Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	court_n	ecclesiastical_a	king_n	2,936	5	4.6101	4	true

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17925	Certaine considerations drawne from the canons of the last Sinod, and other the Kings ecclesiasticall and statue law ad informandum animum Domini Episcopi Wigornensis, seu alterius cuiusuis iudicis ecclesiastici, ne temere & inconsulto prosiliant ad depriuationem ministrorum Ecclesiæ: for not subscription, for the not exact vse of the order and forme of the booke of common prayer, heeretofore provided by the parishioners of any parish church, within the diocesse of Worcester, or for the not precise practise of the rites, ceremonies, & ornaments of the Church.	Babington, Gervase, 1550-1610.	1605 (1605)	STC 4585; ESTC S120971	54,648	69

grounded vpon the said statute bookes or Provincials sundry grave learned and godly Pastors and other Ministers for sundry yeares passed have bene deprived suspended or excommunicated from their benefices dignities promotions and ministeries for not vsing the surplice If the Archbishops Bishops and other ordinaries have heretofore proceeded lawfully in this case by any other right then statute lawe it were greatly to be wished a thing tending every way to their honor credite and reputation that the same their Iustice were made publikely knowne to the end all maner persons and states might rest them selves fully satisfied and well perswaded of the integritie of such their proceedings as wherof they now stand in doubt For our partes we acknowledge that the Queenes Highnes had authoritie by the statute with the advise of her Commissioners c. or Metropolitane to take other order for ornamentes But wee never yet vnderstood that any other order was taken accordingly and especiallie in any such sorte as that the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries might warrant their sentences of deprivation to be lawfull against the Ministers which refuse to vse the Surplice By the Advertisements wherevpon as it seemeth they did principally rely and by authoritie whereof they did chiefly proceed it is apparant that neither the letter nor intendement of the statute for the alteration of ornamentes was observed And that therefore the commaundement of wearing a Surplice in steed of a white Albe playne by the advertissementes was not duely made For though by her Highnes letters it doth appeare that she was desirous as the preface to the advertisemeÌ„ts importeth to have advise from the Metropolitane coÌ„missioners that she might take order nevertheles that her Highnes by her authority with their advise did take order alter the ornameÌ„ts this I say doth no where appeare no not by the advertisements them selves Howsoever then the Metropolitane vpon the Queenes mandative letters that some orders might be taken had conference and communication and at the last by assent and consent of the ecclesiasticall commissioners did think such orders as were specified in the advertisements meete and convenient to be vsed and followed neverthelesse all this proveth not that these orders were taken by her Maiesties Authoritie For the Metropolitane and Commissioners might thinke agree and subscribe that the advertisementes were meete and convenient and yet might these advertisements be never of any valew as wherevnto her Highnes authoritie was never yeelded But be it graunted that the Surplice by the Advertisements or other canons hath bene duely authorized yet herevpon it can not bee concluded that an ordinary by his ordinarie Iurisdiction hath power to deprive a Minister from his benefice for not vsing a Surplice vbi non sertur in contra facientes aliqua poena constitutio est imperfecta modicum prodesse poterit quoad contra facientes there being theÌ„ no peine mencioned in the advertisementes to bee imposed vpon a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice how should a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice suffer the losse of his benefice which is one of the greatest peynes Herevnto happily it wil be answered that vbi certa poena statuta est non debet Iudex ab ea recedere vbi vero non est statuta tunc est imponenda ad arbitrium Iudicantis And further that respectu poenae infligendae proper contemptum Iudicis non reperitur provisio regulariter Ã lege facta ideo Judex potest arbitrio suo poenam imponere Touching which answeres it may brieflie be replyed that the peyne spoken of in the civil law is generally vnderstoode of a pecuniarie peyne to be assessed and applied to the silke or more specially it may be vnderstood that among many corporall peynes the Iudge arbitrarily may choose which shall seeme to him most modicinable Now these kinde of peynes it is manifest that neither of them by the ordinarie Iurisdiction ecclesiasticall in the church of England can be imposed for contempt And as for that which to the same effect may bee alleadged out of the forein canonistes or forein canon law thus standeth the case The whole plott frame of the building of the canon law as before hath bene proved is cleane ruinated and wasted From whence it followeth that all the posts sommers walles plates rafters and roofe of that pallace with all the yron leaden and wooden implementes and vtensilles thereof be all likewise rotten and naught else but drosse canker And so from the Nullitie thereof it is to be inferred that an ordinary can not defend or practise his ordinarie Iurisdiction by that law against any of the Kings subiectes For all strange and forein law is both a strange power and a forein traytor to the Kings crowne and for that cause can not be pleaded in any of the kinges ecclesiasticall courtes without being in danger of loosing her head Howsoever then this rule in the romish consistories by the Romish law be true that an Ordinarie for inobedience or contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne where a statute or constitution hath appointed no peyne yet because this rule is an irregular enimy to the regiment of the kings Crowne it seemeth that the kings subiect is wronged whensoever an ecclesiasticall ordinary for contempt shal impose arbitrarily any peyne for the which peyne he hath not expresse warrant from the kings ecclesiasticall law Besides if the Romish canon law were the Kings ecclesiasticall law yet doth not the former exception prove that a Parson or Vicare may be deprived from his benefice by the ordinaries iurisdiction for the not vse of a surplice only the said exceptioÌ„ affordeth thus much viz. that if an ordinarie iudicially and canonically as they call it according to the sanctions not of the English but of the Romish church have admonished a Minister to weare a surplice the exception I say affordeth in this case thus much that his ordinary for contempt may impose an arbitrary peyne if so be nether by common right nor by constitutiue law there be an ordinarie peyne imposed But now so it is that this case falleth not out to be within the compasse of the peyne of deprivation for not wearing a surplice For it is contempt only and not the not wearing of a surplice that arbitrarily may bee punished in this case Why then though an ordinary be not able by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes to drawe in a Ministers deprivation principally and by the head for not wearing a surplice yet it seemeth that he may drawe in the same consequently as it were by the tayle namely by chardging him with wilfull periury or obstinat contempt for the which causes he may iustly be deprived Nay soft good Sir your conclusion is without premisses For who ever graunted that the Romish canon lawe was the Kings ecclesiasticall law howsoever then from part of mine answere made to the exception of contempt you

or shall wilfully and obstinately standing in the same vse any other rite ceremonie order forme or maner c. By which Letter of the Statute it seemeth that the Minister is none otherwise punishable before the Kings Iustices vnlesse wilfully and obstinately standing in the same hee shall vse some other rite ceremonie order forme or maner of celebrating the Lords Supper then is mencioned c. And vpon this clause as hath bene heretofore generally conceaved certaine inditements exactly framed even by some Iustices of assises sitting vpon the bench against certaine Ministers for the not observation of the booke before other of the Queenes Iustices haue ben traversed and avoyded as being in this point erroneous and not agreeable to the intendement of the statute Yea and it hath bene the opinion of some great Lawyers who have bene since Iudges that it is almost impossible to frame an indightement against a Minister for the breach of the first parte of the former clause of the statute which is not traversable and avoydable Fift Quaere If a Minister bound to say common prayer in any parish church shall not refuse to vse but indeed shall vse the said common prayers in such order and forme as they bee mencioned in the said booke whether he be punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed if he refuse to say any part chapter or section of the said booke which part chapter of section conteyneth no prayer For howsoever the whole booke be authorised yet the peyne seemeth in this case to have bene inflicted only for the omission of prayer and not for the omission of every part chapter or section of the booke Besides these questions and their reasons there bee other reasons to induce vs to be of opinion that a Minister before the Kings Iustices is not punishable in maner and forme above expressed for his refusing to vse all and every prayer and prayers rite and rites ceremonie and ceremonies section and sections in such order and forme as they bee mencioned and set forth in the said booke In the preface to the booke it is confessed that nothing can almost so plainly be set forth but that doubts may arise in the vse and practising of the same and therefore for the appeasing of all such diversiâ—ie and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the maner how to vnderstand doe and execute the things conteyned in the booke it is provided that the parties that so doubt or diversly take any thing shalresort to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrarie to any thing contained in the said booke And in the two last clauses of the preface it is said that all Priestes and Deacons shall be bound to say daylie the morning evening prayer either privately or openly except they be lett by preaching studying of Divinitie or by some other vrgent cause And that the Curate that ministreth in any parish Church or Chappell being at home and not otherwise reasonably lett shall say the same in the parish Church or Chappell where hee ministreth From which places of the preface being part of the booke it is plainly to be gathered that the intent and meaning of the Parliament was not to have the Ministers to be punished before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed for refusing to vse all and singuler the prayers rites ceremonies and sections in such order forme as they be mencioned in the said booke if either vpon the Ministers doubts rysing in the vse and practise of these things the Bishop by his discretion did not take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same or if the Minister by preaching the word studying of Divinitie or by some other vrgent or reasonable cause were let so to doe And if no Minister in any of the cases before meÌ„cioned be punishable by the Kings Iustices in maner and forme aboue expressed then it is manifest by the provisoes following that the Archbishops and Bishops have no power and authoritie by vertue of this act to inquire and punish the default of any minister in these cases by admonition excommunication sequestration or deprivation And this not onely by the letter of the last provisoe ordeyned for corroboration of the Archbishops Bishopps and other Ordinaries power and authoritie but also by the provisoe next and immediately following that Provisoe is a matter most cleere and vndeniable Provided alwayes and be it enasted c. That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops c. shall have full power and authoritie by vertue of this Act aswell to inquire in their Visitation Synodes c. to take accusations and informations of all and every the thinges above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limites of their Jurisdictions c. And to punish the same by admonition excommunication sequestration or deprivation c. If then a Minister shall not doe commit or perpetrate any of the things above mencioned and so not be punishable by the Kings Iustices it followeth that the same minister is not punishable by the Ordinarie And this also by the next Provisoe is more playne by which it is enacted That What soever person offending in the premises shall for his offence first receyne punishment of the Orainarie shall not for the same offence est soones be convicted before the lustices And likewise receyving for the said first offence punishment by the Iustices he shall not for the same offence est soones receyve punishment of the Ordinarle No offence then punishable before the Iustices no offence punishable by the Ordinarie From all which premises it seemeth that the Queene the Lords and Commons never intended to impose such an exact and precise observation of the booke of common prayer vpon the Ministers as that in no place nor at any tyme they should omitt the reading saying or vsing of a chapter a prayer a section a rite or ceremonie vpon peyne of imprisonment c. before the Queenes Iustices or vppon peyne of deprivation before the ordinary And therefore the intent of the Parliament not beeing so much to binde the Minister to such an exact and precise observation as to seclude all orders and formes of prayers ministration of Sacramentes vse of rites and ceremonies not mentioned and set forth in the saide booke it seemeth very vnreasonable and much derogatorie to the authoritie of that Parliament that Archbishoppes and Bishoppes who were all secluded from that Parliament should by their extentions constructions and interpretations as it were invert the playne meaning of the Parliament and that ea qua sunt destinata in vnum sinem should by them bee converted to an other end But now if the Archbishops and Bishops at the abandoning of the Popes power out of the Realme have as we confesse they had an ordinarie iurisdiction by the statutes of the Realme reserved to their

of this act Now by what other words then by these of this provisoe could the Parliament more fully and clearly have expressed their mind that the same by the tenor and effect of this provisoe intended for ever wholy to seclude all Papall and foraine canons from being vsed and executed within this Realme For at the petition and submission of the clergie the Parliament having first enacted that neither they nor any of them from thencefoorth should presume to attempt alleadge clayme or put in vre any constitutions oâ— ordinances Provincionall or Synodalles or any other Canons And againe at the petition and submission of the Clergie the same Parliament having committed to the view search examination and iudgement of the King and 32. persons such Canons constitutions and ordinances or the said Canons constitutions and ordinances provinciall and Synodall which as thertofore had bene made by the Clergie of this Realme And lastlie by this proviso the same Parliament having enacted that such Canons provinciall constitutions provinciall ordinances provinciall Synodalls Provinciall for the word Provinciall by the whole tenor and effect of this Act can not in this place but have reference to everie of these wordes shall still be vsed and executed c. till such tyme as they be viewed searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said two thirtie persons c. Seeing these things I say be thus First submitted then afterwards committed and lastly provided and not one word sillable or lotter ayming at the continuance vse keeping or obedience of the popish canon law it can not bee averred by any vnlesse he be too too conceited opiniative that the Canon law or any part thereof made by the Pope without the Realme may lawfully at this day be attempted alleadged claymed or put in vre within the Realme by any Iudge Ecclesiasticall what soever yea and thus much also is confirmed by a statute 37. H. 8. c. 17. Howsoever therefore the Kings of England deryving their Ecclesiasticall Lawes from others being proved approved and allowed hereby and with a generall consent are rightly and aptly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande in like maner as those lawes which the Normans borrowed from England were called the lawes of Normandie and as those lawes which the Romans fetching from Athens being allowed and approved by that state were called Ius ciuile Romanorum howsoever I say this be true nevertheles herevpon it will not follow that those Ecclesiasticall lawes thus borrowed and derived from others may then any more rightly and aptly be called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of Englande when once by and with a generall consent in Parliament they have bene disproved and disallowed Yea and when also they have bene vtterly adnulled and commanded never to be put in execution within the Realme of England From whence it seemeth to follow that whatsoever subiect shall take vpon him full and plenarie power to deliver iustice in any cause to any the Kinges subiects or to punish any crime and offence within the Kings Dominions by vertue of those lawes once by so absolute high an authoritie disanulled that the same person denyeth the Parliament to have full power to allow and disalow lawes in all causes to all the Kinges subiects and consequently that the high Court of Parliament is not a compleat Court for the whole and intyre body of the Realme Wherefore albeit we graunt as the trueth of the Kings law is vnto the Archbishops Bishops other Ordinaries that lawfully they may proceede to inquire in their visitations and Synodes and els where to take accusations and informations of all and every thing and things above mencioned done committed and perpetrated within the limites of their iurisdictions and authoritie and to punish the same by admonition suspension sequestration or deptivation though thus much had never bene provided by the statute nevertheles we desire to be resolved whether any minister ought to bee punished by these or any other censures and processe before the ordinarie for any offence mencioned in this act if for the same offence the same Minister by vertue of this act be not punishable before the Kings Iustices And therefore for example sake put this case viz. That a Minister for the not crossing of a childe vpon the forehead after baptisme is fully administred be indighted before some of the kings Iustices and afterward vpon a traverse before some other of the kings Iustices the same Minister be found to have ministred the same sacrament of Baptisme in such order and forme as in the booke is prescribed Notwithstanding the omission of this ceremonie after baptisme and that vpon such a traverse the indightment before the said second Iustices be found to be vnsufficient in law and the Minister by the same Iustices be adiudged not to be in danger of the penaltie of imprisonment c. because his such not crossing is no offence against the law we demand we say in this case whether the same Minister by the Bishops of the Diocesse may be suspended or deprived from his ministerie or from his benefice for the same his not crossing yea or no. Considerations against the deprivation of a Minister for the not vse of a Surplice in divine service IN the whole body of the statute there is not one syllable or letter froÌ„ the which any semblance of reason can be deduced that any Minister of the church for refusing to vse or for the not vsing of any ornament appointed by the statute or by the book to bee in vse should be punished with the peyne of deprivatioÌ„ For what soever punishment a Minister for the breach of the Statute may sustayne by the kings Iustices the same is only to be imposed for such offences as are specified before the last provisoe of the statute Ornamentes therfore of the church provided to be reteyned and to be in vse being not coÌ„teyned in those premises or things mencioned before the second provisoe concerning the Archbishops and Bishops authoritie and for refusing whereof a Minister by the premises is punishable it followeth there being no punishmeÌ„t for refusing the vse of ornaments in the last provisoe that the not vse of ornamentes is not punishable before the kings Iustices And if there be no punishment appointed to be inflicted before the kings Iustices for the refusing to vse any ornament theÌ„ much lesse is there any punishment to be inflicted for the refusall of the vse of a Surplice For the Surplice is so farre from being commanded to be worne as an ornament in every service of the church as the same is not so much as once particularly mencioned either in the parish booke or in the statute Nay by the generall wordes both of the statute and the booke the Surplice is wholy secluded from being appointed to be an ornament of it selfe in some part of the service of the Church For if with the same in some part of the service there be not a Cope

as he was perswaded grounded vpon the holy commandement of the most high God that he durst not for feare of wounding his owne conscience and displeasing God to weare the surplice in any part of Divine worship For if the request of an earthly king superior to an Archb. be a reasonable excuse to save a BB. from contempt against an Archb. How much more ought the authoritie and precept of an heavenly king be a iust and reasonable impediment to save a minister from contempt against a Bishops admonitioÌ„ Vnlesse then a Bishop will avow and be able out of holy writ to iustifie that a Ministers conscience especially a Ministers conscience who walketh as Zakarias did in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe can not be any iust or reasonable excuse or impediment why he ought not or may not or will not in Divine worship weare a surplice being thervnto admonished by his ordinary vnles I say the Bishop out of holy writ be able fully to prove that such a Ministers conscience is no iust or reasonable cause to stay him from wearing a surplice in Divine worship in this case I say that even by the Romish canon law it self there can no contempt be charged vpon such a Minister for not obeying his ordinaries first second third admonitions the reasons whereof even out of the same canon law have bene alleadged before in the first parte of these coÌ„siderations But to leave the foraine canon law and all the rules thereof as being no branches of the Ecclesiasticall lawes of England let it be granted that before the statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. some canon or constitution Synodall or Provinciall had bene made or since have bene made by the Clergie of the Realme in their coÌ„vocation assembled by the Kings writ that a Parson or Vicare for periurie or contempt ecclesiasticall should bee deprived of his benefice neverthelesse it seemeth that the same is a voide canon and a void constitution Because it is contrary or repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realme By which lawes and customes no free man of the Realme can be dispossessed of his franck tenement for contempt or periury in any of the kings temporall Courts All Parsons and Vicars then canonically instituted inducted being not subiects at this day to any forain power but being freemen of the Realme in as large and ample maner as any Layickes the Kings other subiects be it seemeth that a Parson Vicare by the lawes and customes of the Realme being a Freehoulder should for none other cause loose his Freehould then for the which like cause a Layicke may loose his Yea and because no Layicke by the laws customes of the Realme may bee put from his Freehould for contempt no though the same coÌ„tempt be committed against the kings Proclamation or any decree made in his high Courte of Chancerie by so much the more vnreasonable it seemeth to be that a Parson or Vicare for contempt against his ordinaries admonition should bee deprived from his benefice by how much a contempt against the Kings commaundement is more heinous then is a contempt against the ordinaries admonition You mistake the cases as it seemeth you vnderstand not the law The Freehold of a layick and the Freehold of an ecclesiasticall person be not of one nature The former belongeth vnto him by a title invested in his person but the latter apperteyneth vnto a Church-man in the right of his Church If then the Churchman be displaced from his Church it followeth by a necessary coÌ„sequence that he must likewise be discharged from his freehold For he being in the eye of the law dead vnto his Church can no more enioy the freehold which he held in the right of his Church then can a dead Layick any longer holde a Franktenement in right of his person And for your better satisfaction herein I would have you to consider that the like course of Iustice is kept and ministred against certeine officers in the common weale which officers so soone as for any iust cause they shall be put froÌ„ their offices doe withall and forthwith loose such their freeholdes as iointly with their offices and in regard of their offices they held The Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete having their offices graunted for terme of life though other of them by the same graunt be seised of a freehold the one of the house called the Rolles the other of the house called the Fleete nevertheles if the first bee put from his Mastership and the second from his Wardenship neither can the one nor the other by the law and iustice of the Realme reteyne either of those houses as his Freehold For as the houses were iointly with their offices in respect of their offices granted So their offices being once taken from theÌ„ they must withal by necessary consequence forgo those their houses w ch for the time they held as their freeholds Well if this be all that may gaynesay our position then be not our cases mistaken neither yet have we so ignorantly vrged applied the law and free customes of the Realme as you would beare vs in hande For though we grant whatsoever you have excepted to be true yet can not the same be a barre against our pleading For wee have hetherto pleaded no more in effect but thus viz. that a Parson or Vicar during his ministeriall function being in the eye of the law no dead but a living person and a free man of the Realme ought no more for a contempt vnto his Ordinaries admonition by any law of he Realme bee dispossessed from the freehold which in right of his function he enioyeth then can a Layicke for contempt vnto the Kings commandement be disseised of his And what if the Freeholdes of a Layick of an ecclesiastical person be as you say they be diversly possessed the one by right of church the other by right of person what doeth this I say impugne our saying that no Freeholder for coÌ„tempt of the Kings coÌ„mandment may be punished with losse of his freehold wheÌ„ the great Charter of England telleth vs that a freemaÌ„ shall not be amerced for a small fault but after the quantity of the fault And for a great fault after the maner therof saving to him his contenement or freehold If then vnto every freemaÌ„ punishable by the law though his fault be great his Contenement or Freehold ought to be reserved it seemeth much more reasonable to follow that no Churchman being a freeman of the Realme may for contempt be punished with losse of his Contenement or Freehold And that you may consider against our next conference more deeply of this matter let me put this case vnto you viz. That a Churchman and a temporall person both freemen of the Realme for one and the selfe same contempt against the king were punishable by the great Lordes in the starre chamber

Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Text snippets containing the quad