Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	henry_n	king_n	pope_n	16,586	5	6.9376	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12215	A surreplication to the reioynder of a popish adversarie VVherein, the spirituall supremacy of Christ Iesus in his church; and the civill or temporall supremacie of emperours, kings, and princes within their owne dominions, over persons ecclesiastical, & in causes also ecclesiasticall (as well as civill and temporall) be yet further declared defended and maintayned against him. By Christopher Sibthorp, knight, one of his majesties iustices of his court of Chiefe-place in Ireland.	Sibthorp, Christopher, Sir, d. 1632.	1637 (1637)	STC 22525; ESTC S102608	74,151	92

of Germanie are abused by the Pope whom hee leadeth and handleth like bruite beasts both for spoile and slaughter at his owne pleasure This Poperie saith hee is lively described by S. Peter 2. Pet. 2. where bee saith They despise Rulers or Governours by Rulers signifying secular Princes Now the Popish Cleargie have by their owne authoritie exempted themselves from tributes subiection and all charges of the Common-weale contrarie to the doctrine of Peter and Paul Yea so farre is the Pope from acknowledging the soveraignetie of Princes over him that hee will scarce admitte them to kisse his feete Calvine likewise writeth thus The word of God Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 22. saith hee teacheth us to obey all Princes who are established in there thrones be it by what meanes soever Yea though they doe nothing lesse then the office of Kings yet must they bee obeyed and though the King be never so wicked and indeede unworthy the name of a King yet must subiects acknowledge the image of Divine power in his publike authoritie and as touching obedience they must reverence and honour him aswell as if hee were the godlyest King in the world Nebuchadnezzar was a mightie invader and subduer of other Nations yet God saith by his Prophet that he had given those lands and countries unto him Ezech. 29. Dan. 2. Neyther would he have any rebellion or resistance to be offered but contrarywise commaunded obedience to be performed unto him Iere. 27. And therefore we must never suffer these seditious conceites to possesse our mindes as to thinke an evill King must be so dealt withall as hee deserveth but we are directly charged to obey the King though he bee a savage Tyrant and never so bad Beza confess cap. 5. sect 45 Beza also speaketh in like sort Private men amongst whom I account inferiour Magistrates in respect of their King have no other remedie saith hee against Tyrants to whom they are subiect but amendment of their lives prayers and teares which God in his good time will not despise And if it so fall out that wee cannot obey the commandement of the King but that wee must offend God the King of kings Then must wee rather obey God then man Yet so as that wee remember that it is one thing not to obey and another thing Ibidem to resist and to betake ourselves to Armes which wee may not doe Againe hee saith The impudencie of our Adversaries is herein most notorious that they who contrarie to the word of God have openly subiected Kings and kingdomes to their authoritie and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwithstanding to obiect the guilt of that crime unto us These being the doctrines and positions of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants concerning Kings and kingdomes let the equall Reader Iudge what and how great the wrong is you doe unto them and whether also that is or can possibly be true which you write both in your Answer and againe in your Reioynder namely That Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons Act. 17.7 Ioh. 18.36 Ephes 1.21.22.23 Ephes 4.15.16 Coloss 1.17.18 and estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subiects then upon any Protestant subiects Why more confidently I pray you For is this a good reason which you bring viz. because although Papists give the spirituall supremacie headship and Monarchie over the whole Church upon earth unto the Pope which indeed they should not do in asmuch as it is a Regall right and Prerogative properly belonging unto Christ Iesus yet doe they acknowledge in Kings a supremacie in Temporall matters yea this reason if you did well observe it maketh rather much against you For it sheweth that Papists bee revera neyther so good Christians nor yet so good subiects Colos 2.19 as Protestants bee Not so good Christians because They bold not the head CHRIST IESVS as S. Paul speaketh but have without any warrant or commission from him errected to themselves another head Monarch and Spirituall King namely the Pope of Rome Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not to belong unto Kings an authoritie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall as Protestants doe For whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects doe take from the King the Temporall supremacie aswell as the Spirituall it is too lewd and loud a slaunder Yea what is there that the Protestants doe more earnestly contend for against the Pope and against his partakers then the Spirituall supremacie or Spirituall kingdome to be given to Christ Iesus And the Civill or Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall to bee given unto Kings and Princes within their Dominions But because you yet further object against the Protestants both rebellious doctrines and rebellious practises and affirme that many instances of this kinde may bee reade in the Booke of dangerous Positions For a cleere and full Answer to all that you have said or rather Papists have or can say in that case I referre you unto that Booke which is called An exact Discoverie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracie Rebellion and the Reply to him that calleth himselfe the Moderate Answerer thereof In which Bookes so conjoyned in one Volume you may reade and see at large a cleere justification of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants in this point and contrarywise the Papists to bee notoriously guiltie therein And this you may also see further debated and shewed in that Booke which is called The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion In the third part whereof be refelled the Iesuites reasons and authorities which they alleadge for the Popes depriving of Princes and the bearing of Armes by Subjects against their Soveraignes and where the tyrannies and injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himselfe above Kings and Princes bee further discovered and declared c. These things I would not here thus farre have spoken of had not you provoked me thereunto not only by your first beginning but by your continuance still stiffe-standing in these your needlesse cōparisons calumniations But you proceed come next from p. 50. in my Reply to p. 79. where againe you skippe over fourteene leaves more together in the same booke In that pag. 79. It is true that I said That not onely those kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus king Henry the First and King Henry the Second and some others thus contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome But King William the Conqueror also who was before all these made the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh was bold to demand of this King an Oath of fealtie to bee made to him as if the King were to hold the kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord This King would by

no meanes yeeld thereunto but sent him a full negative Answer 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 I have here recited the whole entire sentence not produced onely a part of it as you did verie lamely and imperfectly And now what have you to say against it First concerning that of King William the Conquerour you answer not a word And touching those particulars which I had before alleadged concerning the others Kings namely concerning William Rufus King Henry the First and King Henry the Second and other Kings of England that contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome his encreachments and usurpations your answer is verie idle and impertinent For you answer as if I had affirmed that those Kings had utterly renounced abolished or put downe the Popes supremacie in their times whereas I affirmed onely that they contended and made opposition against him which they might and did doe although they then made not an utter extirpation and abolition of him out of that their kingdome And that they made opposition to him I have shewed and proved in my Reply pag. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. And verie ignorant are you in the histories of England if you know not so much and verie perverse if knowing so much you will not acknowledge it 13. From thence you come to pag. 81 of my Reply where I write thus But now what meaneth my adversarie to bee so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure Generall Councels to have beene called by the Emperours Here you say I was pleased to salute you with that language which better fitted an inconsiderative Iester then a deliberate Iudge Why what is the language or what are the words which so much offend you You afterward shew namely because I there used that terme of extreamely audacious But what is it else but extreme audaciousnesse to denie as you then did and still doe so cleere evident and plaine a truth For my part the matter considered I see not but you might have thought that I spake moderately and temperately enough whilst I spake in that sort and gave you no worse language For some others possibly would have said that you had beene therein extreamely and intolerably impudent But you forget as it seemeth or care not to remember what language or words you here utter concerning me which I have more cause to take ill at your hands then you have to bee offended at those other words of mine But to come to those foure Generall Councels I affirmed them which you denied to have beene called by the Emperours The first of them is The first Generall Councell of Nyce That this was called by the Emperour I proved in that my Reply pag. 81.82 by the testimonie of Ruffinus Eusebius Socrates Theodoret Sozomon Zonaras Nicephorus Platina and by the Synodall Epistle of the Nycene Fathers themselves And doth not hee then deserve to bee accounted at least extreamely audacious that will dare to denie this so manifest and palpable truth testified so abundantly and by so many witnesses But whilst among other witnesses for proofe of this point I produced Ruffinus affirming that Constantine apud urbem Nicaeam Episcopale Concilium convocavit R●ffin lib. 1. cap. 1. Called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nyce You say that I there used a little wile which amongst the vulgar sort will bee called Craft or Cousenage because say you I omitted those wordes Ex sacerdotum sententia which bee in Ruffinus and which words if they had beene mentioned would have declared that the Emperour Constantine summoned or called the Councell of Nyce by the advise consent or approbation of the Priests Howbeit first it is not of necessitie that the omission of those wordes must inferre it to bee done with a minde and purpose to defraude deceive and cousen as you verie odiously suggest Yea secondly to shew that I did not craftily or couseningly conceale or omitte those wordes for mine owne advantage as you alleadge behold you shall finde in the verie next page namely pag. 82. that I doe expressely mention them and doe directly affirme Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. out of the same Ruffinus that this Councell of Nyce was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia By the advise and consent of the Priests and thereby I also proved that it was not done by the advise consent of the Bishop of Rome alone Now then who is the wily Craftie and Cousening Companion I hope the honest and equall Reader will by this time easily discerne and judge But thirdly I did there further answere as I doe likewise here againe that it maketh nothing to the matter in question at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent that Councell was summoned For the question was not nor is by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose commaunding authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant by those former testimonies that it was called and assembled by the commandement or commanding authoritie of the Emperour which declareth infallibly the supremacie and authority which the Emperour had in those dayes over all the Bishops and even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as over the rest whilst hee might and did thus commaund aswell the one as the other to appeare in a Generall Councell I also cited Eusebius Socrates and Theodoret and their wordes to prove likewise that the Emperour Constantine called and assembled that Generall Councell at Nyce But you are pleased not to see or not to acknowledge where those wordes are to bee found in their Authors And yet might you have seene and found them if you had so pleased in their severall Authors as namely in Eusebius de vita Constantini lib. 3 cap. 6. lib 1. cap. 37 in Socrates lib. 1. cap. 8. in the Greeke and cap. 5 in the Latin and in Theodoret lib. 1 cap 7. So that even that also which I cited out of Theodoret is not a famous fiction as you infamously and untruely report it but a verie certaine apparant truth as there you may see And all the rest of the Authors which I there cited doe likewise testifie and prove the same thing for which I there alleadged them Yea this point is so cleere and evident that whilst you thought to confute it you have your selfe further confirmed and confessed it Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. For when you purposing to alledge Ruffinus against mee doe cite his wordes thus Tumille Then hee meaning Constantine ex sacerdotum sententia apud urbem Nycaeam Episcopale concilium convocavit By the sentence or consent of the Priests did call the councell of Bishops at the