Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	call_v	church_n	synod_n	2,889	5	9.6067	5	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

the Kings subiects in England are bound in conscience to take both these Oathes as often as the King shall exact the same Or whether they should suffer imprisonments torments and death it selfe rather then sweare Concerning the former point the Catholikes doubt nothing for that they haue certainly and firmly determined rather to loose their liues together with the glorious Martyrs Syr Thomas More and the Bishop of Rochester then to adâ—it the Kings Primacy and abiure the Popes Now concerning the later Oath there hath byn some doubt made these yeares past For that some Catholikes who perceaued not the force and scope of that Oath did a little stagger at the beginning whether they might with a safe coÌ„science sweare therto or no. Which doubt of theirs notwithstanding did not last long but was soone taken away by Pope Paul the fifth and Cardinall Bellarmine For the Pope forthwith directed two Apostolicall Breues to the Catholikes of England and the said Card. wrote a letter to M. Blackwell then Archpriest of this affaire Both Pope and Cardinall do deny that the said Oath may be taken with a safe Conscience And their reason is this Because no man with a safe conscienceâ— can deny the Catholicke faith But he now who should take this Oath proposed by the King should deny the Catholicke faith though not generally yet in â—art so far forth as beloÌ„geth to some one article therof Ergo no man with a safe coÌ„science can take this Oath 7. This reason being very sound all good Catholicks admit but our aduersaries do not I in fauour and consolation of the Catholicks haue determined to adioyne heerunto two other reasons especially against the Oath of Supremacy which by the Aduersaries cannot be reiected The first is this No man is bound in CoÌ„science to sweare that which is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull But that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church and for such to be obeyed not only in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall matters is eyther apparently false or at leastwise doubtfull Ergo no man is bound in Conscience to sweare the same The Maior is euident of it selfe for that it is not lawfull to affirme any thing which is eyther false or doubtfull and much lesse to sweare the same The Minor is proued thus For that is it iudged apparently false aswell amongst the Caluinists as amongst the Catholicks that the King is Primate and supreme head of the Church But now amongst the Caluinists of England who adhere vnto the King the same is called into doubt For that some of them affirme others deny these points following 1. That the King is Primate of the Church 2. That he is supreme head of the Church 3. That he hath Ecclesiasticall Primacy ouer the Church 4. That he hath power iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall 5. That the K. by his owne proper Authority may assemble Councells or Synods and sit as chiefe Head or President therin 6. That he can confer benefices or Ecclesiasticall liuings 7. That he can create and depose Bishops 8. That he is Iudge in Controuersies of faith c. So as truly if these and the like points be doubtfull and vncertaine amongst those who adhere vnto and fauour the King seing that some deny them some affirme them it followeth necessarily that the Kings whole Primacy is an vncertaine thing What rashnes then and imprudency is it to go about to bynd Catholicks in their Consciences to sweare that which they themselues do affirme some of them to be false some others to be doubtfull 8. I will explicate more distinctly that which I haue said The Oath of the Kings Primacy doth contayne so many parts as there be or are thought to be Offices and functions of the Kings Primacy The offices then eyther are or are thought to be diuers as we haue seene before to wit to assemble Synods to enact and decree Ecclesiasticall lawes to conferre benefices to creâ—te Bishops to determine controuersies of faith and the like Therfore diuers are the parts of the Oath of the Kings Supremacy Of these parts then let vs take one of them by it selfe to wit this I A. B. do sweare in my conscience that I will be faithfull and obedient vnto the King as often or whensoeuer he shall by his owne proper authority create Bishops whom he will and againe depose from their office or dignity whome he will c. If this part only of the Kings Offices should be exacted of all his Maiesties subiects in England what do you thinke would be done Would all trow you yea they who most adhere now vnto the King sweare this Let them sweare that would M. Tooker I am sure if he be a constant man would not For that he denyeth the creation and deposition of Bishops to belong any way vnto the King And if so be that he who otherwise acknowledgeth the Kings Primacy at least in words would not sweare heerunto how then should Catholicks be compelled to do the same who doe in no wise acknowledge it And what I haue said concerning this point the same may be also said of the rest 9. My other reason is this King Iames doth often protest that he claymeth no more right or Inrisdiction ouer the Church then did the Kings in the old Testament in ancient times and therfore that this his Primacy must be contayned within the same lymits termes that theirs was in the old TestameÌ„t But the Kings in the old Testament could not compell their subiects to sweare such an Oath as this I A. B. do openly testiâ—ie and in my conscience declare that Ieroboam is the only supreme Gouernour of this Kingdome of Israel aswell in spirituall as temporall matters And that no forrayner hath any iurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority in this Kingdome c. Ergo neyther King Iames can inforce his subiects to take such a like Oath The Maior is manifest out of his Maiestyes owne words in his Apology The Minor I thus explicate After the death of King Salomon his Kingdome God so disposing was deuided into two parts wherof one conteyned ten Tribes the other two So as by this meanes they became two distinct Kingdomes afterwards therin raigned two distinct Kings one wherof had no dependance of the other in temporall gouerment One was called King of Israel the other King of Iuda and both of theÌ„ had successours in their kingdomes The first Kings that ruled after the diuision of the kingdome made were Ieroboam King of Israel Roboam King of Iuda In eyther kingdome were Priestes and Leuites But the high or Chiefe Priest could not reside in both Kingdomes but only in one and that ordinarily in Iuda yet notwithstanding he was Head of all the Priestes Leuites that remayned in both Kingdomes Neither could Ieroboam lawfully say vnto his Priests and Leuites You shall not obey the High Priest that resideth in the Kingdome of Iuda but you shall obey me

THE ENGLISH IARRE OR DISAGREEMENT AMONGST the Ministers of great Brittaine CONCERNING the KINGES Supremacy VVritten in Latin by the Reuerend Father F. MARTINVS BECANVS of the Society of IESVS AND Professour in Diuinity And translated into English by I. W. P. Â¶ Imprinted Anno M. DC XII THE PREFACE TO the Catholikes of England GOD saue you Right HONOVRABLE and most worthy Champions Giue me leaue awhile to interrupt your patience And if it be not troublesome vnto you heare me a word or two I will not hould you long Two yeares agoe I wrote two little bookes concerning the Kings Primacy the one against the Apology and Preface Monitory of the High and Mighty Prince Iames King of Great-Brittaine the other against the Torture of Tortus or the Kings Chaplayne This thing your Academickes tooke heauily and preseÌ„tly waged warre against me in their Kings quarrell especially M. VVilliam Tooker M. Richard Tompson M. Robert Burhill and M. Henry Salclebridge Yet for all this I do not fly or feare Nay there be many reasons which make me more couragious First the equity of the Cause Then your Faith and Constancy And lastly the Iarres and deadly Discords of my Aduersaryes one against another Concerning the right of the Cause which I am to defend what need I say any thing I am to fight for the Church of Christ for the honour and Obedience of Prelates and for the example and custome of my Forefathers And heerin shall I feare any man Hath not your faith and constancy which is testified to the whole world by your daily imprisonments fetters punishmeÌ„ts yea death it self suffered for Christ already shakeÌ„ off my drowsinesse Whome would it not animate and spurre forwards seing that in this case I may with good reasoÌ„ apply that saying of the Apostle vnto you Spectaculum facti estis Deo Angelis Hominibus you are made a spectacle to God Angels and Men To God who behouldeth your Combats giueth you strengh to get the victory and prepareth a Crowne for your Triumph To Angells who admire that liuing in this frayle flesh you do not feare the mighty powers of Hell and withall reioyce that so valiant Champions are coÌ„mitted to their charge You are made a spectacle to men who throughout the whole world are wonderfully incensed and styrred vp by your example vertue and patience to vndergoe the like combats and conflicts for Christ. Besides this the disagreements and iarrings of my Aduersaries amongst theÌ„selues are so many and their forces so scattered disordered that I do not esteeme them to be greatly feared If perhaps you know not these their discords heere I offer and dedicate this little Booke vnto you wherin it is particulerly shewed in what points they disagree If your leasure serue you read it and hope well of the issue In the meane while I will prepare my selfe to the Combat and when it is tyme I shall intreat you to be the Spectators Fare ye well and take in good part I beseech you this mâ— Interpellation From Mentz this moneth of Nouember 1611. Your most louing friend Martin Becanus THE ENGLISH IARRE CONCERNING the Kings Supremacy THE Kinges Supremacy in the Church of England is a new thing It began vnder King Henry the 8. continued vnder King Edward the 6. and Queene Elizabeth and now vnder King Iames the same is rent and torne in peeces with so many domesticall iarres and diuisions that long it cannot stand So as Christ in the Ghospell said full well Omne regnum in se diuisum desolabitur Euery Kingdome deuided in it selfe shal be destroyed But what and how great these discords be I will shew in these few questions following I. VVhether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church or no II. VVhether the Primacy of the King be Ecclesiasticall and spirituall III. VVhether the King by this Primacy may be called the Primate of the Church IIII. VVhether by vertue of the same Primacy the K. may be called Supreme Head of the Church V. VVhether this Primacy consist in any Power or Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall VI. VVhether the King by reason of his Primacy can assemble or call togeather Councels and sit as President therin VII VVhether he can make Ecclesiasticall Lawes VIII VVhether he can dispose of Ecclesiasticall liuings or Benefices IX VVhether he can create and depose Bishops X. VVhether he can excommunicate the obstinate XI VVhether he can be Iudge and determine of Controuersies XII From whence hath the King this his Primacy XIII VVhether he can force his Subiects to take the Oath of Supremacy In these QuestioÌ„s do our Aduersaries extremely differ and disâ—gree but especially these M. Doctor Andrewes in his Tortura Torti M. William Tooker Deane of Lichefield in his Combat or single Fight with Martin Becanus M. Richard Tompson in his Reproofe of the Refutation of Tortura Torti M. Robert Burhill in his Defence of Tortura Torti and M. Henry Salclebridge in his Refutation of Becanus his examen Besides these as opposite vnto them I will also cite Doctor Sanders in his booke of the Schisme of EnglaÌ„d Genebard in his Chronology Polydor Virgil in his History of England Iacobus Thuanus of Aust in the History of his tyme Iohn Caluin in his Commentary vpon the Prophet Amos and others The I. Question vvhether the King of England haue any Primacy in the Church 1 THE first Iarre or contention then is concerning the Name of Primacy Many of our Aduersaries admit this Name but M. Richard Tompson had rather haue it called Supremacy then Primacy His reason is because Primacy doth signify a power of the same Order Now the King hath not power in the Church of England of the same Order with Bishops and Ministers but a power of higher and different Order from them Ergo he hath not the Primacy but the Supremacy The words of M. Tompson pag. 33. of his booke are these Nos in Anglico nostro idiomate belliores longÃ¨ sumus quÃ m per inopiam Latini sermonis nobis LatinÃ¨ esse licuit Non enim dicimus The Kings Primacy Regis Primatum sed The Kings Supremacy Regis Suprematum Quo vocabulo nos quoque deinceps vtemur MultÃ¹m enim disserunt Primatus Suprematus Illud enim Potestatem eiusdem Ordinis videtur significare hoc non item We in our English tongue do speake much more properly then we can do in the Latin speach through the penury therof For we do not say The Kings Primacy but The Kings Supremacy which word we will heerafter vse For that Primacy and Supremacy do greatly differ Primacy seeming to signify a power of the same Order but Supremacy not so 2. Out of which words we gather two things The one that all Englishmen who vse the Name of Primacy do eyther erre or speake improperly if we belieue M. Tompson For if they speake properly seing that the word Primacy doth properly signify a Power of the same Order they do plainely vnderstand that the

Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Text snippets containing the quad