Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	ecclesiastical_a	law_n	1,550	5	5.5075	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66713	Observations upon the oath enacted I. Eliz. commonly called the oath of supremacy for the better satisfaction of those that may finde themselves concerned therein.	Winter, John, Sir, 1600?-1673?	1662 (1662)	Wing W3081; ESTC R11523	11,628	20

observed that since the Learned Doctors of both sides do respectively declare upon mature consideration of several Texts of holy Writ Acts of Councils and other reasons alledged to have different Sentiments therein some of each side holding the contrary to what others of the same profession do strongly maintain but never determined by the Church The probability of their said opinions may respectively warrant if not oblige all his Majesties Subjects especially being so enjoyned by Law to acknowledge submission to that external coactive Power and Authority of his Majesty for the punishment of Offenders with civil and corporal punishments in such mixed cases as aforesaid which their respective Teachers doe affirm to be justly derived from natural Reason and clear places of Scripture and assert them as part of his Royal Jurisdiction Our ancient Histories Statutes and most authentick Records of former times long before Henry 8th do testifie as aforesaid That our Kings did challenge a sovereign external coactive Jurisdiction over all their Subjects as aforesaid in those cases sometimes indulging them to the Ecclesiastical Courts and See of Rome sometimes restraining them again of their own Authority without recourse to the Pope or See of Rome more or lesse according to their zeal or devotion towards the Church and Church-men and the respective occasions in those times according as was then thought fit by our Kings and Parliaments Read the Statutes of Provisors 25. of Ed. 3. The practice in France sufficiently declares what that Kings Power is in the cases aforesaid For although spiritual offences that are meerly such are punishable in the Ecclesiastical Courts onely by spiritual Censures as Excommunication Suspension c. Yet if the cause be mixed in any sort with what is civil or temporal as aforesaid or if never so little pecuniary Mulct be imposed upon the offenders for damages by the Ecclesiastical Judges the whole matter may be brought to the cognizance of the civil Court upon appeal and the former sentence reversed if it be thought fit Nor does any Ecclesiastical Promotion or Dignity how great soever priviledge any person from civil and corporal punishments there if he offend against the the now Arch-bishop of Paris under the most Christian Kings who is known to be most zealously devoted to the Church and See of Rome And many other Presidents of the same nature have been in Hungary Germany and other Countreys that hold communion with that Church The King of Spain exercises the like Authority in several places of his Dominions and so amply in his Kingdome of Sicily that it is there called Supream Spiritual Authority and spiritual Monarchy as is acknowledged by the Catholick Divine in in his Answer to the fifth part of Sr Edward Cookes Reports pag. 102. which words Supream spiritual Authority and Spiritual Monarchy sound as harsh and require a favourable explanation no lesse than any the words in Queen Elizabeths Oath aforesaid He sayes indeed That Pope Urbane granted the same long time since to that Kings Predecessours as Pope Nicolas somewhat of the like nature to St. Edward King of England But meer spiritual Jurisdiction as is conceived could not be granted to a Lay person And our Question being of the original right of our Princes to supream external coactive Jurisdiction over their Subjects to take cognizance of offenders in such mixed cases as aforesaid for punishing them with civil and corporal punishments according to the respective quality of their offences which indeed is no other but a civil and temporal power though the said cases be vulgarly called Spiritual for the reasons declared as abovesaid he ought to have told us how the Pope came to be invested with such coactive power by force of Law and corporall punishments which he so granted away unto others Christ said His Kingdome was not of this world The Apostles claimed no such coactive power by force of Law and corporal punishments as aforesaid nor any the aforesaid exemption of their persons or goods from the temporal Magistrate and his Tribunals The Church as the said Catholike Divine confesses had no such power for several Ages the Emperour Constantine was the first that granted it who did it to use his words voluntarily And other Kings and Princes upon their singular devotion and in imitation of that good Emperour And doth not all this plainly signifie that the External Coactive power such as aforesaid was originally in the Supreme temporal Magistrate whose said Supreme power as most Learned men do affirm cannot binde and conclude it self in a Law so as not to be able to revoke or alter the same when there is just cause for preservation of its being and generall good of the Common-wealth otherways in imminent danger And consequently howsoever Cannon Laws and Decretals have been sometimes received by permission or concession of our Kings alone or Parliaments of our Nation and in vertue of such reception and not otherwise matriculated among our Laws yet according to the President of many of our Kings and Parliaments long before King Henry the Eighth the same might be validly restrained or made void to this Nation so farre as to the nature of a Law if our said Kings and Parliaments conceived it necessary for those reasons as above said Whether the same was well or ill done by them or whether the causes were sufficient or not in the respective occasions the doers were answerable in conscience not their Subjects who were bound to yeeld obedience to their Soveraign power in what things soever were not purely Spirituall or repugnant unto the Law of God Since therefore it is most apparant that Spiritual Authority it self is not denied by the intendment of this Oath explained by the Admonition and declared as aforesaid which is otherwise then the abovesaid Catholick Divine did understand it to be but only the enlargement of Spirituall Authority to temporal coaction such as aforesaid which in reality alters its nature and is repugnant to the prerogative Royall of this Crowne and which indeed the Court of Rome not the Church of Rome and some Divines most especially depending upon the same would extend the said spirituall power unto b●● Jure Divino but was not so ab initio as manifestly appears by what is abovesaid Why should any his Majesties Loyall Subjects Romane Catholikes especially deny to acknowledge their dutifull submission to his Majesties said Soveraignty and Rule over all his Subjects and their like obedience to maintain Laws established so farre as they relate to his said Authority in such manner as above declared Whereas not only the Opinions of many of the most Learned Writers of their own Religion doe maintain That Externall Coaction by force of Law and civil and corporall punishment upon offenders of what quality soever and for what matter or cause soever so deserving as abovesaid is of naturall right belonging to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate But also the practise of our Kings and Parliaments in former Ages time

two Laws of Henry the eigth They are both repealed long since by Queen Mary and never were restored by any succeeding Prince If there were any thing blame-worthy in them let it dye with them I confesse I approve not the Construing of one Oath for another nor the swearing before-hand to Statutes made or to be made But de mortuis nil nisi bonum Secondly I Answer according to the equity of my second ground that although it were supposed that our Ancestors had over-reached themselves and the truth in some expression yet that concerns not us at all so long as we keep our selves exactly to the line and level of Apostolical Tradition Thirdly and principally I answer That our Ancestors meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of authority and Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extendeth no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical authority and Jurisdiction in the Exteriour Court which in truth is partly Spiri-tual partly Political So our Ancestors cast out External Ecclesiastical Coactive Jurisdiction The same do we They did not take away from the Pope the Power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely spiritual No more do we And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were alwayes esteemed the proper Judges of the Cannons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this Caution that to make them Laws the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them the Princes Grant or Concession was needfull And p. 170. Whatsoever Power our Laws did divest the Pope of they invested the King with it But they never invested the King with any Spiritual Power or Jurisdiction witnesse the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth the Articles of the Church King James our Statutes c. * K James Triplict nodo tripl●●● cuncus p. 47. In that Oath ONLY is conteined the Kings absolute Power to be Judge over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all forrain Powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions And generally all English-Protestant Writers who maintain the 39. Articles with the Discipline and Canons of the Church of England do constantly affirm That the Kings said Supreme Government and Rule is intended no other wayes but to exercise under God the Supreme coactive Jurisdiction and Power over all his Subjects within his Realms and Dominions of what estate soever they be whether Ecclesiasticall or Temporal to take cognisance in his externall Tribunals of offenders for the punishing of them with civil and corporal punishments according to the nature and quality of their respective offences And that Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall things and Causes the transgressors wherein are lyable to his cognisance and punishment as aforesaid are not meant of things and causes that are meerly spiritual as of Faith and Religion but of such as in their own nature are either civil or mixed with something that is temporal which according to vulgar acceptation are called neverthelesse Spirituall or Ecclesiastical for the reasons noted by Doctor Carleton as aforesaid This Supreme external Coactive power and Jurisdiction as aforesaid cannot be acknowledged to be due to the King but by necessary consequence all Power Prerogative Jurisdiction Superiority or Authority repugnant to the same must be denied and disclaimed in any Prelate Person State or Potentate forreign or domestick whatsoever other then by or under his Majesties permission or Authority But it is also observable that what Power or Jurisdiction soever that is but meerly Spiritual and consequently not belonging to the King is not meant or intended to be denied or renounced to the Church or to any Person Prelate c. whatsoever as the aforesaid Bishop of Derry most expresly declares in very many places of his Book aforesaid which for brevities sake are omitted excepting these few hereunder mentioned which may abundantly satisfie Pag. 62. And therefore when we meet with these words or the like That No forreign Prelate shall exercise any manner of power Jurisdiction Superiority Preheminence or priviledge Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm It is not to be understood of Internal or purely Spirituall power in the Court of Conscience or the power of the Keys We see the contrary practised every day but of external coactive power in Ecclesiastical causes in foro contentioso c. And in his Epistle to the Reader having set down all or the most considerable Points of difference and question upon this Subject concludes his said Epistle with these words viz. The true controversie is Whether the Bishop of Rome ought by Divine Right to have the external regiment of the English Church and Coactive Jurisdiction in English Courts against the will of the King and Laws of the Kingdome And p. 218. No difference between Romane Catholicks and our selves about the Papacy but only about the extent of Papal power c. To these may be added that the Bishop of Spalato that came into England after his being consecrated Bishop by the Pope or by authority from the See of Rome did not renue his Character after he came over yet as is well known ordained divers Priests here which was never disputed but allowed by the Church of England to have been validly done All which confirms what is said before That Jurisdiction purely spirituall is not denied by the now intendiment of the said Oath and that it is not an Oath of Religion but of Allegiance as is expresly said in Queen Elizabeths Admonition aforesaid and obliges the takers to no more but to assist and defend all the ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown and to renounce and impugn all forreign Jurisdictions and Powers repugnant to the same What those ancient Jurisdictions of the Crown were esteemed to be may be observed by the Statutes of Clarendon the Statute of Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statute of Provisors and other the Laws of our Norman Kings and in the times of Henry the Third Edward the First Edward the Third Richard the Second Henry the Fourth which Statutes and Laws had not so publickly passed without a greater clamour of other Nations professing the same Religion if the Popes pretended power in those respective mixed cases had been thought to have been Jure divino or so undeniably his right as some Divines do chalenge in his behalf But forasmuch as many Learned and Large Treatises have been written upon this Subject of mixed Causes as aforesaid both by Romane Catholicks and by Professors of the Reformed Religion of several Nations and of each side some holding that they belong to the Kings Supreme Authority and civil sword others that they belong only to the Church without any Concession from the temporal Magistrate For allay to the Scruples that may hereupon arise in the mindes of any his Majesties Loyal Subjects it may be