest and what wee read of this kind in the Old Testament doth as much obli●ge Christians as if it were found in the Now And 〈…〉 that they enjoy their 〈◊〉 by the 〈…〉 others do and must be subject to that Law which alone gives strength to their title Out into 〈◊〉 Have Church-men no title to those possessions they enjoy but by the law of this Land alone Yes besides these they have Christs acceptation and so they are become theirs by Law evangelicall their Lands are Gods own propriety and so they hold from him by the Law morall too and therefore though by the lawes of the land they hold estates in Fee-simple and so may alienate without punishment from the law of England yet they cannot do it without the guilt of sinne as being a breach of the law evangelicall and morall except then only when they better themselves by some gainfull or at least by some not hurtfull permutation Besides were the argument good it would only follow that the Clergy by their owne act might alienate their lands but no man else without their consent And I conceive it would not now prove so easie a taske to bring Church-men to such an alienation But the Parliament may do it for sayes he I am sure it will be granted that by the Lawes of this Nation whosoever hath Lands or Goods hath them with this inseparable limitation and condition viz. that the Parliament may dispose of them or any part of them at pleasure This you have oft told me Sir is strange Doctrine for either the Parliament I hope he meanes the King in Parliament doth this as being the supreame power or as being representative and so including the consent of the whole People of England If as being the supreame power it will follow that any absolute Prince may as lawfully do the like and yet this hath been ever held tyrannicall in the Great Turk as being against the rules of justice and humanity Indeed Samuel 〈◊〉 the Israelites that since they would needs change their Theocracy the immediate government of God himselfe though it were into Monarchy the best of all humane Governments the King should take their sons and their daughters their fields and their vineyards c. and they should cry and should find no help Yet the best Divines think that this would be most unjust most sinful in their King and expresly against the law of Moses who leaves every man his propriety onely the Prophet there averres it should be not punishable in him they should have no remedy since being the supreame power 't was in no Subjects hands to judge him So if the King in Parliament should take away Church-lands there is I confesse no resistance to be made though the act were inhumanely sinfull Or secondly the Parliament does this as representing the whole people and so including their consent for they who consent can receive no injury and then I understand not which way it can at all touch the Clergy who are neither to be there by themselves nor yet God knowes by representation Or if againe they were there I would gladly know what Burgesse or what Knight of a shire nay what Clerke or what Bishop doth represent Christ whose Lands these are and by vertue of what deputation Nor doe I beleeve that any Subject intends to give that power to him that represents him in Parliament as to destroy his whole estate except then onely when the known Laws of the Land make him lyable to so high a censure But grant that this were true in Mens lands yet sure it will not hold in God's For since in Magna Charta that hath received by Parliament at least 30. Confirmations the Lands we speak of are now given to God and promise there made That the Church shall hold her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable Sure the Kingdome must keep what she hath thus promised to God

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