Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	henry_n	king_n	pope_n	2,794	5	6.8846	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12213	A reply to an ansvvere, made by a popish adversarie, to the two chapters in the first part of that booke, which is intituled a Friendly advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland Wherein, those two points; concerning his Majejesties [sic] supremacie, and the religion, established by the lawes and statutes of the kingdome, be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that adversarie: by Christopher Sibthorp, Knight, one of His Majesties iustices of his Court of Chiefe Place within the same realme.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1625 (1625)	STC 22524; ESTC S117400	88,953	134

Bishops Abbots Matth. Paris in He●rico secundo Anno 1164. Pryors Earles Barons and great Men of the Realme there was made a rehearsall of some part of the Customes and liberties of his Auncestors as of King Henry his Grand-father and others which ought to be kept in this Realme and observed of all c. Amongst which customes and liberties being sixteene in Number these were some namely That no Archbishop Bishop nor any other person of the Realme may goe out of the Land without the Kings leave And as touching appeales if any be made they shall come from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop And if the Archbishop fayle in doing justice it shall be lawfull to come last of all to the King that by his commandement the matter may be ended in the Archbishops Court So that no man shall proceede to appeale any further without the Kings consent These customes liberties of the Crowne the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Pryors and Cleargie with the Earles Barons and all the Nobles sware and by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept and observed to the King and his heires for ever simply without any fraud Yea Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury himselfe condescended to them Matth Paris ibidem promised also with an Oath to keepe them although afterward he revolted and brake his Oath and fled to Rome But saith mine Adversarie The Pope of Rome Alexander the third would not confirme these lawes or liberties though the King requested it What of this The liberties lawes and customes of the kingdome were good enough without his confirmation Yet the King perceaving his so just and reasonable a request to be repelled by the Pope was not a little offended thereat and therefore wrote Letters to all his Shiriffes Lieutenants in England on this wise I commande you that if any Cleargie-man or Lay-man in your Countie appeale to the Court of Rome you attach him and hold him in fast-ward till our pleasures be knowne And to his Iudges also he wrote in this sort If any shall be found to bring letters or a mandate from the Pope or from Thomas the Archbishop interdicting the Realme of England Let him be taken and kept in Prison till I signifie what shall be done with him They that wrote the life of the same Thomas Becket doe report it thus Let him be forthwith apprehended for a Traytor In quadrilog de ●ita Thom. Cant and execution done upon him which agreeth with that which likewise pag. 25. cap. 1. of my Booke I cited out of Hoveden where he saith that Si quis inventus fuerit literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae ●●veden Henr. 2 c. Capiatur de eo sicut de Regis traditore regni sine dilatione fiat justitia If any shall be found bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope let him be apprehended and let justice be done upon him without delay as upon a traytor to the King and the kingdome Where it is also further said that Generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam It was generally prohibited that none should appeale to the Pope Wherefore you see that which I wrote concerning Anselmus and concerning Appeales to be verie true Yea how earnest and vehement this valiant and worthy Prince King Henry the second was against the Pope for maintenance of his Regall rights appeareth further by an Epistle of his written to the Archbishop of Colen Matth. Paris in Hen. 2 An. 1168 in these wordes I have long desired saith he to finde a just occasion to depart from Pope Alexander and his perfidious Cardinals which presume to maintaine my Traytor Thomas of Canterbury against me Whereupon by the advise of my Barons and Cleargie I meane to send the Archbishop of Yorke the Bishop of London the Archdeacon of Poictiers c. to Rome which shall publikely denounce and plainely propose in my behalfe and in the behalfe of all the Dominions I have to Pope Alexander and his Cardinals that they maintayne my Traytor no longer but rid me of him that I with the advise of my Cleargie may set another in the Church of Canterbury They shall also require them to frustrate all that Becket hath done and exact an Oath of the Pope that he and his successors as much as in them lyeth shall keepe and observe inviolable to me and all mine for ever the Royall customes of King Henry my Grand-father If they refuse any of these my demaunds neyther I nor my Barons nor my Cleargie will yeelde them any kinde of obedience any longer Yea rather we will openly oppugne the Pope and all his and whosoever in my land shall be found hereafter to adhere to the Pope shall be banished my Realme Here then by the way let me demaund why any Papists doe call this Thomas Becket a martyr whom the King calleth a traytor The manner of his death being done by private violence and not by publike authoritie nor in a legall sort I utterly dislike But is not also his stout standing in that quarrell against his King and against his owne oath also and against the punishing of murtherers theeves and other malefactors by the Kings Lawes if they were Cleargie-men justly worthy to be condemned Or can he that dieth in and for so bad a cause deserve to be called a martyr But such it seemeth be the martyrs of the Popish Church But not onely these Kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus King Henry the first and King Henry the second and some others thus contended opposed themselves against the Popes of Rome Ex Lanfranc Epistolis M. S. in Biblioth Cotton Baron Anno. 1079. §. 25. for maintenance of their Regall rights but King William the Conqueror also who was before all these 〈◊〉 the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the seaventh was bold to demaund of the King an oath of fealtie to be made to him as if the King were to hold his kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord. This King would by no meanes yeelde thereunto but sent him a full negative answere writing thus unto him Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo quia nec ego promisi nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio I neyther would doe nor will doe fealtie because I neyther promised it nor doe I finde that any of my predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors This answere of the King is extant in an Epistle of his written to the same Pope which you may see set downe more at large by that excellent antiquarie and learned godly divine Doctor Vsher late Lord Bishop of Meath and the now most Reverend and worthy Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland in his Booke De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu pag. 182. Neyther neede I

to insist onely upon these former Kings of England For doe but reade further the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire made in that kingdome See the Statutes of Provi●ion and Premunire in Rastall fol. 354. c. and thereby you may see at full that many sundrie other Kings of England likewise and the whole Realme also concurring and joyning with them therein have in severall Parliaments made Lawes and Statutes against the Popes incrochments and usurpations in maintenance and defence of their Regall rights freedomes and liberties And among many other good reasons they shew for those their doings this is not the least that they say expressely in one of those Acts of Parliament See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5. That the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times that it hath beene in subjection to no Realme but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regalitie of the same Crowne And therefore doe they there utterly dislike in plaine tearmes That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it is apparant that even the ancient Kings of England long before the dayes of K. Henry the VIII of famous memorie have stood and contended not onely for the freedome of the Crowne generally not allowing it to be in subjection to any but to God onely but also in a particular sort for divers their particular Regall rights liberties Amongst which you may perceave this to be one namely that Appeales even in Ecclesiasticall causes they would have to be determined within their owne kingdomes and not to be made transferred or carried without their consent to the Pope or Sea of Rome 8 But now what meaneth mine Adversarie to be so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure generall Councells to have beene called by the Emperors Let therefore the Ecclesiasticall Historie shew and decide it Touching the first generall Councell at Nice Ruffin li. 10. c. 1. Ruffinus saith expressely that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit The Emperor Constantine called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nice Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 lib. 1. cap. 37 Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine saith of that Emperor that Generalem Synodum congregavit He assembled the generall Councell Socrates saith likewise that Constantine Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greeke cap. 5. in the lat Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est Assembled a generall Councell and willed all the Bishops every where to meete at Nice Theodoret saith that the Emperor Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17. celebrē illā coegit Nicea Synodum c. Assembled that famous Councell of Nice Sozomen saith that Constantine Indixit Concilium Niceae scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides Soz. lib. 1. ca. 16. lat ut ad diem praestitutum adessent Summoned the Councell of Nice and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches to be there at the day prefixed And the same Sozomen saith That hee sent his letters to the Apostolicke Seas To Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem to Eustathius Bishop of Antioch To Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and to Iulius Bishop of Rome Who being an old man and not able to come himselfe hee sent in his stead Vitus and Vincentius The Nicene Fathers themselves by their Synodall Epistle Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9. extant in Theodoret which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria doe restifie That they were assembled by the authoritie of the Emperor Constantine And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie to call the Councell he would no doubt being an old man and not able to travell have had it at Rome or in some part of Italy rather then at Nice in Bithinia so farre remote from Rome Nicephorus also saith that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat literis locorum omnium Episcopos Niceph. li. 8. c. 14 ad constitutum diem eo evocavit The Emperor proclaymed the Councell at Nice and by his letters called thither the Bishops of all places to be there at the day appointed Zonaras Zonaras saith that Imperator provinciarum Episcopos Niceae Bithini●● urbis convenire jussit The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces to meete together at Nice Platina in vita Silvestri a Citie in Bithinia And Platina also writeth that this generall Councell of Nice was summoned or called Constantini mandato by the commandement of Constantine the Emperor It is therefore abundantly manifest that this first generall Councell of Nice was called not by the authoritie of any Pope but of the Emperor How then is it not an over great if not a most intollerable impudencie in Papists to denie so manifest and palpable a trueth As touching that answere which Bellarmine and other Papists make when they say That this Councell was called or summoned by the advise and consent of the Bishop of Rome First Ruffin lib. 1. c. 1. Ruffinus saith that it was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia by the advise and consent of the Priests and not of the Bishop of Rome alone Epiphan lib 2. Tom 2. haeres 68 Yea Epiphanius saith That it was obtayned of the Emperor at the suite of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria But secondly it maketh no matter at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent the Councell was summoned For the question is not by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant that it was called and assembled by the authoritie and commandement not of any Bishop of Rome but of the Emperor The second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane was also called not by Damasus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder This is also evident First by Theodoret who saith Theodor. li. 5. c. 7 Hujus rei gratia Theodosius Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople Socrat. lib 5. ca. 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat Zonar in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium Socrates and Sozomen likewise doe both testifie that Theodosius summoned assembled this Councell Zonaras saith that this second generall Councell was summoned Iussu Imperatoris by the commandement of the Emperor 150. godly fathers being there assembled And the very Councell it selfe speaking to Theodosius doe testifie the same and say thus Wee being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Pietie The third generall Councell namely the first Ephesine was also called not by the authoritie cōmandement of Celestinus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger This is verie manifest Evagr lib. 1. c. 3. for Evagrius saith directly That by the appointment or command of Theodosius

and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.

law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heathē Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. ●8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful cōmendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantage●● But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribu●es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish ●●●-●oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Mato● is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2●.23 He onely saith it but