Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	power_n	prince_n	temporal_a	1,487	5	9.3415	5	false

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

power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius Clericorū superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over thē that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell thē to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit ●in to ● pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate f●runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in

the younger the first Ephesine Councell was assembled Liberat. in hist de Concil Ephes Liberatus likewise writeth That the Emperor wrote to all Bishops that they should assemble at Ephesus to judge of the Bookes of Nestorius and Cyrillus Epist Synod And in their Epistle to all the Bishops thus writeth the Councell it selfe Cum essemus Ephesi secundum pias Imperatoris literas congregati When we were at Ephesus assembled according to the pious letters of the Emperor Socrates also saith that Imperatoris mandato Episcopi ex omnibus locis Ephesum conveniunt Socrat. li. 7. c 33 in the lat ca. 34. in the greeke The Bishops of all places came together to Ephesus by the commandement of the Emperor Zonaras saith These things being knowne Caelestinus Bishop of Rome Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem relate the matter to Theodosius the Emperor and to Pulcheria the Empresse desiring that he would summon a Councell Niceph. lib. 14. cap 34. c. Nicephorus also saith Theodosius Imperialibus literis in Metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos convenire jussit That Theodosius by his Imperiall letters commanded the Bishops of all places to meete together at Ephesus the Metropolitan Citie The fourth generall Councell was the Councell of Chalcedon and this also was summoned not by authoritie and commandement of Leo the first Bishop of Rome as my Adversarie affirmeth but the Emperors Authority and commandement This may appeare even by Leo himselfe Epist. 43.53 and sundrie other of his Epistles But we neede not to cite other testimonies For the verie Councell of Chalcedon it selfe Conc. Chalcedon Actione prima doth testifie that it was summoned by the Emperors and that the Bishop of Rome was also called thither who because he could not be there in person sent others in his steade Yea that Leo Bishop of Rome did not summon this Councell nor any other generall Councell in those dayes but acknowledged it to be a right belonging to the Emperors is further verie manifest by the Epistle he writeth to the Emperor wherein he saith thus unto him Pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere Leo Epist 9 ut intra Italiam jubeatis haberi Episcopale Concilium Let your pietie vouchsafe to yeld to our suggestion and supplication in this that you command a Councell of Bishops to be held within Italy Againe hee saith thus Leo Epist. 24. Lovan 1575. Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus lachrimus supplicant sacerdotes ut generalem Synodum jubeatis infra Italiam celebrari All the Churches that take part with us and all the Priests with sighes and teares doe humbly beseech your mansuetude that you will command a generall Councell to be celebrated within Italy He also sollicited the Princesse Pulcheria Leo Epist. 26. 23. and the Nobles Cleargie and people of Constantinople for a Councell to be held in Italie But neyther in his first suite nor in this last did he prevaile all this notwithstanding For as touching his former suite which was in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger that Emperor as before appeareth assembled the Councel not within Italie as Leo desired but at Ephesus And as touching the latter it is also apparant that by the Emperors appointment and commandement the Councell was assembled not in Italie as the Pope would have had it but at Chalcedon I might proceede further and shew that beside these first foure generall Councells other Councells were likewise summoned and assembled by the Authoritie and commandement of the Emperors and not of the Bishops of Rome For there was also a fift generall Councell summoned or called Mandato Iustiniani By the commandement of the Emperor Iustinian as Evagrius witnesseth And so likewise saith Nicephorus that Imperator Iustinianus Evagr. lib 4 c. 11. N●●ph libr. 17. cap. 27. sanctam quiatam Oecumenicam Synodum Episcopis omnium Ecclesiarum convocatis coegit The Emperor Iustinian assembled the fift holy generall Councell by calling the Bishops of all Churches together The Councell of Sardica also Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20 in the g●eek cap. ●6 in the ●a in Theo●oret l●b 2. cap. ● S●crat lib. 〈…〉 greeke cap. ●9 in the 〈◊〉 Cusa● de 〈◊〉 lib. 2 ●ap 25. was called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement as Socrates and Theodoret declare And so were also those Councells of Selencia and A●imi●●● called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement Yea what generall Councell was there called in those ancient times but by the Emperors In somuch that Cardinall Cusanus himselfe ingenuously confesseth and affirmeth that The first eight generall Councells were called by the Emperors Is there then any credite at all to be given to those Papists in these dayes who doe and dare denie this so cleare manifest and evident a truth Wherefore it being a thing most apparant that in ancient times the Emperors by their Authoritie and commandement called the generall Councells it followeth necessarily thereupon that the Emperors thereby commanded aswell the Bishop of Rome as the other Bishops and consequently had the Supremacie aswell over the one as over the other 9 But yet further to prove the Supremacie of the Emperors I alledged that the Emperors in ancient time banished imprisoned and otherwise also punished by their Authoritie even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops Whereunto mine Adversarie answereth that These things they did de facto but not warrantable de jure But why were they not warrantable de jure I grant that a banishment or imprisonment may possibly be sometimes wrongfull and unjust in respect of the man and the matter that deserveth it not but this is no impeachment or argument therefore against the lawfulnesse of the authoritie As if an Emperor or King doe banish or committe a man to prison for professing any point of true Religion this banishment and imprisonment is wrongfull and unjust in respect of the cause which deserveth no punishment at all Yet it cannot be denied but he hath power Authoritie good and lawfull enough both to banish and to committe to prison notwithstanding when there is a just cause For that which is but an abuse of Authoritie doth not take away the lawfull use of it So that if any Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whosoever within the Dominions of the Empyre did offend so farre as to deserve banishment imprisonment or other Temporall and Civill punishment it was a thing lawfull and just for the Emperor to inflict those punishments upon them aswell as upon any other For it is indeede to these Higher Powers namely to Emperors Rom. 13.1.2.3.4 Kings and Princes that God hath committed the Civill and Temporall sword for the encouragement and prayse of them that doe well for the discouragement terror punishment of those that doe evill And these

be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empy●e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King ●● 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Ben●●adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm ●ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the M●l●r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of

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