Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	affirm_v	deny_v	great_a	62	3	2.1082	3	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06555	The English iarre· or disagreement amongst the ministers of great Brittaine, concerning the Kinges supremacy. VVritten in Latin by the Reuerend Father, F. Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus, and professour in diuinity. And translated into English by I.W. P.; Dissidium Anglicarum de primatu Regis. English	Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.; Wilson, John, ca. 1575-ca. 1645?	1612 (1612)	STC 1702; ESTC S121050	28,588	66

Primatemque confingas It may seeâ—e to â—auour of malice and cry out vpon your sausines when as you feigne the King Head and Primate of the Church c. And M. Burhill pag. 133. Nec Primatem quidem omnino Regem nostrum dicimus multÃ² vâ—rÃ² minÃ¹â— Primatem Ecclesiasticum Neyther do we at all call our King Primate and much lesse Ecclesiasticall Primate c. 3. â—eere hence do I frame a twofold Argument One out of M. Tookers words in this manner He that aâ—â—irmeth the King to be Primate of the Church is a sausy and malicious fellow But M. Salclâ—bridge affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church Ergo he is a sausy and malicious fellow The other argument I frame out of M. Salclebridges words thus He that denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church doth offend against the publicke Profession of the Truth receyued in England But M. Tooker denyeth the King to be Primate of the Church of England Ergo he offendeth against the publicke profession of the Truth receyued in England So I wâ—s one Mule claweth another 4. But now it may be demaunded whether of them doth iudg more rightly in this case M. Salclebridge who affirmeth the King to be Primate of the Church or M. Tooker that denieth it This controuersy dependeth vpon another question to wit whether these two Names Primate and Primacy are necessarily coÌ„nexed or as they say Coniugata M. Salclebridge thinketh that they are Therfore because he hath once affirmed the King to haue the Primacy of the Church he consequently auerreth that the King is Primate of the Church For that with him this argument hath force Ã Coniugatis The King hath Primacy Ergo the King is Primate As also this The Chaplaine hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 5. Now M. Tooker he thinketh the contrary For pag 6. of his booke he expressely saith That the King hath the Primacy of the Church but yet he is not the Primate of the Church And contrariwise The Archbishop of Canterbury hath not the Primacy of the Church and yet is he Primate of the Church So as he denyeth these two consequeÌ„ces Ã Coniugatis to wit 1. The King hath the Primacy Ergo he is Primate 2. The Archbishop is Primate Ergo he hath the Primacy And perhaps he will deny these in like manner 1. The Chaplayne hath a Bishopricke Ergo he is a Bishop 2. M. Tooker is a Deane Ergo he hath a Deanery IIII. Question VVhether the King by reason of his Primacy may be called Head of the Church THIS Title first began to be vsurped of King Henry the 8. as all Authors aswell our owne as our aduersaryes do testifie For thus wryteth Iacobus Thuanus in his first booke of the Historyes of his times Henricus post diuortium se Caput Ecclesiae constituit K. Henry after his diuorce from Q. Catherine made himselfe Head of the Church c. And Polydor Virgil lib. 27. of his History of England saith Interea habetur Concilium Londini in quo Ecclesia Anglicana formam potestatis nullis antÃ¨ temporibus visam induit Henricus enim Rex Caput ipsius Ecclesiae constituitur In the meane while to wit after his forsaid diuorce a Councell was held at London wherin the Church of â—ngland tooke to it selfe a forme of power neuer heard of before For that King Henry was appointed Head of the same Church c. Genebrard also in the fourth booke of his Chronology hath these words Henricus anno 1534. in publicis Comitijs se Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae appellauit King Henry in the yeare of our Lord 1534. in publicke Parliament called himselfe Head of the Church of England c. Also Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of England saith Ex qua dicendi formula primam occasionem sumptam aiunt vt Rex Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae diceretur By which manner of speach it is said the first occasion was taken of calling the King supreme Head of the Church of England c. And againe in the same booke Proponebantur cis noua Comitiorum Decreta iuâ—â—bantur iurciurando affirmare Regim Supremum Ecclesiae esse Caput The new Laws or Statutes of the Parliament were propounded vnto them to wit to the Kings subiects and they were commaunded to sweare that the King was head of the Church c. Iohn Caluin in like manner vpon the 7. Chapter of the Prophet Amos wryteth thus Qui tantopere extuâ—erunt Hâ—nricum Regem Angliae certÃ¨ fucrunt homines inâ—enâ—â—derati Dedâ—runt enim illi summam rerum omnium petestatem hoc me grauiter semper vulnerauit Erant enâ—m blasphemi cÃ¹m vocarent cum summum Caput Ecclesia sub â—hristo Those who so greatly did extoll K. Hâ—nâ—y of Enâ—land were men void of consideration For they gaue vnto him the chiefe power of all things and this point did euer gall me grieuously For that they were blasphemers when they called him the chiefe Head of the Church vnder Christ c. 2. The same Title did K. Edward Sonne to K. Henry and his Successour vsurpe as it may be seene by his Letters to Thomas Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury which begin thus Edouardus Dei gratia Angliae Franciae Hyberniae Rex supremum in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae tam in causis spiritalibus quÃ m temporalibus Caput Reuerendo Thomae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo salutem Edward by the Grace of God King of England France and Ireland supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland as well in causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall to the Reuerend Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury greeting c. The same Title also did Bishop Cranmer giue vnto the said King as appeareth by his letters wrytten to other Bishops subiect vnto him thus Thomas permissione diuina Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus per Illustrissimum in Christo Principem Edouardum Regem sextum supremum in terris Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae Hybernicae sufficienter legitimÃ¨ authorizatus Tibi Edmundo Londinensi â—piscopo omnibus fratribus CoÃ«piscopis vice nomine Regiae Maiestatis quibus in hac parte fungimur mandamus vt Imagines ex â—cclesijs cuiusque dioecesis tollantur c. We Thomas by Gods permission Archbishop of Canterbury being sufficiently and lawfully authorized by our most gratious Prince in Christ King Edward the sixt supreme Head on earth of the Church of England and Ireland do in his Maiesties Name and place which herein we supplie commaund you â—dmund Bishop of London and all the rest of our Brethren Bishops that Images be taken out of the Churches of euery Diocesse c. And Doctor Sanders also in his booke of the Schisme of England saith thus QuamprimÃ¹m visum est Henrici octaui mortem diuulgare statim Edouardus Henrici filius nonum aetatis annum agens Rex Angliae proclamatur summum â—cclesiae Anglicanae in terris Caput proximÃ¨ secundum Christum constituitur

2. The later part of the former point affirmeth Mâ— Burhill pag. 137. when he saith Quod Ambrosio licuit in Theodosium idem alijs in Regem simili de causa liceat c. As it was lawfull for Ambrose to proceed against Theodosius so is it lawfull also for others to proceed against the King in the like cause c. To wit he would say as it was lawfull for S. Ambrose being a Bishop to excoÌ„municate Theodosius the Emperour so in like manner is it lawfull for our Bishops of England to excomunicate King Iames if he offend in like manner And then againe pag. 242. Supremus Ecclesiae Gubernator potest eijci ex Ecclesia The supreme Gouernour of the Church to wit the King may be cast forth of the Church c. And pag. 267. Rex etsi iustissimÃ¨ excommunicatus non amittit Primatum The King although he should be most iustly excommunicated yet he doth not loose his Primacy c. 3. Now I do not see how these things can possibly hang togeather or agree with those which hitherto before haue byn attâ—ibuted to the King For vnto him is attributed That he is Primate and the supreme head of the Church of England That he is aboue all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as temporall in his Kingdome That he hath supreme most ample and full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall no lesse then politicall and temporall And notwithstanding all this being so great a person yet can he not excommunicate any one of his subiects eyther Laicke or Church-man although neuer so rebellious and obstinate Nay although he be so great as he is he may neuerthelesse be excommunicated by his subiects cast out of the Church of England wherof he is supreme Head I caÌ„not vnderstand this mystery 4. Heerunto will I adde 3. arguments more which will increase the difficulty The first is He that hath supreme most ample and most full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall in any Kingdome may exercise all the actions offices that belong vnto Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of that Kingdome But now the King hath supreme most ample and most full iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the Kingdome of England as M. Tooker and M. Salclebridg do confesse Ergo he may exerciâ—e all offices belonging Iurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the Kingdome of England Ergo he may also excoÌ„municate for that excoÌ„munication which is denouÌ„ced by sentence is an act of Ecclesiasticall Iurâ—sdiction Or els contrariwise if you will thus He that cannot exercise all acts of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiâ—â—ion in any Kingdome hath not supreme most ample most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiastiâ—all in that Kingdome But the King of England cannot exercise ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ of â—cclesiasticall Iurisdiction in his Kingdoâ—e because he cannot excommunicate any man ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ not supreme most ample and most ã€ˆâ€¦ã€‰ â—â—â—lâ—siasticall in his Kingdome 5. The second argument is this He that giueth to another power to excommunicate without doubt hath power himself to excommunicate bâ—cause no man can giue to another that which he hath not himselfe But the King of England giueth power to his Bishops to excommunicatâ— Ergo hâ— hath power to excommunicate The Minor is proued out of M. Tooker pag. 304. where he affirmeth That the Bishops of England do receyue all their Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court from the King But now power to excommunicate belongeth to Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court aâ— the Chaplaine pag. 41. and M. Tooker pag. 305. expressely teach vs saying Rex habet omnem iurisdictionem spiritualem in foro exteriori exceptis quibusdam censuris The King hath all Iurisdiction spirituall in the exteriour Court excepting certaine Censures But now hâ— excepteth ExcommunicatioÌ„ wherin yow see is to be noted againe a contradictioÌ„ in M. Tooker for that he referreth Censures amongst which excommunication is one to the Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court True indeed Buâ— yet he adioyneth two other things that are conâ—radictory The first that the King can giue vnto Bishops all Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court and thâ— second that the King hath not all Iurisdiction oâ— the exteriour Court 6. The third Argument is That whosoeuer is subiect to another in Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction of the exteriour Court hath not supreme moâ—t ample and full IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall of the exteriour Courtâ— But the King is subiect to some other body in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the exteriour Court to wit to the Bishop because he may by him be excommunicated by sentence and cast out of the Church as M. Burhill doth confesse Ergo he hath not supreme most ample and most full Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall in the exteriour Court c. Or if you will contrarywise thus He that is subiect to no other in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction cannot by any man be excoÌ„municateâ— by sentence But the King now if he haue supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction is subiect to no other in Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Ergo he cannot by any other be excoÌ„municated c. I doubt not but you maâ—ke well that these things do not agree XI Question VVhether the King may be Iudge of all Controuersies in the Church 1. CONTROVERSIES that arise in the Church are of two sortes some are about faith and Religion others are concerning Ecclesiasticall affayres The former of these questions then is Whether the King by vertue of his Primacy be supreme Iudg of all Controuersies which pertayne vnto faith and Religion M. Salclebridge saith he is pag. 163. in these words Sic luce clarius â—st Christianos Principes cum laude Controuersâ—as fidâ—i dijudicasse dirâ—misse etiam in vniuersalibus octâ— Concilijs c. So as it is more cleare then the suÌ„ne that Christian Princes with praisâ— haue iudged of and decided controuerâ—ies of faith and that in eight Generall Councells c. Which is as much to say in the first of Nice the first of Constantinople that of Ephesus Chalcedon the second third fourth of Constantinople and the second of Nice wherin diuers coÌ„trouersies concerning matters of faith were iudged of and decided especially concerning the diuinity of Christ against the Hereticke Arius of the diuinity of the holy Ghost against Macedonius of one person of Christ against Nestorius of two Natures in Christ against Eutyches and Dioscorus so of others All these Controuersies saith M. Salclebrigde were iudged of and decided by Kings and Emperours 2. M. Tooker now he affirmeth the quite contrary who by no meanes will haue Kings or Emperors to be Iudges of Controuersies of faith For thus he writeth pag. 3. of his booke Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud vidâ—tur cÃ¹m Regem caput Ecclesiae Primatemque confingas omniumque causarum controuersiarum quae ad fidem Râ—ligionem pertinent iudicem tribuas It may seeme to sauour of malice cry out vpon you sausinesse when as you feigne the King to be head of the Church and Iudg of all causes and controuersies which pertaine vnto faith and Religion c. And againe pag. 50â—â— Rex in

King hath Power of the same order with the Bishops and Ministers of his Church But this now according to M. Tompsons opinion is an error wherefore eyther they doe erre or speake improperly 3. The other is that a Coniecture may be made of the thing signified from the word signifying The word Supremacy is a new and lately inuented word vnknown to the Ancient Fathers not vsed in Scriptures vnheard of in the Christian world Moreouer what doth it signify The Supreme power forsooth of the King in the Church Wherefore this is new also Surely if the ancient Fathers eyther Latin or Greeke had knowne this power they would haue found out at least some word wherby to haue expressed the same properly But this it seemes none of them did II. Question vvhether that this Primacy which the King hath in the Church be Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall 1 THIS is now another Iarre Vnder King Henry the 8. and King Edward this Primacy was alwaies called Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall as it appeareth out of Doctor Sanders whose words are these Caluinus Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum oppugnauit Caluin did oppugne King Henryes Ecclesiasticall Primacy Againe Episcopus Roffensis quÃ²d Henrici Primatum Ecclesiasticum nollet confiteri ad mortem producitur The Bishop of Rochester because he denyed King Henryes Ecclesiasticall Primacy was brought forth to dye c. And againe Multi in custodijs propter negatum Ecclesiasticum Regis Primatum detenti Many were kept in prison for denying the Kings Ecclesiastical Primacy In like manner Henricus mandauit vt filius in fide Catholica educarâ—tur excepto Primatus Ecclesiastici titulo quem ei râ—liquit King Henry commaunded that his Sonne Edward should be brought vp in the Catholick faith excepting the title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy which he left vnto him And yet more Stephanus Wintoniâ—nsis Edmundus Londinensis Cuthbertus Dune mensis Nicolaus Wigorniensis Daius Cicestrensis â—piscopi timidÃ¨ restiterunt puâ—ri Regis Primatui spirituali imÃ² simpliciter subscripserunt The Bishops of Wincâ—ester London Durham Worcester and Chichestâ—r did fearfully withstand the Spirituall Primacy of the Child King nay they absoluâ—ly subscribed therunâ—o c. 2. Vnder Queene Mary that succeeded to her brother King Edward in the Crowne this Title of Primacy was taken away in a Parliament held at London as witnesseth Iacobus Thuanus in the 9. booke of the History of his tyme in these words Antiquatus ijsdem Comitijs Primatus Ecclâ—siastici titulus The title of Ecclesiasticall Primacy was abolished in that Parliament The same was againe restored vnder Queene Elizabeth as testifieth the same Author in his 15. booke c. 3. But now in these our dayes vnder King Iames this matter is called into question Some not daring to call it Primacy Ecclesiasticall and spirituall but only Primacy belonging to Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall mattâ—rs amongst whom is M. Doctor Andrewes or the Kings Chaplaine in his Torture of Tortus pag. 90. where he writeth thus Nâ—que vâ—rÃ² quoad spiritalia alium nos Regi Primatum tribuimus neque quoad temporalia alium Pontifici detrahimusâ— quam dâ—bâ—mus Prior ille Regibus omni iure posâ—erior hic Pontifici nullo iure debetur Neyther do we attribute one Primacy concerning spirituall matters vnto the King nor do we take from the Pope any other Primacy concerning temporall matters then we ought to do The first is due vnto Kings by all right the later no way pertayneth to the Pope c. I when I first read these wordes in the Chaplaynes booke did thinke that he had taken these two to wit Primacy spirituall belonging to spirituall as also these other Primacy temporall belonging to temporall for one and the same thing But now it seemes that the Defenders Interpreters of the Chaplaine to wit M. Tompson and M. Burhill do take it otherwise For so writeth M. Burhill pag. 55. of his Booke concerning this point Non dicit Primatum spiritualâ—m sed Primatum quâ—ad spiritualia dâ—bâ—ri Regibus omni iure He the Chaplaine doth not sâ—y that Spirituall Primacy but Primacy belonging to Spirituall is due vnto Kings by all right c. And then againe pag. 133. in fine Eâ—si â—nim Râ—gi tribuimus Primatum in â—cclesia non tamâ—n Primatum spiritualem aâ—t Ecclesiastiâ—um â—i tâ—ibuâ—mus sâ—d potâ—us â—rimatum quoad res personas spirituales Ecclesiasâ—â—cas For although we giue vnto the King Primacy ouer the Church â—et do we not giue vnto him Primacy spirituall or Eccleâ—iâ—â—ticall but rather Primacy belonging to things and persons spirituall and Ecclesiasticall c. And M. Tâ—mpson pag. â—â— of his Booke also saith Non dixit Primatum Ecclesiasticum aut Spiritualem quasi formaliter intelligat sed quoad Spiritualia id est obiectiuÃ¨ materialiter The Chaplaine said not the Primacy Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall as though he vnderstood it formally but for so much as it belongeth to Spirituall that is to say obiectiuely and materially c. In which sense the same Author pag. 95. saith Dicimus Regem gubernare quidem Ecclesiastica sed non EcclesiasticÃ¨ We say indeed that the King gouerneth Ecclesiasticall things but not Ecclesiastically 4. So as if you aske in England whether the King hath Primacy Ecclesiasticall or no It wil be answered you thus King Henry K. Edward and Q. Elizabeth had Ecclesiasticall Primacy K. Iames hath not Primacy Ecclesiasticall but only so far forth as it belongeth to Ecclesiasticall things Hath then his Maiesty that now is lesse then they had So it seemes Is then the Kings Primacy in England so nipped and pared in so short a space So they say Is it then almost decayed and at an end I doubt not but it is What is the cause Hearken to the coÌ„mon saying What 's quickly got is quickly lost as also to that of the holy Scripture Si est ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissoluetur Act. 5.38 If this deuise or worke be of men it will be dissolued III. Question VVhether the King by vertue of this Primacy may be called Primate of the Church MAISTER Henry Salclebridge doth absolutely affirme it For thus he writeth pag. 140. Dico Regem Angliae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primatem esse I say that the King of England is Primate of the Church of England Nay he will haue this point to be so certayne and out of all doubt that he thinketh whosoeuer should deny it to offend against the publike Profession of England For so he saith pag. 177. Angliae Regem Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primatem esse in professione publica Anglicana Veritatis saâ—ris litteris nixae ponitur That the King of England is Primate of the Church of England is founded in the publicke English Profession of Truth grounded vpon the Sacred Letter 2. M. Tooker and M. Burhill do absolutely deny it For thus wryteth M. Tookâ—r pag. 3. Olere autem malitiam ac clamitare audaciam tuam illud videtur cÃ¹m Regem Caput Ecclesiae

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad