Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	york_n	3,248	5	9.6221	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69617	Two arguments in Parliament the first concerning the cannons, the second concerning the premunire vpon those cannons / by Edward Bagshawe, Esquire.	Bagshaw, Edward, d. 1662.	1641 (1641)	Wing B401; ESTC R16597	30,559	46

the summe of 3000 lb. and here by the way being upon the president of a Bishop of Norwich I crave leave before I goe to other presidents to observe this one note I doe finde that in all ages the Bishops of Norwich above all other Bishops in the Kingdome were most active and pragmaticall in advancing the ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction and persecuting the Ministers of GOD To give you one instance instead of many it was a Bishop of Norwich that was the first author of spilling the blood of the first Martyr we had here in England named William Sawtree that was burnt to death by the Writ de Heretico cumburendo mentioned in the Register in Fitz. N. B. fo 170. Where the very Name of William Sawtree is expressed in the Writ who was Parson of S. Margarets in Linne in the Diocesse of Norwich and was convicted before the Bishop for the Doctrine of CHRIST which was then counted Heresie and by him delivered over to Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury who caused him to be burnt to ashes and if the Bishops of Norwich doe thinke this any praise to them let them rejoyce in it I shall only say this for the honour of that William Sawtree and of Pembrook-Hall in Cambridge above any Colledge either in Oxford or Cambridge that Martyrum primus which was this William Sawtree Martyrum doctissimus which was Bishop Ridley and Martyrum pijssimus which was John Bradford were all of Pembrook Hall I come now to give presidents wherein the whole Convocation were attainted in a Premunire which are two The first is 7. Hen. 8. Kell Rep. fo 181. The Abbot of Winscombs case which hath beene so often cited in this House but I shall only urge it to this one point That the Convocation for meere citing ex officio Dr. Standish for maintaining the Kings Prerogative and the Lawes of the land that Priests ought to answer before temporall Judges contrary to the tenent of the Clergy and the Abbots Sermon at Paules-Crosse The whole Convocation for this very act incurr'd a Premunire by the resolution of all the Judges of England assembled together by the King for their opinions in that Case The second president is that of Cardinall Woolsey which I first cited in Doctor Cosens his Case and is full to this point it is Mich. 21. Hen. 8. B. Roy. and the maine point of the Premunire was this Quia ipse intendebat antiquissimas Ang. leges penitus subvertere enervare universumque regnum Angl. legibus Civilibus earundum legum Canonibus in perpetuum subjugare This was found against him and he was attainted in a Premunire though he had the Kings Commission for what he did and the King made meanes to the Pope to make him a Cardinall and gave way that two Crosses should be carried before him one as Cardinall and the other as Archbishop of Yorke These Leges Civiles mentioned in that Record were the Legantine Constitutions exercised by the Cardinall and all the Bishops of England in all their severall Diocesse which though it had the countenance of the Kings Commission to warrant yet that was found no excuse for so unjust an act for both Cardinall and all the Bishops of the land were adjudged to have incurr'd a Premunire and therefore all the Bishops did for their pardon of the said Premunire in their Convocation being then assembled and in time of Parliament pay the King a huge masse of money namely the Province of Canterbury paid the King 100000lb. the Province of Yorke 18840lb. and the Cardinall himselfe forfeited to the King all his goods and Chattles and all his lands and tenements as Whitehall Hampton Court Christ Colledge in Oxford c. This case doth justly agree with this Case before us for here the Convocation have made Cannons and added severe punishments to them contrary to the Kings Prerogative and the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme which I made appeare in my Argument concerning the Cannons and therefore I will not speake of them now but will give you two instances which I did not mention then The first is in the first Cannon by decreeing men to be punished in the High Commission for teaching contrary to their explanations of Royall power and propertie of goods being two things of which the interpretation doth not belong to them but to the Common Law and to the Judges which are the expounders thereof Besides they had no authority in the world to punish men in the High Commission for such things for the last Letters Pattens of the High Commission were Mich. 9. Car. in which are conteined all things wherein the Commissioners were to meddle And therefore it was impossible that these new Cannons being made not a yeare agoe should be comprehended in those Letters Pattents of which the Framers thereof could not possibly take notice unlesse they had the Spirit of prophesie which is not to be imagined and therefore it was a bold attempt upon the Kings Prerogative to order men to be punished by vertue of his Comimssion which gave them no such authority The second Instance is in the Cannons which they made for the payment of the Benevolence of the 6. Subsedies which they ordered Clergy men to pay upon the severest censures of the Church as suspension deprivation excommunication c. with this clause added omni appellatione semota that is without any manner of appeale to be allowed which is a flat deniall of the Kings Subjects to have the benefit of Law for in their owne Law appeales are to be allowed from the Ordinaries Court to the Metropolitan from the Metropolitan to the Pope and such authority in appeales as the Pope had is now given to the King and his Judges Deligats by the Statutes of 24. Hen. 8. cap. 12.25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. But in this case all appeales to the King are denied and his Subjects must not only be excommunicated but deprived of their free holds and denied all benefit of appeale to helpe them which is a high point of Usurpation upon the Crowne and the Lawes of the land and an exercising of an Arbitrary power of their owne above and against Law The Second ground of Law 2 Ground why the Clergy in the Convocation have incurr'd a Premunire is this If the King by his Commission gives power to spirituall Judges to doe such and such acts qualified by a proviso to be done in such and such a manner and with such restrictions and limitations as are contained in that proviso and those Judges will by colour of such Commission doe acts contrary to such provisoes and limitations they do hereby incurre a Premunire As for example the King by his Letters Pattents appoints one to be a Bishop and limits the Deane and Chapter to Chuse and the Arch-bishop to consecrate him within 12. dayes and they do contrary to this limitation they do hereby incur a Premunire as may appeare by the Stat. of 25. Hen. 8.

concerning his Supremacy and our own allegiance to which we are tied by a bond of nature as his Liege people yet for the imposing of these two Oathes there are two Acts of Parliament provided viz. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 3. Jaco c. 4. Besides the Clergy have no power by the Sta. of 25. Hen. 8. which gives them power to make Cannons and Constititutions to impose Oathes for an Oath is no Cannon or Constitution but a meere Collaterall thing just as if they should have enjoyned a man to have entred into a bond of a 1000. pound to have observed their Cannons this had beene void and a prohibition had lyen at the common Law for it because this is a Collaterall thing and a charge upon my goods and so is an Oath upon my conscience and therefore in pressing an Oath by vertue of their 6 Cannon they have exceeded their authority The second thing is whether the matter of the Cannons be good Concerning the matter of the Oath contained in the sixt Cannon divers exceptions have beene taken by those learned Gentlemen that have argued before which I will not remember but adde foure which have not beene yet spoken too 1. Exception is in these words That I will not indeavour by my selfe or any other to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that which is so established now That and So being words of Relation do referre to the next Antecedent being Popish Doctrine not mentioned in any part of the Oath before So that reddendo singula singulis it runnes thus in sence and in Construction I will not indeavour my selfe to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that Popish Doctrine which is so established Ergo some Popish Doctrine is established by the Church of England This construction was so evident and plaine to them that for the curing therof though this Oath with the word Popish in it and the rest of the Cannons were confirmed by the Kings letters Patents 30. Iunij 16. Car. yet 5 to Julij after they got a Commission from the King to give this Oath leaving out the word Popish whereby they have made the remedy worse then the disease by giving an Oath which was never confirmed by the King 2. The second Exception is in these words Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church by Archbishops Bishops Deanes and Arch-Deacons c. which I may fitly call a Covenant against the Kings supremacy which I thus make good It is a part of my Oath of Supremacy Stat. 1o. Eliz. c. 1. that I shall assist the King in all preheminences and jurisdictions belonging to his Crowne Now it is a part of his jurisdiction to alter this government by his Parliament and to appoint and establish another which if he shall be so minded to doe I am by this Oath not to assist him in it I am not so much as to give my assent wherby I doe unavoidably fall upon this Rock that for the saving of my oath I must deny my obedience to the King Azor. de juramento or by obeying the King I must fall upon perjury For though it be true as the Cannonists say that when a Law is changed to which I am bound by oath Though I am thereby materially discharged yet formally I am bound in respect of my will For if ever I actually assent to the alteration I am really perjured 3. The third Exception is in these words I will not consent to alter the government of this Church by Arch-bishops c. as it stands now established and as by right it ought to stand now to speake properly there is no government of this Church of England by Arch-bishops Bishops Deanes Arch-Deacons c. but only by the King and they governe onely by and under him And why the King should be quite left out seems a thing strange to me unlesse they will say he is comprehended within the c. which is a most unworthy place for so great a Majesty And that the Clergy had some ill meaning in this omission of the King out of this Oath I have some reason more then to suspect when I cast my eye upon some dangerous passages that are in their writings about the Kings Supremacy advancing it higher then the King himselfe would have them touching the Subjects property of goods but depressing it too low concerning his Ecclesiasticall power And this appeared lately before us by a very dangerous speech of Dr. V●d D. Cowels book verbo Par. liament suppr●ssed by K Iams Proclamariō lately printed without authority Cosins who said that the King ought not to be called Supreame head of the Church and seemed to colour it by Bishop Iewels opinion which is most false For the Act of 1o. Eliz. Revives all the Statutes of Hen. 8. touching Supreame head of the Church So that the King may as well be called Supreame head of the Church on Earth for so are the words of the Statute of 26. Hen. 8. cap. 1. 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. as supreame governour Besides the distinction that he used in this place That Bishops had their jurisdiction from God ratione officij but ratione exercitij they had it from the King which is both absurd and erronious It is absurd for he will not allow that Bishops and Ministers should be all one but by this distinction they should for neither of them can exercise their functions but by permission from the King It is erronious for I doe not only say it but will proove it that Bishops have no jurisdiction here but from the King for it is a knowne distinction among the Cannonists as that learned Civilian that spake last doth well know That in a Bishop there is a double power Potestas ordinis Potestas Jurisdictionis 1. Potestas ordinis to preach to baptize to administer the Sacraments c. this power is iure divino agreeable with all other Ministers 2. Potestas Jurisdictionis as to admit institute and give mandates to induct into Church-livings to keepe Ecclesiasticall Courts to call Sinods to visit Churches For which two latter we pay Sinodals and procurations to this day and which if the ancient forme were observed would be of excellent use at this day for the depriving of Arminians D Bois Deane of Cant in a vi●tation Sermon Socinians and other Hereticks but as a learned Prelate writes they are now become Nummorum non morum visitationes This power of Iurisdiction say the Cannonists is de iure humano and from the Pope for so is their rule Episcopi descendunt à Papa tanquam membra à capite we in our Law say that their jurisdiction is wholy from the King and so it is acknowledged by themselves in expresse words in the Act of Parliament of 37. Hen. 8. cap. 17. an act in force at this day That Arch-bishops Bishops c. and all other Ecclesiasticall persons have no manner of Ecclesiasticall