Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n king_n power_n subject_n 2,545 5 6.8305 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A31175 A scholasticall discourse demonstrating this conclusion, that ... neither the Pope, nor those called bishops in the church of Romes, are bishops either in order or jurisdiction ... / by R.C. R. C. 1663 (1663) Wing C114; ESTC R24124 11,034 32

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

and indulge God's Church And if Sacriledge be a sin then is Oblation to God a vertue Quod datum est Ecclesiae datum est Deo By our Lawes all Arch-bishopricks and Bishopricks within the Realm of England have been founded by the Kings of England and do hold of the King by Barony and have been all called by Writ to the Court of Parliament and are Lords of Parliament as among many take one notable Record Rot. 18. H. 3. Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis qui conventuri sunt apud Glocestriam die Sabbati in crastin Sanctae Katherinae firmiter inhibendo quòd sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent diligunt nullo modo presumant consilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam Regis pertinent vel quae Personam Regis vel statum suum vel statum Concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quòd si fecerint Rex indè se capiet ad Baronias suas Teste Rege apud Hereford Coke Com. Lit. p. 97. 23. Novemb. c. And see Com. Lit. 344. At first all Bishopricks in England were of the King's foundation and donation per traditionem baculi annuli King Henry the first being requested to make them elective refused it but King John by his Charter bearing date Quinto Julii Anno decimo septimo granted that the Bishopricks should be eligible So that at first all Bishopricks were not onely of the King's foundation and donation but persons to them are eligible from no other cause but the King's Charter Since therefore by God's Precept Kings ought to be nursing Fathers to Christ's Church and since all Bishopricks are of the King's foundation and since the persons of all the King's Subjects are in his dominion and power or otherwise every soul should not be subject to Higher Powers it will certainly follow Bishops rightfully invested and installed in their Bishopricks from the King may regularly exercise any Episcopal Act in their Diocese and none but such without apparent disobedience and contempt of the Laws of the King to which they ought to be subject CHAP. V. Answering the Reasons alledged by Erastus against the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of England ALthough Erastus Senior in the first Chap. would distinguish between a Bishop Ordine and Jurisdictione yet in the 9. chap. he does so confound different things as it is impossible without further explaining them to shew wherein Erastus begs the question and wherein he is mistaken Things which pertain to the Church are two-fold either as they are in themselves purely and simply spiritual in their Essence or as they accidentally have reference to the Church and in themselves are not purely and simply spiritual for example Blasphemy Apostasie from Christianity Heresie Schisme Holy Orders Admissions of Clerks Celebration of Divine Service Rights of Matrimony Divorces generall Bastardy Substraction and right of Tithes Oblations Obventions Dilapidations Excommunication Reparation of Church Probate of Testaments Administrations and Accounts upon the same Simonie Incests Fornication Adultery Solicitation of Chastity Pensions Procurations Appeals in Ecclesiastical cases Commutation of Penance are determined here with us by Ecclesiastical Judges So that there is a mix'd Conusance or Ecclesiastical Judicature viz. of things purely spiritual by which Ecclesiastical Judges are impowered to determine and that by no Humane Power but only as they are impowered by our Saviour and are his Ministers viz. of Ordination Consecration Excommunication Heresie c. and this power the Church and Ecclesiastical persons had before ever temporall Powers received the Gospel of Christ or were converted to Christianity But after it pleased God Kings were converted to Christianity I do not read nor ever heard of a State or Common-wealth that ever was then did Kings cherish and defend God's Church and endued it with many priviledges and immunities which erewhile was persecuted by them It is true no question but that originally all Bishopricks their bounds and the Division of Parishes and their Endowments the conusance of Tithes the Probation of Wills the granting Letters of Administration and Accounts upon the same the Right of Institution and Induction and Erection of all Ecclesiastical Courts c. were of the Kings foundation and donation also to him by all divine and humane Lawes belongs the care and preservation of all his Subjects in all cases none excepted And therefore not onely all those things which relate to the extern peace and quiet of the Church although exercised by Ecclesiastical persons but all those priviledges and immunities which the Church and Church-men have in a Church planted which the Apostles and primitive Christians in a Church planting had not are all originally grants of Kings and supreme Powers So that to the Installment of a Bishop in an endowed Bishoprick divers things are necessary viz. That he be a Priest rightly and truly ordained and consecrated a Bishop and this is a pure spiritual act but that he is elected to the Bishoprick confirmed invested installed in it are no spiritual acts but founded in the King however it may be they are executed by Ecclesiastical persons Erastus Senior now confounding the creation and institution of a Pastor C. 9. p. 34. whereas they are different for to create or consecrate a Pastor is a power of the Keyes but to institute him into a Bishoprick is a power of the King's in the same thing not onely begs a false question in making it a power of the Keyes but also falsely infers that the King cannot institute a Pastor to a See or Bishoprick which is purely and solely in him And therefore Queen Elizabeth might assign constitute and confirm Matthew Parker to the See of Canterbury nor could any but she do it If she were the rightful Queen of England which Erastus does not deny What needs Erastus Senior now take such pains to prove ten whole Pages together that our Bishops had no right to be confirmed constituted and assigned to their Bishopricks but from the King which none will deny him I cannot but take notice how Erastus having confounded Consecration here with Institution P. 7.3 makes confirming and consecrating of an Arch-bishop or Bishop to any See the same thing and purely spiritual whereas to consecrate an Arch-bishop or Bishop is one thing and purely spiritual and to confirm an Arch-bishop or Bishop in his See is another and temporal But I would advise Erastus to have a care lest he be not shent for affirming P. 40. that no Bishop Ordine can confirm or consecrate a Pastor for the being seized of a Bishoprick does not validate or invalidate any spiritual Act of a Bishop as to the essence of it and if Barlow and Scory's being suspended the exercise of their Jurisdiction in their Bishopricks of Bath and Chichester did invalidate their consecrating and confirming Matthew Parker because they were not actual Bishops of Cathedral Churches P. 42. as Erastus sayes then do I not see how any
Act of Vigilius the first when he was in exile and Rome in the possession of Totila could be valid Nor could Boniface the Eighth when he was taken prisoner by Philip the Fair and Rome possessed by him nor Clement 7. when Charles 5. had him prisoner and possessed Rome consecrate or confirm any Arch-bishop or Bishop for without doubt they then were not actual Bishops of Rome P. 42. For Erastus Senior's Objection that simple Bishops cannot give a Superiour or Metropolitane Jurisdiction is nothing to the purpose nor affirmed by us for though the Order of Bishops be a Divine Institution yet the extraordinary exercise of a Metropolitane in his Province being no wise purely spiritual but having onely reference to the extern peace of the Church is not so but from humane and temporary Laws I will not undertake to answer for all which is literally contained in the Oath of Supremacy C. 9 p. 32 or charged by Erastus Senior upon our Church-men taking it neither is it much to our purpose This I say that Queen Elizabeth by her Proclamation and after by her Injunctions did declare that she took nothing upon her more then what anciently of right did belong to the Crown of England Cam. Eliz. Reg. 39 40 viz. that she had supreme Power under God over all sorts of people within the Kingdome of England whether they be Ecclesiastical or Lay persons and that no Foraign power hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction over them and in this sense every man is allowed to take the Oath of Supremacy and I hope Erastus will not deny his Soveraign this power * See the Admonition to simple men in Q Eliz. Injunctions as they are set out with Dr. Sparrow's Preface p. 78. C. 11. p. 3● Nor will I undertake to answer for all the acts of Princes whether they entrench upon the Power of the Keyes or not This I say that if Kings do entrench upon this power yet cannot this annihilate any act thereof being rightfully done And therefore admit King Jame's did authorizing other Bishops of his own appointing them to doe all acts pertaining to the power and authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury in causes or matters Ecclesiastical as amply fully and effectually to all intents and purposes as the said Archbishop might have done which without all doubt the King might do and that the Declaration of his now Majesty whom God grant long to reign over us touching affairs of Religion in which he deprives all the Archbishops and Bishops of this Land Erastus sayes of their power of sole ordaining and censuring their Presbyters and joyns their Presbyters in Commission with them as to the acts of Ordaining and Censuring did entrench upon the Ghostly Power yet could not this any wayes rescind the Order of any Priest or Bishop rightfully ordained and consecrated but Priests and Bishops rightfully ordained and consecrated are as much Priests and Bishops after such acts as before CONCLUSION Whether our Bishops be legal or not conduces not to the Question whether they be rightfully ordained for the Order of Bishops being a Divine Institution cannot suscipere majus aut minus a Bishop rightly ordained is as much a Bishop although all temporal powers did contradict it as if they allowed it It is loss of time therefore fore to examine and cross-examine all the Statutes alledged by Erastus whether they allow or not allow the Order of our Bishops And now let any man judge whether Erastas Senior has any great reason to boast in that his own Reasons have concluded the Pope and Bishop of Rome to be neither Bishops Ordine nor Jurisdictione Neither has he clearly alledged one right Reason against the Order or Jurisdiction of the Bishops in the Church of England but onely lost much time in endeavouring to prove them no Legal Bishops which to the essence of the Order of a Bishop is no wayes material THE END ERRATA In the Preface Line 12. read his zeal to