Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	11,089	5	11.2647	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67871	A just vindication of the questioned part of the reading of Edward Bagshaw, Esq; an apprentice of the common law. Had in the Middle Temple Hall the 24th day of February, being Munday, anno Dom. 1639. upon the statute of 25 E.3. called, Statutum pro clero, from all scandalous aspersions whatsoever. With a true narrative of the cause of silencing the reader by the then Archbishop of Canterbury: with the arguments at large of those points in his reading, for which he was questioned at the Council-Board.	Bagshaw, Edward, d. 1662.	1660 (1660)	Wing B396; ESTC R208288	31,311	44

reason that upon the grievous complaint of the Commons 25 H. 8. cap. 14. That the cruel Statute of 2 H. 4. and a Proviso in the Act That men should not be questioned for Heresie for maintaining Opinions against the humane Laws and Policies of the Bishop of Rome but for Opinions that were contrary to Holy Scripture And accordingly was the resolution of the Judges Trin. 9. Jac. Rot. 2248. in a prohibition to the High Commission in Sir Henry Vinor Pellings Case That Heresie shall not be understood all that which the Canon-Law makes Heresie but that which is contrary to the Holy Scripture and the four first General Councels according to the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. And with this agreeth that true and ancient Definition of Heresie by old Grosted Bishop of Lincoln in H. 3. time Haeresis saith he in Greek is Electio in Latine Et est sententia humana sensu electa sacrae Scripturae contraria palam acta pertinaciter defensa Quest 2. The second Question and which fully decides the point of my Case is this Who shall be Judge in the conviction of an Heretick Whether the proper Diocesan according to the opinion of this Civilian and other Civilians agreeing with him or according to the opinion of Fitz Herbert it must be by the Convocation of the Clergy of the Province And I hold That the Bishop of the Diocess is not to be the onely Judge but that it must be done by the Convocation of the Clergy of the Province Which because of this opposition against me I will prove first by Reason secondly by Authority thirdly by Example 1. For the First The ancient Ecclesiastical Laws of England never gave further power to the Bishop or Ordinary but according to his Calling to proceed to Ecclesiastical Censure not to fine and imprison much less to kill or burn which are temporal acts not spiritual until this power was given them by the Statute of 2 H. 4. Onely I find that before this time a Bishop had a greater priviledge over a Clergy-man than over a Lay-man For by the Constitutions of Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury temp. H. 3. Lind. fol. 141. a Clergy-man might be imprisoned by his own Ordinary in two cases spiritual Fornication as Heresie and corporal Fornication as Incontinency as appears by that Constitution and the Statute of 1 H. 7. cap. 4. still in force But when as Heresie came to be punished with death the Law would not trust the Ordinary alone in such a case but referred it to the whole Province of the Clergy for these two Reasons 1. The power which the Law gave to the proper Ordinaries was that of the Master to the Servant or rather of the Husband to the Wife to admonish and correct not to kill and burn 2. For avoiding of partiality and ignorance which might be in one man but could not so easily be suspected to be in many and therefore the condemnation of an Heretick was done with great solemnity as the Writ supposeth N. bre 269. Thomas Archiepiscopus Cant. c. de consilio consen su omnium Coepiscoporum nec non totius Provinciae suae in concilio suo Provinciali congre gati c. 2. And according to these Reasons are in the second place the Authorities of Law Fitz Herberts Opinion fol. 269. D. the form of the Writ mentioning it to be done by the Clergy of the Province Neither is there any Writ to be found which gave the power to the Bishop alone It is the resolution in Cawdries Case 5. Rep. fol. 23. and 2 Mar. Little Brooke That the conviction of an Heretick must be by the Clergy in their Convocation for all the while the Statute of 2 H. 4. was in force this Writ was not used by reason of the Act for the Sheriff might by that Act meerly by the command of the Bishop without the Kings Writ burn Hereticks Which was for that reason taken away by the Statute of 25 H. 8. and afterward revived by 1 Mar. whereupon in her days two cruel Bishops Gardiner and Bonner did burn more Hereticks then were burned from H. 4. time till 1 Mar. And a very strange and lazie Reason is given by the Judges 2 Mar. Br●●●it Heresie why a Bishop should convict and burn an Heretick without a Writ Purcee q. fuit troublesom de appellex Convocation de tout l' Province Because it was troublesome to call a Convocation 3. I will prove it by the aptest Example which can be named viz. William Sawtree so named in the Writ who was burnt in the time of the Statute of 2 H. 4. and was the Protomartyr the first in England that was burnt for Heresie who was convicted by the whole Convocation of the Clergy as appears by the Writ Fitz. Nat. bre 269. and the Acts of the Church at that time This William Sawtree was of Pembrook-Hall in Cambridge which hath this Honour that Martyrum primus Martyrum doctissimus and Martyrum piissimus were all of Pembrook-Hall Martyrum primus was William Sawtree Martyrum doctissimus was Bishop Ridley Bishop of London and Martyrum piissimus was John Bradford Prebend of Pauls both burnt in Queen Maries days William Sawtree was Parson of St. Margarets in Lynne within Norwich Diocess The Bishop of Norwich quickly met with him before whom he did abjure and afterward relapsing upon the Certificate of his own Bishop he was by Thomas Arundel then Archbishop of Canterbury the framer and contriver of that Act of 2 H. 4. as I can prove and the whole Province of Canterbury convicted of Heresie And although the Statute of 2 H. 4. was made ere he was burnt yet the Prelates were fearfull to proceed according to the new form in that new Act but proceeded against him according to the ancient course of Law by conviction in the Convocation His notorious Heresies were these 1. That he would sooner worship a temporal King or any other man rather then a wooden Crossor Crucisix 2. That a Priest or Deacon was more bound to preach the Word of God then to say the Canonical hours 3. That after the words of Consecration the Bread was bread us it was before and not the Body of Christ The Objections against this my opinion by that learned Dr. of Law are two Authorities cited by him but no reason of them given at all Object The first is 10 H. 7. fol. 17. b. to prove that a Bishop may convict for Heresie before the Act of 2 H. 4. Answ. To which I answer There is no such thing but rather the contrary For that which is there said is onely the opinion of Frowick viz. That a Bishop may by the Statute arrest for Heresie whereas before he could but for that or any other Ecclesiastical matter send out onely a Citation Certainly if he could not arrest which is the less he could not condemn to the fire which is the greater Object That he heard in Queen

agreeable to Law according to what I had done and held in my Reading without wavering or warping at all And told the House That by the Ancient Laws of the Land the Crown of England was founded in the state of Prelacy and ever since there was a Christian King of England there was a Bishop That it was so Incorporated into Monarchy that the ruine of one would hazard the ruine of the other That it was so interwoven with the Common Law in so many Original Writs that the destruction of it would take away one of the chiefest Peers of the Common Law for learning and Pleading in Ecclesiastical matters That as the Common Law was favourable to Clergy-men and gave them more priviledges then any Humane Law they could name so it was strict in correcting and punishing them of what rank soever if they transgressed that Law And had Judges done their duties according to their Oaths and Places by granting Prohibitions to the High Commission in causes wherein they had no power to hold Plea and Writs of Habeas Corpus to such persons whom they had fined and imprisoned without cause Bishops and Presbyters might for ought I know have been long since happily agreed who clashing together like two Flints and thereby striking fire some sparks of that fire falling against both their wils upon the black Tinder of Independency inflamed such a violent and furious party of unreasonable men quite of another shape as that by the just judgment of God for these their unnatural contentions joyned with the sins of the Nation they became instrumental quite to ruine the one and almost destroy the other And I was then and am still of opinion That the Crown of England being a Monarchy bound up by such apt Laws for the benefit and peace of Prince and People and so apted for the Order and Jurisdiction of Bishops that I hold it the fittest for this Nation of any in the Christian world And I think I am able within my Sphere and Profession to maintain it against any Adversary Et cedo mihi quemvis Arbitrum And here I have just occasion to profess to all the world as in truth I do That I was so far from the very thoughts of destroying Bishops that observing at the time of my Reading and divers years before the great invasions that were made by them upon the common Law of England and the Courts of Westminster Hall and the scorn and contempt at that time cast abroad upon Professors and the very Profession of the Law I knew no other way how to hold them up in their Functions and just jurisdictions and in esteem and Honour amongst the people which once they had as by Reading upon that Law which gave them their just bounds and limits which if once they should break down I ever feared their ruine and destruction That like Deare breaking the Pale they exposed themselves to the fury of the people to be by them hunted chased and at last destroyed and the whole Clergy of England from whom they received their Orders eminently endangered And in this opinion of my fear I had the concurrence of a most Honourable person whom I much honoured Living and lamented Dead Edward Lord Mountague of Boughton scarce then to be parallelled for Piety Wisdom and Gravity in the whole Nation And how sad experience hath brought to pass what I then feared I shall say no more but silence my self in the words of that Kingly Prophet Obmutui quia tu Domine fecisti And thus have I cleared my self from the aspersions and scandals of two opposite parties whom it was impossible for me to please The one accusing me of Faction that I set bounds and limits to Episcopacy the other of Apostacy that contrary to Law I would not take it quite away And my sticking close to this opinion abhorrency of taking the Scotch Covenant tending to the utter abolition of Episcopacy was the alone ground of that load of afflictions which lay long upon my Body and Estate which had quite overwhelmed me had not God been a most gracious Father then unto me by supporting and comforting me with his Staff under that Rod of his corrections giving me patience to suffer rather then to sin and to resolve in the words of Zuinglius Mallem mille mortes obire quam contra conscientiam attestari And in this my just Vindication I acknowledge my self much beholden to that Learned and Ingenious Gentleman who lately hath Printed the Life and Death of the late King Charles wherein he hath acquitted me from such Misreports and Scandals cast upon me for my Reading And hath truly for substance related those points of Law for which I was questioned in my Reading only he hath failed in some circumstances in that relation and in the causes of my Silencing by the Archbishop which I shall now rectifie that best can do it that in case that Gentleman shall have occasion hereafter to revise his History by a second Edition he may Correct the same according to that Narrative I shall now declare wherein I shall pursue his own Method from the beginning to the end touching that Relation and so conclude It is very true as he there saith That my Reading in the Middle Temple Hall was the 24 day of February Anno Dom. 1639. in that very year the troubles were in Scotland and the Scots were preparing an Army for England masking their misdeeds against their native Prince under specious pretences of Religion which mockery of Almighty God he hath since avenged on them with a witness which they both find and feel at this day But yet my Reading was Compiled two years before and so compleated as that I could not alter it finding no cause so to do in that my Reading had no manner of reference to the pretended matters of that impious Quarrel He proceedeth and saith thus Mr. Bagshawe intended to meddle with Prohibitions but not with Tacitus to follow Truth too near the Heeles for feare of his Teeth nor too far off least he loose it and so neither to offend nor to be offended This I confess was in substance much to the sense of what I spake though not in those words and therefore I will repeat that part of my Speech which I made to the Benchers Barresters and Gentlemen of the Middle Temple at the beginning of my Reading in these very words In the choice of my Statute I was much perplexed I first pitched upon the Stat. of Articuli Cleri 9 E. 2 the five first Chapters concerning Prohibitions an excellent but an angry Law especially to such men who love not to be restrained in their Jurisdiction and therefore I left it and fell upon a more pleasing Law the Statute of 13 E. 1 called Circumspectè agatis of Consultations which gave the Clergy such Jurisdiction that no Prohibition could take from them Herein I rested long I divided that Statute gathered many Cases upon it