Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	archbishop_n	bishop_n	church_n	3,423	5	4.3453	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

statuchatur vt si quae p●rsonae in L●uitico non prohibitae solo cons●nsu per verba de praesenti matrimonium nulla carnis copula subsecuta contraxerint●eae verò ambae postea vel earum altera nuptijs cum altera persona in L●uitico non prohibita contractis ca●nali copula easd●m consumma ●erint hae post●riores quas firmasset copula non priores illae quas solus cons●nsus sta●u●ss●t ratae atque legitimae haber●ntur adeo vt cùm olim iuris Gentium fuiss●t Regula Nuptias non concubitus sed consensus facit ●am dein●●ps H●nrici r●gula esse coeperit Nuptias non consen●us sed concubitus facit Et tam●n ips● Legis-lator contra suam ipsius regulam vxorem Annam Cliu●ns●m cuius nuptias non solo consensu sed sept●m etiam mensium concu●itu firmau●rat eo solùm praetextu r●iccit i●saque viu●nte aliam superinduxit quòd alt●ri nes●io cui cons●nsum antea praebuisse fin●●r●tur Huius ergo legis tantop●re postea puduit ipsos Prot●stant●s vt mortuo Henrico eam ipsi r●uocauerint atque irritam f●c●rint c In these dayes the most vigilan● Pastor of the Church K. H●nry that it might be knowne to posterity what woman were lawfully married to another enacted a perpetuall law concerning Marriage authorizing the same by publicke Decree of Parlament wherin it was orda●ned that if any persons not prohibited in the Leuiticall law should contract marriage by only consent and by words de praes●nti no carnall copulation following the same and that the said persons or eyther of them ●hould afterward contra●t with another person not prohibited in the Leuiticall law consumm●te the same by carnall copulation that then these later contractes which were consūmated by carnall copulation not the former that were agreed vpon by only consent should be accompted for good and lawfull In so much tha● wheras the rule of the law of Nations in old tyme was That consent not carnall copulation did make the marriage lawfull now heereafter by the law of K. Henry it began to be a rule That carnall copulation not consent did make marriage lawfull And yet for all this the law-maker himselfe K. Henry did against his owne proper rule and law reiect Anne of Cleeue his wife whose marriage was not only contracted by consent alone but consummated also by seauen moneths carnall copulation vpon this only pretence that she had giuen her consent to another before I know not whome and vpon this fiction he married another she yet remayning aliue And of this law afterward the Protestants themselues were so much ashamed that after K. Henryes death they recalled and disanulled the same c. 2. Concerning his Vicar Generall Cromwell thus wryteth also the said Doctor Sanders in the same booke Septembri mense authoritate sua Vicaria Canones quosdam Ecclesiasticos quos Iniunctiones vocabat sigillo Vicariatus sui munitos Archiepis●opis Episcopis Abbatibus reliquo Clero praescripsit in quibus praeter cetera iube●antur Parochi sub grauissimis poenis vt Orationem Dominicam cum salutatione Angelica Symbolum item fidei decem Decalogi praecepta aliaque huiusmodi Anglicè in posterum in Ecclesijs docerent In the moneth of September K. Henryes Vicar Generall by the authority of his Office prescribed certayne Ecclesiasticall Canons which he called Iniunctions signed with the seale of his Office of Vicar-Generall to the Archbishops Bishops Abbots and the rest of the Clergy wherin among●t other things the Pastors of C●urches were com●●nded vnder most seuere punishmēt herafter to read in their Churches the Lords prayer the Aue Mary the Creed and ten Comaundements in English c. 3. Now our English Aduersaries that wryte in these daies of the Kings Supremacy do not agree in this point For that some of them say that the enacting of decreeing of Ecclesiasticall lawes doth by diuine right belong vnto Bishops others say that it belongeth to Kings and Emperours The first opinion holdeth M. Tooker pag. 42. of his booke where he saith that the Apostles in the first Councell at Hierusalem did enact this Ecclesiasticall law Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria vt abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulachrorum sanguine suffocato It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things that you abstayne frō the things immolated to Idols and from bloud and that which is strangled c. And this saith he the Apostles did by diuine right The other opinion holdeth M. Tompson pag. 80. where he affirmeth that Bishops and Councels cannot enact or decree any Ecclesiasticall law which hath the force of law vnlesse Kings and Emperours consent therunto His words are these Decreta Conciliorum Patrum Ecclesiasticis Censuris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tantùm stetiss●nt nisi legum vim Caesarea aura ipsis afflasset The Decrees of the Councels and of the Fathers had bene held but only for Ecclesiasticall censures and penalties vnlesse the Emperours fauour had imparted the force of lawes vnto the said Decrees c. 4. Heere now the Iarre is euident For without doubt that Ecclesiasticall law which the Apostles decreed had the force of a law for that so much is gathered out of these words Visum est nihil vltra imponere vobis oneris nisi haec necessaria It hath seemed good to lay no further burthen vpon you then these necessary things c. But this Ecclesiasticall law had not it force from any fauour of the Emperor seing that neither Tyberius nor Pilate nor Herod nor any other fecular Prince which then liued did by his fauour authorize the force of the law but that it came from the Apostles themselues For that they by their Apostolicall authority and power which they had receiued from Christ did decree and promulgate that law And the same power authority haue Bishops now a dayes not Kings nor Emperours VIII Question vvhether the King by his owne proper authority may conferre collate or bestow Ecclesiasticall benefices 1. THAT the King may conferre Ecclesiasticall liuings M. Henry Salclebridge affirmeth pag. 121 in these wordes Christiani Principes in suis R●●ni● 〈…〉 authoritate ben●ficia contul●runt 〈…〉 in their owne Kingdomes by their owne proper authority haue giuen or bestowed benefices and that to their praise c. And then againe pag. 150. Audin I●suita non modò collationes ben●ficiorum ad Angliae Reg●s sp●c●are sed ad eosd●m illos spectare vti Ecclesiae Anglicanae Primates vel supremos Ordinarios c. Do you heare Iesuite the collation of benefices doth not only belong to the Kings of England but also it doth belong vnto them as they are Primates or supreme Ordinaries of the Church of England c. And yet more Rex ratione supremae suae Ecclesiasticae iurisdictionis praesentabit ad liberas Capellas

The King by vertue of his supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction shall be able to present vnto Free Chappell 's c. 2. Now M. Tooker to the contrary denyeth it pag. 36. where talking of the Kings of England he saith thus Beneficia autem curata vel non curata non conf●runt omnino in quempiam maiora minoráue multò minus dignitates Ecclesiasticas siue Episcopatus siue Archiepiscopatus per vniuersum ambitum Regni sui Eorum certè collatio vel institutio est quorum est destitutio id est Episcoporum Comprouincialium qui potestat●m habent personas ipsas sacrandi Hoc habet iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet ius inquā n●minandi praesentandi apud nos c. Kings do not at all collate or bestow vpon any man benefices that haue care of soules or not care greater or lesser much lesse Ecclesiasticall dignities whether Bishopri●kes or Archbishoprickes throughout the whole circuite of their Kingdomes For this truly belongeth vnto those whose office it is to dispose therof to wit to the Comprouinciall Bishops who haue power to consecrate the said persons on whome they bestow them Indeed the Kings Majesty notwithstanding hath this right with vs in Englād which an inferiour and subordinate power also hath to wit right to nominate and present vnto benefices c. 3. Behould heere a triple Iarre or discord betwene these two Authors and this in a dayly and vulgar matter The first is that M. Henry Salclebridg saith that the collation of benefices belongeth to the Kings of England in that they be the Primates of the Church of England M. Tooker saith to the contrary that it belongeth not to Kings at all but to Bishops The second Iarre is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by their owne authority haue conferred benefices M. Tooker saith that they neuer do nor haue done The third is that M. Salclebridge saith that Kings by vertue of their supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction may present vnto benefices M. Tooker auerreth that in this point Kings haue no more right then their subiects other inferiour persons for so he saith Hoc ha●et iuris Regia Maiestas quod minor subordinata potestas habet The Kings Maiesty hath in this point of conferring benefices the same right that an inferiour subordinate power hath c. Whether of these two then should King Iames belieue if he had a fat benefice or an Archbishopricke now to bestow IX Question VVhether the King can create and depose Bishops or no 1. MAISTER Salclebridge saith that he can For thus he writeth pag. 121. Christiani Principes in suis Regnis cum laude propria authoritate Episcopos crearunt deposuerunt Christian Prices haue in their Kingdomes by their owne proper authority created and deposed Bishops and that with praise c. And then againe pag. 144. Rex Angliae Archidiacono Richmundiae Episcopal●m concessit Iurisdictionem The King of England graunted Episcopall Iurisdiction to the Archdeacon of Richmond c. And yet further pag. 155. Reges Angliae suprema sua authoritate de iure atque cum laude omnium Ordinum Episcopos eleger●nt ac proinde deponere potu●runt The Kings of England of their owne supreme authority by right with praise of all māner Estates haue elected Bishops and therfore they might depose them also c. And then lastly Constat Christianos Prin●ipes cum laude Episcopos elegisse deposuisse etiam Romanos It is manifest that Christian Princes haue elected deposed Bishops yea Popes also and that with their praise c. 2. Now M. Tooker he denyes in the place before cited that the King can create or depose Bishops For there he assigning two things necessary for the ordayning or creating of a Bishop to wit Consecratiō of the person a Bishopricke addeth that the King can performe neyther of these two For neyther can he confer any benefice● and much lesse a Bishopricke or Archbishopricke neyther hath he any power to cōsecrate persons In so much that in another place he confesseth that it is so far off from King Iames to haue power to create or depose Bishops that he would rather acknowledg himselfe for one of their schollers and Disciples For thus he wryteth pag. 311. Serenissimus ac pientissimus Rex noster Iacobus non habet quicquam antiquius honorificentius quàm vt cum Valentiniano filium se Ecclesiae profiteatur cum Theodorico Italiae Rege se alumnum Ecclesiae discipulum Archiepiscoporum suorum Episcoporum libenter recognoscat Our most Gratious and most pious King Iames doth esteeme or accompt nothing more noble and more honorable then with Valentinian the Emperour to professe himselfe a sonne of the Church and with Theodoricus King of Italy most willingly to acknowledge himselfe a foster-child of the Church and a disciple of his Archbishops and Bishops c. 3. This Iarre now as you see is of great momēt For if the King cannot create or ordaine Bishops as M. Tooker saith he cannot then it followeth euidently that Thomas Cranmer who was made Archbishop of Canterbury by the King Henry the 8. was no true but a false Bishop no pastour but a robber one that entred not into the sheepfold by the dore but climbed vp some other way Whereof againe ensue three other markable points First that all other Bishops who were afterward eyther created by Crāmer or by the King were like vnto Cranmer himselfe Secondly whatsoeuer was done of them by Episcopall authority or Iurisdiction was of no validity or force Thirdly that they so ordained are bound to restitution of all reuenewes and profits which they haue reaped by their Bishopricks What coun●●ll now is there to be taken in this point Let your Academicks I pray you consider X. Question VVhether the King can excommunicate his obstinate subiects or no 1. HEERE now do our aduersaries ranke their King amongst ordinary men what they graunted vnto him before heere now they seeme to reuoke For they say that the King cannot excommunicate any of his subiects and yet himselfe may be excommunicated by them and expelled out of the Church of England wherof himself is supreme Head The former part herof doth M. Tooker affirme pag. 15. in these worlds Rex non habet potestatem distringendi gladium spiritualem vel quempiam excōmunicandi The King hath no power to vnsheath the spirituall sword nor to excommunicate any man c. And the Chaplaine my Lord of Ely pag. 151. saith Nos Principi censurae potestatem non facimus We do not giue authority to our Prince to vse Censures c. And againe M. Tompson pag. 83. Excōmunicare nullo modo ad Supr●matum Ecclesiae pertinet To excommunicate doth no way belong to the Supremacy of the Church And againe pag. 84. Omnes fatemur R●gem excomunicandi potestatem nullam habere We do all confesse that the King hath no power to excommunicate c.