Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	great_a	king_n	person_n	6,552	5	4.7549	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A17925	Certaine considerations drawne from the canons of the last Sinod, and other the Kings ecclesiasticall and statue law ad informandum animum Domini Episcopi Wigornensis, seu alterius cuiusuis iudicis ecclesiastici, ne temere & inconsulto prosiliant ad depriuationem ministrorum Ecclesiæ: for not subscription, for the not exact vse of the order and forme of the booke of common prayer, heeretofore provided by the parishioners of any parish church, within the diocesse of Worcester, or for the not precise practise of the rites, ceremonies, & ornaments of the Church.	Babington, Gervase, 1550-1610.	1605 (1605)	STC 4585; ESTC S120971	54,648	69

as he was perswaded grounded vpon the holy commandement of the most high God that he durst not for feare of wounding his owne conscience and displeasing God to weare the surplice in any part of Divine worship For if the request of an earthly king superior to an Archb. be a reasonable excuse to save a BB. from contempt against an Archb. How much more ought the authoritie and precept of an heavenly king be a iust and reasonable impediment to save a minister from contempt against a Bishops admonitiō Vnlesse then a Bishop will avow and be able out of holy writ to iustifie that a Ministers conscience especially a Ministers conscience who walketh as Zakarias did in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord without reproofe can not be any iust or reasonable excuse or impediment why he ought not or may not or will not in Divine worship weare a surplice being thervnto admonished by his ordinary vnles I say the Bishop out of holy writ be able fully to prove that such a Ministers conscience is no iust or reasonable cause to stay him from wearing a surplice in Divine worship in this case I say that even by the Romish canon law it self there can no contempt be charged vpon such a Minister for not obeying his ordinaries first second third admonitions the reasons whereof even out of the same canon law have bene alleadged before in the first parte of these cōsiderations But to leave the foraine canon law and all the rules thereof as being no branches of the Ecclesiasticall lawes of England let it be granted that before the statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. some canon or constitution Synodall or Provinciall had bene made or since have bene made by the Clergie of the Realme in their cōvocation assembled by the Kings writ that a Parson or Vicare for periurie or contempt ecclesiasticall should bee deprived of his benefice neverthelesse it seemeth that the same is a voide canon and a void constitution Because it is contrary or repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realme By which lawes and customes no free man of the Realme can be dispossessed of his franck tenement for contempt or periury in any of the kings temporall Courts All Parsons and Vicars then canonically instituted inducted being not subiects at this day to any forain power but being freemen of the Realme in as large and ample maner as any Layickes the Kings other subiects be it seemeth that a Parson Vicare by the lawes and customes of the Realme being a Freehoulder should for none other cause loose his Freehould then for the which like cause a Layicke may loose his Yea and because no Layicke by the laws customes of the Realme may bee put from his Freehould for contempt no though the same cōtempt be committed against the kings Proclamation or any decree made in his high Courte of Chancerie by so much the more vnreasonable it seemeth to be that a Parson or Vicare for contempt against his ordinaries admonition should bee deprived from his benefice by how much a contempt against the Kings commaundement is more heinous then is a contempt against the ordinaries admonition You mistake the cases as it seemeth you vnderstand not the law The Freehold of a layick and the Freehold of an ecclesiasticall person be not of one nature The former belongeth vnto him by a title invested in his person but the latter apperteyneth vnto a Church-man in the right of his Church If then the Churchman be displaced from his Church it followeth by a necessary cōsequence that he must likewise be discharged from his freehold For he being in the eye of the law dead vnto his Church can no more enioy the freehold which he held in the right of his Church then can a dead Layick any longer holde a Franktenement in right of his person And for your better satisfaction herein I would have you to consider that the like course of Iustice is kept and ministred against certeine officers in the common weale which officers so soone as for any iust cause they shall be put frō their offices doe withall and forthwith loose such their freeholdes as iointly with their offices and in regard of their offices they held The Maister of the Rolles and Warden of the Fleete having their offices graunted for terme of life though other of them by the same graunt be seised of a freehold the one of the house called the Rolles the other of the house called the Fleete nevertheles if the first bee put from his Mastership and the second from his Wardenship neither can the one nor the other by the law and iustice of the Realme reteyne either of those houses as his Freehold For as the houses were iointly with their offices in respect of their offices granted So their offices being once taken from thē they must withal by necessary consequence forgo those their houses w ch for the time they held as their freeholds Well if this be all that may gaynesay our position then be not our cases mistaken neither yet have we so ignorantly vrged applied the law and free customes of the Realme as you would beare vs in hande For though we grant whatsoever you have excepted to be true yet can not the same be a barre against our pleading For wee have hetherto pleaded no more in effect but thus viz. that a Parson or Vicar during his ministeriall function being in the eye of the law no dead but a living person and a free man of the Realme ought no more for a contempt vnto his Ordinaries admonition by any law of he Realme bee dispossessed from the freehold which in right of his function he enioyeth then can a Layicke for contempt vnto the Kings commandement be disseised of his And what if the Freeholdes of a Layick of an ecclesiastical person be as you say they be diversly possessed the one by right of church the other by right of person what doeth this I say impugne our saying that no Freeholder for cōtempt of the Kings cōmandment may be punished with losse of his freehold whē the great Charter of England telleth vs that a freemā shall not be amerced for a small fault but after the quantity of the fault And for a great fault after the maner therof saving to him his contenement or freehold If then vnto every freemā punishable by the law though his fault be great his Contenement or Freehold ought to be reserved it seemeth much more reasonable to follow that no Churchman being a freeman of the Realme may for contempt be punished with losse of his Contenement or Freehold And that you may consider against our next conference more deeply of this matter let me put this case vnto you viz. That a Churchman and a temporall person both freemen of the Realme for one and the selfe same contempt against the king were punishable by the great Lordes in the starre chamber

the same offence suffer imprisonment for the space of sixe monethes without bayle or mainprise Now by the letter of this branch it can not be denied but that foure severall kindes of offences mencioned in the same by what soever minister they shal be committed are every of them punishable alike by one and the self same maner of peyne notwithstanding the offences seeme to be of divers natures One consisting in the refusall of the vse of common prayer an other in the refusall of the administration of the Sacramentes in such order and forme as they be mencioned and set foorth in the said booke A third vpon a wilfull and obstinate standing in the same in vsing some other rite or ceremonie then is mencioned and set foorth in the said booke And a fourth in speaking against or depraving the booke or any part thereof As for the which speaking against or depraving the booke the letter of the Statute seemeth to bee so playne as that no maner scruple can be moved what the minde intendement of the Parliament was about the speakers against or depravers thereof But touching the offence of a Ministers refusing to vse the said cōmon prayers and of his refusing to minister the Sacramentes in such order and forme as they be mencioned set forth in the said booke and wilfully obstinately standing in the same of his vsing any other rite or ceremonie then is mencioned c. these Queres following reallie and properly arise from the letter of the foresaide two former branches For seeing there is no mention at all made of rites and ceremonies in the former branch and seeing also there is no punishment by the second branch mencioned to be inflicted vpon a Minister for the refusall of the vse of rites and ceremonies but onely vpon a wilfull and obstinate standing in the same for the vse of other rites and ceremonies then are mentioned and set foorth in the saide booke it seemeth doubtfull and questionable First Quaere Whether a Minister conscionably refusing to vse some of the rites and ceremonies mencioned and set forth in the saide booke be punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed vnles wilfully obstinately standing in the same hee shall vse any other rite or ceremonie then is mencioned c. Second Quaere If a Minister that is bound to minister the Sacrament of Batisme doe not refuse to minister the same Sacrament in such order and forme as is mencioned set forth in the said booke but shall in very deed and trueth minister the same Sacrament in such order and forme as is mencioned and set foorth in the said booke whether the same Minister bee punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed for not making a crosse or not signing the childe in the forehead with a crosse after the sacrament of Baptisme is fully and perfectly ministred For so this sacrament bee ministred in such order and forme and with such rites and ceremonies preceeding baptisme as be mencioned in the said booke and none other rite or ceremony with wilful obstinacie be vsed in the ministration of Baptisme it seemeth cleere by the letter and sense of the Statute that the Minister is not punishable before the Kings Iustices by the peyne of imprisonment c. for omission of the crosse after baptisme For this fact of not crossing after baptisme not being within the letter of the Statute it is absurd to say that the same fact should be punishable by the law when as the same fact is not within but without the compasse scope and letter of the law That this omission of crossing is an omission after the ministration of Baptisme and not an omission of the order forme mencioned to bee in the ministration of Baptisme is made cleere vnto vs by the decree of all the Lordes spirituall and Clergie by the Kings confirmation vnder the great seale of England by the opinion of some great Lawyers Iudges published in open seates of Iustice For this hath ben decreed confirmed and published that the making of a crosse and signing the childe in the forehead with a crosse is no parte of the sacrament of Baptisme and that baptisme is fully and perfectlie ministred without these rites and ceremonies This case then of the omission of the crosse after baptisme being most cleere by such a cloud of witnesses that the same is not an omission of that order and forme appointed to be in the ministration of Baptisme it seemeth to be a thing most cleere that a minister by the letter of the Statute is no more punishable before the Kings Iustices for omission of the Crosse after Baptisme then is any person by the letter of the Statute of Queene Mary punishable by the Kings Iustices for maliciouslie or contemptuously molesting letting vexing or troubling or by any other vnlawful wayes or meanes disquieting or misvsing any Preacher not in but after his sermon preaching or collation Third Quaere Whether a Minister that ought or should say common prayer in any parish Church bee punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner and forme before expressed if he shall not refuse to vse all but shall vse some of the said common prayers in such order and forme as they be mencioned and set forth in the said booke For it is not said in this clause if he refuse to vse all or any of the said prayers but it is saide if the Minister that ought to singe or say common prayer mencioned in the same booke refuse to vse the said common prayers c. If then he observe the order and forme of the booke by saying some of the prayers in that order and forme as they bee mencioned in the booke though hee say not all and singuler the prayers it seemeth by the letter of the statute that he is not punishable before the Kings Iustices Indeed if the booke had appointed but two prayers onely as it hath appointed but two Sacraments only and the Minister in this case should haue refused to say one prayer and only have said the other prayer in this case it seemeth to be without all controversie that hee should have violated the law because the letter of the law sayth if he shall refuse to vse the said common prayers which word prayers being of the plurall nomber must conteyne two prayers at the least Fourth Quaere Whether a Minister that ought or should vse the rites and ceremonies mencioned in the said booke of common prayer be punishable before the Kings Iustices in maner forme before expressed if he shall not refuse to vse all but shall vse some of the said rites and ceremonies in such order forme as they be mencioned and set forth in the said booke For it is not enacted that the Minister shall vse all and every the said rites ceremonies or if he shall refuse to vse any of the saide rites and ceremonies but it is said

provided to bee worne the Surplice may not be worne For the better manifestation whereof it is necessary that we set downe the wordes of the Statute of the parish booke and of the booke of the second of K. Edw. the sixth vnto which booke of king Edward for the vse of ornaments the Ministers be referred both by the parish booke statute of 1. Eliza. c. 2. the wordes of which statute are these Provided alwayes and be it enacted That such ornamentes of the Church and of the Ministers shall be retayned and be in vse as was in the church of England by authoritie of Parliament in the second yeare of the raigne of King Edward the 6. vntill other order shal be therein taken by authoritie of the Queenes Matestie with the advise of her Commissioners appointed and authorised vnder the great seale of England for causes Ecclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme Thus farre the statute the wordes of the parish booke follow It is to be noted that the Minister at the time of the Communion and other times in his ministration shall vse such ornamentes in the Church as were in vse by authoritie of Parliament in the second yeare of King Edw. the sixth according to the act of Parliament in that case enacted and provided The wordes of which booke of the second of King Edward are these Vpon the day and at the time appointed for the ministration of the holy Communion the Priest that shall execute the holy ministerie shall put vpon him the vesture appointed for that ministration that is to say A white Albe playne with a vestiment or cope Afterward it is said thus Vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes the English Letany shal be said or song c. And though there he none to communicate with the Priest yet those dayes after the Let any ended the Priest shall put vpon him a playne Albe or Surplice with a Cope and say all things at the Altar c. From all which places it is plaine First that no Minister at any time vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes after the Letany ended was bound simplie to weare a surplice at the Altare for it was in his choyse to put vpon him a playne Albe or Surplice with a Cope Secondly that no Priest vpon the day and at the time appointed for the Ministration of the holy communion might put vpon him a Surplice but only a white Albe playne with a vestiment or Cope Thirdly that no Minister vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes when hee read the Letany did weare or was bound to weare an Albe or Surplice and Cope For it had bene in vayne and a thing ridiculouse for the booke to have willed the Minister after the Letany ended to put vpon him those ornamentes if in the time of reading the Letany hee had had them vpon his backe Fourthly that no minister at or in any of the times services aforesaid is bound to put vpō him a Surplice vnlesse therewithall he weare a Cope For the vse of ornamentes ought to be according to the act of Parliament And therefore where no Cope there by the act no Surplice where no Altar to goo vnto after the Letany ended there no Surplice to be put on after the Letany where a Communion with a white Albe plaine a vestiment or Cope there a cōmunion without a Surplice There is yet one other speciall observation before touched though for an other purpose worthy to be reiterated in this place against the vse of the Surplice at the communion reading the Letany and saying prayers at the Altar And that is this Namely for that as well the Statute 1. Eliza. as the parish booke hath revived and commaunded the vse of those ornamentes according to the Act of Parliament 2. Edw. 6. which were repealed and forbidden by the booke of the 5. and 6. of King Edward the sixth It is to be noted saith the booke of 5. and 6. of King Edw. 6. That the Minister at the time of the communion and all other times in his ministration shall vse neither Albe vestiment nor Cope but being an Archbishop or Bishop he shall have and weare a Rochet and being a Priest or Deacon he shall have and weare a Surplice only And here it is to be noted sayeth the parish booke that the Minister at the time of the communion and at all other tymes in his ministration shall vse such ornamentes in the church as were in vse by Authoritie of Parliament in the 2. yeare of the reigne of King Edw. the 6. according to the Act of Parliament in that case made and provided which were as the booke of K. Edw. saith an Albe with a vestiment or Cope at the communion and an Albe or Surplice with a Cope vpon Wensdayes and Fridayes after the Letany ended But by the Provinciall constitutions ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament the parishioners are enioyned at their costes and charges to provide a Surplice and in vayne were this charge layde vpon them if so be the Minister were not bound by the law to weare it It is true and can not be denied that all parishioners are enioyned and that every Masse-priest is bound by the Provincials the one sorte to provide the other to weare a Surplice for and at the celebration of the Masse and for and in the vse of other popish services The reason of the vse of which Surplice by the popish Glosers and Provincials is yeelded to be this That the Priest must be clothed with white to signifie his innocencie and puritie and also ob reverentiam Salvatoris nostri totius caelestis curiae quam sacramento altaris consiciendo confecto non est dubium interesse But how doeth it follow either from the provincall or reason of the provinciall that a Minister of the Gospell is bound by the provinciall to weare a Surplice at the ministration of the word and Sacraments of the Gospell when the doctrine and service of the Gospell is contrarie and repugnant to the service and doctrine of the Masse And when by the statute the Provinciall is not to be vsed and executed but as it was vsed and executed before the making of the statute which was Anno 25. of King Henry the eight at what time the service of the Masse called the Sacrament of the Altar was only in request A Minister therefore of the Gospell by the Provinciall is no more bound to weare a surplice then by the Provincials other lawes of the Realme he is bound to say a Masse For the Provinciall appointeth a surplice to bee worne at the Masse and other idolatrous services all which services and which Masse as being blasphemous to the sacrifice of our Saviour Christ once made vpon the crosse repugnant to the holy worship of God is abrogated by the lawes of the Realme Now then it were to bee wished that all states were given to vnderstand by what equitie law or good conscience

soever they should have grounds and causes so to doe Mary since when as the Discipline and governement provinciall diocesan ministred and exercised by the late Archbishop deceased and his Suffraganes was diversly handled disputed and controverted not to be agreeable but repugnant to the holy Scriptures necessarie also for the repressing of vice the increase of faith and Christian religion to be changed they herevpon iustly fearing that the most vertuous Christian Queene deceased vpon sundry cōplaints made in open Parliament against their many vniust greevances would have reformed the same their maner of governement they then presently vpon new advise and consulation taken boldly and constantly avouched the same their governement to have bene from the Apostles times and agreeable to the holy scriptures and therefore also perpetuall and still to be vsed in no case to be altered by any king or Potentate whatsoever By meanes of which this their enclyning to the popish opinion and holding their Iurisdictiō to bee de iure divino professedly mainteyning in the Homilie wherevnto also subscription is vrged that the King and all the Nobilitie ought to be subiect to excommunication there is now at length growne such a mayne position of having a perpetuall Diocesan and Provinciall governement in the church that rather then their Hierarchie should stoope they would cause the Kings Supremacie which he hath over their said Iurisdiction to fall downe to the ground In so much as by their supposition the King hath no authoritie no not by his supreame power to alter their sayd governement at all And to this end and purpose as it seemeth in their late canons have they devised and decreed this booke of ordination to be subscribed vnto Which subscription can not but quite and cleane overthrow the Kings supremacie and auncient iurisdiction in the most dangerous degree For if their Provinciall and Diocesan orders and degrees of Ministerie together with their iurisdiction be to bee vsed as established and derived vnto them by the holy scriptures how then can it be in the power and iurisdiction of the King to graunt or not to graunt the vse of Provinciall and Diocesan Bishopisme and iurisdiction Or how may the provinciall Bishops with their Diocesan Suffraganes be called the kings ecclesiasticall officers if their iurisdictions be not derived vnto them from the king For if they be called Gods Bishops or Bishops of Gods making how then may they anie more be called the kings Bishops or Bishops of the kings presenting nominating and confirming Nay besides who then can alter them who can restreyne them who can revoke or recall their power and iurisdiction who can resist them or what king of England may pluck his neck from vnder their yoke Nay how should the kings Supremacie as by the ancient Lawes of the Realme it ought remayne inviolable when his Royall person whole Nobilitie and Realme is subiect and lyable to the censure of the canon Law excommunication Which law the Provinciall and Diocesan Bishops to this day in right and by vertue of their Provinciall and Diocesan iurisdiction and none otherwise do stil vse practise and put in execution Besides if Bishops Provinciall and Diocesan as they be described in that book be commanded in the Scriptures and were in vse ever since the Apostles times then ought they to be in the Church of England though the King and his law never allowed nor approved of them But to hold this opinion as it will vphold the Popes supremacie because the generall reasons which vphold a Provinciall Bishop will vphold a Pope so will it once againe not only impeach the Kings supremacie but also be repugnant to the lawes and customes of the Realm By which supremacie lawes and customes only the provinciall diocesan Bishops have bene hitherto vpheld For seing the lawes and customes of the Realme doe make the Kings nomination presentation and confirmation the very essence and being of a Provinciall Diocesan Bishop with vs So that these offices ought to be held only from the authoritie gift and graunt of the King how ought not the kings nomination presentation authoritie and gift yea and the law it self in this case wholy cease if the order degree ministerie and iurisdiction of a provinciall and diocesan Bishop be founded in holy Scripture Vnlesse we shall affirme that that was in the Apostles times which was not or that that is to be found in holy Scripture which is not Namely that there were in the Apostles times and that there be in the holy Scriptures no Bishops but provinciall and dioceasan Bishops to bee found And that by the law of God and the Gospell every King and Potentate hath supreme power to suffer none but Provinciall Diosan Bishops to be in the Churches So that by subscription to allow that provinciall and Diocesan Bishops be Scripturely Bishops and that their iurisdiction and power is a Scripturely iurisdiction and power is to deny that their iurisdiction and power dependeth vpon the kings iurisdiction and power or that by the kings gift and authoritie they be made Bishops But how doeth subscription you will say to the booke of ordination approve the orders and degrees of provinciall diocesan Bishops to be by Divine right rather then by humane ordinance How Why thus it is evident saith the preface of that booke to all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles times there have bene these orders of Ministers in Christes Church Bishops Priests and Deacons Yea and by the whole order of prayer and of Scripture read vsed in the forme of consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop it is apparant that the order of an Archbishop or Bishop consecrated by that booke is reputed taken to be of Divine institution And therfore seing the names of those orders of Ministers must necessarily be taken and vnderstood of such orders of Ministers as be sett forth and described in the body of that booke it must needes be intended that the Ministers by their subscription should approve the orders of Ministers mencioned in that booke to be of Divine institution and consequently that provinciall and diocesan Ministers or Bishops have not their essence and being from the nomination gift authoritie of the King Besides if we should vnderstand by the word Bishop him that hath the Ministrie of the word and Sacraments as the Pastor teacher and by the word Priest the Presbiter that is the Governing elder and by the word Deacon the provider for the poore then for the Ministers to subscribe to the booke of ordination would no way iustifie those officers or degrees of Ministers which are described in that booke but would indeed vtterly subvert and overthrow them Because the orders and degrees of a provincial diocesan Bishop of a Priest and Deacon mentioned in that booke be of a farr differing nature from those orders and degrees of Ministers which are mencioned