Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	emperor_n	rome_n	3,418	5	7.3244	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A05383	The holy pilgrime, leading the way to heaven. Or, a diuine direction in the way of life, containing a familiar exposition of such secrets in diuinity, as may direct the simple in the way of their Christian pilgrimage In two books. The first declaring what man is in the mistery of himselfe. The second, what man is in the happines of Christ. Written by C.L.; Holy pilgrime, leading the way to new Jerusalem	Lever, Christopher, fl. 1627.	1618 (1618)	STC 15538; ESTC S102377	58,859	294

the proceedings of the Prelats against himself and their dealings tovvards others of their brethren the theame of vvhich booke he the Defendent desireth the honorable Court● to take a briefe relation of at this time that they may the better be informed of the falsitie of the information And first for the principall theame and matter of the booke it is the State of the questions in his Flagello Pontificis for vvhich he suffered vvith the summe of the Arguments he produced for the confirmation of the trueth The questio●s arising betvveen the Babylonian and the defendent concerning the autoritie of the Pope were these The first whether Christ did constitute Peter sole Monarch of the Catholick Church The second vvhether the Pope of Rome if hee bee a Bishop as hee is a Bishop hath Autoritie jurisdiction over Kings Emperors Thirdlie vvhether Popish Bishops be true Bishops or no and of the discussing of these questios the defendent saith his adversarie vvas the sole cause In the handling of the which the Defenden● f●rther affirmeth that he used all the caution that vvas possible as he supposed for man to use prefacing in his booke that being to dispute about the Autority of the Bishop of Rome he desired candidly to be understood of all men● for while he disputed of Episcopall autoritie he medled nor contended not against such Bishops as ackovvledge their autoritie jurisdiction from Kings and Emperors into vvhose hands the government of States Kingdomes● and Commonvvealths is by God committed For if the Popes themselves vvould acknovvledge their immense and unlimited autoritie from Kings and Emperors he the defendent there said if they commanded nothing contrarie to the vvill and Word of God that he for his part out of the reverence duty ● loyaltie to his Prince vvould obey it The Words in the Original are these Verum de Episcoporum autoritate locutus à bonis bene intelligi cupio Non enim litis litem moveo quatenus ab Imperatoribus Regibus Principibus Terre quorum interest salutem civium tueri potestatem ●us Imperium in socios totumque Dei gregem adepti sunt Nam si Romani Episcopi imm●nsam illam nullis limitibus circumscriptam autoritatem indulgentia Principum acceptam ferrent voluntati Episcopali nihil voluntati divinae inimicum jubenti obtemperandum putem ob reverentiam Principi si volenti debitam c. So that the defendent having thus playnlie set downe his minde before knowing that all the jurisdiction that the Bishops in England now exercise over others is ●rom the King he thought himself not onely secure from danger but expected fav●ur at least from the Bishops their helping hand especially when the opposing the Popes Autority in England is a thing that the King and State have ever so well allowed of And that this honorable Court may yet be f●rther informed of the speciall cause for which the Prelats are so displeased with the defendent it was for the truely and narrowlie disputing and discussing of the second question to wit whether the Pope of Rome if he be a Bishop as he is a Bishop have Autoritie jurisdiction not onelie over his fellow breth●en but over Kings and Emperors which the Defendent there denyed for many warrantable Arguments The summe of which he desireth here to relate unto this honorable Court for his just and necessarie defence justification For by the ve●ie light of nature and unanswerable reason it is evident and manifest that where there is an equalitie and pari●ie amongst men there the one doth not exceed the other in power or Dominion Paris enim in Parem non esse imperium inter Naturae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est Novv Divine constitution hath made Bishops and Presbyters or Elders a like and equall vvhich that it might the better appeare the Defendent propounded there tvvo things to be proved The first vvas That Bishops and Presbyters vvere by the Word of God one and the same Secondlie That Presbyters had equall Autoritie of Government● Ordination Excommunication vvith Bishops vvherein onely consists their preeminency Autoritie above their brethren vvhich things being proved it vvill necessarilie follovv That the Pope of Rome as he is Bishop doth no vvay exceed other Bishops and Presbyters they being in all things a like and equall unto him much lesse hath any Autoritie and povver over Kings and Emperours And for the proofe of the first position the vvords Presbyter Bishop do sufficientlie evince i● vvhich in holy Scripture though diverse in sound signifie one and the same thing as not to cite the vvords themselves vvhich would be large The Apostle Paul to Titus in the first chapter doth sufficientlie shew vvhere the words Bishop Presbyter are confounded And likevvise in the first Epistle of Peter and the fift Chapter there Presbyter and Bishop signifie one and the same thing And the Epistl● to the Philippians the first Chapter and the ●irst verse do●h apparentlie demonstrate it● and diverse other places might be produced dilucidating the same thing But the 20● of the Acts puts all out of controversie where Presbyter and Bishop signifie one the same thing● for office● honour and function so that the identity of their office● is signifyed by those tvvo expressions Neither is there a confusion of their names with a difference still of their functions administrations as some vvould cavill for in these places vvhere Presbyters are called Bishops the disputation is not about the title but about the office signified and specified by the title For vvhen S. Paul exhorts the Presbyters to have an eye to their duty charge he useth this reason that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops● And the trueth of ●his is so evident that the Rhemists themselves as learned men as any Bishops in England and as able to mayntayne an error are forced ingen●ouslie to confesse it saying in expresse vvords in their No●es upon the 28. vers of that Chapter That in the Apostles times there vvas no difference betvveen Presbyter and Bishop● so that for the first position it is not onely by the Word of God clearlie evident but by the very confession of the adversaries of the trueth granted as a thing without controversy Novv for proofe of the second position that Presbyters as vvell as the Bishop of Rome have the povver and right of Government Ordination and Excommunication by vvhich in these times Bishops onely exceed Presbyters the defendent vvill here brieflie demonstrat it referring those of this honorable Court that have a desire to search into the full trueth of it to his booke And for proofe that the Government vvas committed unto them and that they exercised the same it is most perspicuous out of the first of Timothie 5. vvhere the Apostle sayth The Presbyters that rule vvell are vvorthie of double honour especially those that labour in Word and Doctrine By this testimonie it is evident that they

of the Kingdome of Heaven by name are committed those are more vvorthy honorable then those tha● have not that Priviledge But for the Presbyters they have the Priviledge of the Keys granted unto them by name Ergo the Presbyters are more honorable then Bishops For the major no good Christian vvill or rationall man can deny it And for the minor he that readeth the last of Iames shall finde it manifestly enough confirmed and proved By all vvhich Arguments the Defendent did sufficiently beat dovvne the Bishop of Romes autority and by the very light of reason overthew it For if that every Presbyter be by the word of God as good a man as the Bishop of Rome if not better and vvithall if the Presbyters neither can nor may usurp autority over their fellovv brethren much lesse may they doe it over Kings and Emperors and by consequence and necessity of reson it follovve●h that the Bishop of Rome hath no cause to arrogate such autority to himselfe over the vvhole Church as he doth and therefore that his rule Government is a meere usurpation and an abominable tyranny over the vvhole Church of God and ought of all men to be defyed abominated and abhorred vvith all his complices as impious and blasphemous against God●●njuriou● to Kings Princes and nocent to all the faithfull members of Iesus Christ. The recapitulation of all the vvh●ch Arguments this Defendent thought fit to make knovvne to this honourable Court that their illustricityes might in every respect see his innocency vvho first exemted all Bishops that acknovvledge their autorityes from Kings and Emperors out of the number of those against vvhich he disputed and secondly never by name fought against any other but Romish Bishops and vvi●h their ovvne arguments vvounded them● And therefore he could not but take it unkindly that when in this combat they should have helped him against the common enimie they defending him fell upon the poore Defendent to his perdition saying that he meant ●hem and that he vvas erronious and factious in his opinions Novv if the Defendent hath erred in the discussing of these truthes the Scripture that Word of Life hath brought him to it vvhich vvere blasphemie to thinke and therefore vvhen they adjudged his booke to be burnt they might as vvell have burnt th● Scripture also yea all antiquitie and the gravest and learnedest of auncient Fathers vvhose testimonies also hee hath made publick for the greater vindication of the truth against error and cruelty But that the integritie of the defendent may yet more clearlie appeare he most humbly entreateth this Illustrious Tribunall to heare hovv the busines vvas carried against him at his Araignment before the Prelats Barre at Lambeth and hovv submissively he demeaned himself there and hovv superciliously they carried themselves towards the Defendent on the contrary side When it came to his part to speake for himselfe the Advocat having formerly denied to plead his case any farther then about the vvitnesses testimonie vvhich he also did very jejunely beeing an Advocate of such excellent parts of learning and eloquence as he vvas and also at the Bar ●enouncing i● saying That the Defendent should plead himselfe which vvhen it vvas put upon him he then first related vnto the Assemblie the Theame of the booke vvhich vvas the mayntenance of the Kings prerogative royall Then he told them the occasion of his vvriting of it that he vvas provoked thereunto by a Pontifician vvho often had dared him into the list of dispute● which a● last he could not deny as he vvas a Christian and as he vvas a Subiect for by the Word of God he told them and by the Law of the Land and his speciall oath he vvas bound unto it vvhich Oath he also read at large in open Court the vvhich also all the Bishops of England and all the Iudges of the Kingdome had taken and vvere equally bound vvith him to observe Then before he entred into the combat vvith the adversarie he shevved vvhat caution he used that being to vvrite against the Bishop of Rome Italian Bishops it vvas onely as they arrogate their au●oritie over their Brethren and the Church of God yea over Kings and Emperors jure divino against such Bishops onely hee affirmed he did dispute read the vvords of exception formerly cited at the Barre as for such Bishops as acknovvledge their jurisdiction povver and autority from Kings and Emperors he sayd he ha● no controversy against them as he there againe and againe declared himself in the number of vvhich he the Defendent sayd ours were for all the Bishops of England and in his Majst Dominions had and received or at leastvvise ought so to doe their autoritie jurisdiction over their brethren from him For proofe of vvhich he cited read publickly the Statuts and Acts of Parlament as follow First that of the first of Queene Elizabeth of famous memorie vvherein the Oath of Allegiance vvas ratifyed In the which Statute there are these words That all jurisdiction all Superiorities and all Privileges and Preminencies spirituall and temporall are annexed to the Imperiall Crovvne vvhich by Oath he being bound to mayntayn●● could doe no lesse being provoked by an adversary of regal dignity He read also the Statute vvhich was inacted in the 37. of Henrry the eight vvhich is that Archb and Bish. and all other Ecclesiasticall persons have no other Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but that vvhich they received and had by the King from the King and under his Royall Majest He read also the Statute made in the first of King Edward the sixt in these vvords That all jurisdiction and Autori●ie Spirituall and Temporall is derived and doth come frō the Kings Majest as supreme Head in the Churches and Kingdomes of England and Ireland and that by the Clergy of both the Kingdomes it ought no otherwise to be held or esteemed of and that all Ecclesiasticall Courts vvithin the sayd Kingdomes ought to be held and kept by no other povver and autoritie eyther domesticall or forrain then that vvhich comes from his most excellent Majestie And that vvhosoever did not acknovvledge and venerate this autoritie that the same men are ipso facto in a praemunire under the Kings high displeasure and indignation as the vvords of the Statute run and the mouth of the lavv speaks and then vvith some reason● also vvhich the Defendent produced besides the Word of God hee shevved That no Romish Bishops had autoritie over their fellovv brethren nor could jure divino challenge it much lesse over Kings and Emperors and therefore so long as the defendent had the Word of God the Lavves of the Kingdome and reason it self on his side he told them he thought himself reasonably secure from all danger in that place And then applying his speech unto the right honorable and noble Lord the Earle of Dorset then present the Defendent tolde his honour that he could not but vvonder that hee should stand