Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	bind_v	heaven_n	key_n	5,660	5	10.7585	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14777	A moderate defence of the Oath of Allegiance vvherein the author proueth the said Oath to be most lawful, notwithstanding the Popes breues prohibiting the same; and solueth the chiefest obiections that are vsually made against it; perswading the Catholickes not to resist souerainge authoritie in refusing it. Together with the oration of Sixtus 5. in the Consistory at Rome, vpon the murther of Henrie 3. the French King by a friar. Whereunto also is annexed strange reports or newes from Rome. By William Warmington Catholicke priest, and oblate of the holy congregation of S. Ambrose.	Warmington, William, b. 1555 or 6.; Sixtus V, Pope, 1520-1590. De Henrici Tertii morte sermo. English.	1612 (1612)	STC 25076; ESTC S119569	134,530	184

alone but for the n = * O igen In hunc loc ho. 1 Aug tract vlt. in Ioan. l. 1. d● doct Chr. c. 18. Coster in O. siand c. 4. Church signifying power to be giuen to bind and loose to admit the worthy to the kingdome of heauen and to exclude the vnworthie can any other power be vnderstood then meerely spirituall most certainely there cannot For aske when this promise of our Sauiour was performed No man I thinke will denie but then Christ gaue these keyes when after his resurrection he vsed this ceremonie of breathing on his eleuen Apostles giuing them all like power to forgiue or reteine sinnes by these words Quorum remiseritis peccata c. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue Ioan. 20. they are forgiuen them and whose you shall reteine they are reteined By which words the Fathers often say that the keyes were giuen to all the Apostles If any man so build on that which Christ said to Peter Quodcunque ligaueris super terram c. Whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth Math. 16. it shal be bound also in the heauens and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth it shall be loosed also in the heauens that Peter and his successors haue power to set vp and plucke downe Kings then must it of necessitie follow See Iansenius Concor c. 72. that the rest of the Apostles had the same because he vsed the like phrase to them also Quaecunque alligaueritis c. Whatsoeuer ye shall bind vpon earth shall be bound in heauen c. And so consequently all Bishops who are appointed gouernours likewise of the Church of God Act. 20. as Saint Paul saith Attendite c. Take heed to your selues and to the whole flock wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne blood may dethrone Kings if they iudge it expedient which is not to be granted This former interpretatiō of anciēt diuines seemes more agreeable to Christs words as Iansenius noteth to vnderstand by these keyes power to bind and loose because with these two powers as with two keyes the kingdom of heauē is opened to the truly penitēt with the other it is shut against the vnworthy impenitēt sinner then is the interpretatiō of later Diuines who say that Christ meant of the keyes of knowledge of discerning inter leprā lepram who is worthy to be absolued who vnworthie and of power to bind loose Howsoeuer they are to be vnderstood yet therby cannot be gathered power to depose or dispose of temporals Theophylact vpon this place hath thus Claues autē intelligas quaeligant soluunt hoc est delictorū vel indulgentias vel poenas Theoph. in 16. Math. c. And vnderstand keyes which bind and loose that is either pardons or punishments of sinnes For they haue power to remit and to bind who haue attained to the grace of Episcopacie as Peter hath Which power he affirmeth was granted to all the Apostles Quamuis autem soli Petro dictum sit Dabo tibi c. And although saith he it be spoken to Peter alone I will giue thee yet the keyes are granted to all the Apostles When When he said Cap. firmiter de summa Trinit fide Cath. c loquitur 24. q. 1 Vict. de clauibus nu 4. Rabanus Whose sinnes ye remit they are remitted For when he said dabo he signified a time to come to wit after his resurrection So Theophylact. If they were giuen to Peter doth it not follow that the Apostles receiued them of Peter But Victoria teacheth that they receiued them of Christ not of Peter Rabanus likewise Albeit this power of binding and loosing seeme to be giuen onely to Peter yet it is also giuen to the rest of the Apostles and is now likewise to all the Church in Bishops and Priests But therefore Peter specially receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen and the principalitie of iudiciarie power that all beleeuers through the world may vnderstand that whosoeuer do separate themselues in any sort from the vnitie of his faith and societie that such can neither be absolued from the bonds of sins nor enter into the gate of the kingdome of heauen This he But let it be granted according to the sentēce of many anciēt Fathers that Christ speaking specially to Peter gaue him more ample power then he gaue to the rest of the Apostles yet all was but spirituall as the words import and to a spirituall end in aedificationem non in destructionem to edification not to destruction not tending to deposition or depriuation of the temporall goods of any within his gouernment but to excommunication or separation of certaine obstinate offenders from the common goods of the Church militant and so consequently from the ioyes of the Church triumphant And let it be that Peter receiued the keyes of our Sauior when he said vnto him Pasce oues meas Feed my sheep all was but spirituall Ioan. 21. for the same power is required to feed the flocke of Christ that is to open or shut the kingdome of heauen Vict de clau nu 4. And then was he instituted the Vicar of Christ on earth by whose institution and as he is Bishop or Pastor of the whole Church Card. Bellar. de Ro. Pont. l. 5. c. 10. the most illustrous Card. confesseth that he receiued not power to ouerrule dommari but pascere to feed Which kind of secular domination was forbidden the Apostles and ministration commanded as Saint Bernard saith Bern. de consid l. 2 c. 5. L. 4. c. 4. de consid Who in an other place explicateth what it is to feed Euangelizare pascere est Opus fac euangelistae pastorum opus implesti To euangelize is to feed Do the worke of an Euangelist and thou hast fulfilled the worke of Pastors But some are forced to say that excommunication of the Pope necessarily worketh this temporall effect of deposition for that they know not otherwise how his Holinesse can attaine to such power If this were so then what Bishop soeuer do excommunicate any within his diocesse doth also depose and depriue them of their temporals for what the Pope is in the vniuersall Church such is a Bishop in the particular L. 5. de sum Pont. c. 3. as Cardinall Bellarmine once held though lately in his Recognitions he retracteth it after this manner Whereas I said that a Bishop was the same in a particular Church as the Pope is in the vniuersall it is thus to be taken that as the Pope is the true Pastor and Prince of the Church vniuersall so is a Bishop a true Pastor and Prince of a particular Church not a Vicar or administrator for a certaine time c. Which yet serueth well for our purpose in hand for if a Bishop a spiritual Prince of a particular church cannot by vertue of

world We know well that as he is the Sonne of God he is the King of glory King of kings Lord of heauen and earth and of all things Psal 23. Domini enim est terra plenitudo eius and reigneth with the Father and the holy Ghost for euer but what is this to a temporall kingdome what is this to the imperiall dignitie of secular maiestie Therefore I meane not to stand to confute this opinion of Canonists which hath bene most learnedly confuted by Cardinall Bellarmine Lib. 5. de sum Pont. c. 2. 3 but to let it passe as most absurd that cannot be proued by any sound reason nor ancient authorities either of Scriptures Fathers or Councels but maintained by captious fallacies vnapt similitudes and corrupt interpretations An other opinion there is of Diuines who dislike and with most strong reasons do confute the Canonists positiōs but yet so as they vphold and labour to maintain the Popes temporall power though in other sort then the former that is De Ro. Pont. lib. 5. c. 6. indirectly or casually and by consequence This then they write and namely Cardinall Bellarmine Asserimus Pontificem vt Pontificem et si non habeat vllam merè temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad bonum spirituale summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum We affirme that the Pope as Pope although he hath not any meerly temporal power yet in order to the spiritual good he hath a supereminent power to dispose of the tēpotall goods of all Christians And againe in the same chapter Quantum ad personas non potest Papa vt Papa ordinariè temporales Principes deponere etiam iusta decausa eo modo quo deponit Episcopos id est tanquam ordinarius iudex c. As touching the persons the Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily depose temporall Princes yea for a iust cause after that sort as he deposeth Bishops that is as an ordinary iudge yet he may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to an other as the chiefe spirituall Prince if that be necessarie to the health or sauing of soules And in the same booke the first chapter where he putteth downe the Catholicke opinion as he saith he altereth it somewhat in this manner Pontificem vt Pontificem c. That the Pope as Pope Lib. 5. cap. 1. hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power but only spirituall yet by reason of the spirituall he hath at least indirectly a certaine power that chiefe or highest in tēporals You haue here set downe by Cardinall Bellarmine the opinion of Diuines that the Pope as Pope or chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not directly and immediatly any temporall power to depose Christian Princes but that indirectly I wot not how he may depose them and dispose of their temporals and so in effect and after a sort agreeeth with the Canonists that indeed such power is rightly in him only he differeth about the manner with a restraint from infidels to Christian Princes But I trust as he in improuing the Canonists assertiō of direct power ouer al the world driueth them to Scriptures or tradition of the Apostles so likewise we may require that he proue his indirect power by one of these two wayes If he cannot as most certainely he cannot then why should men giue more credite to him then to the other they being as Catholike and haply no lesse learned then he Why should his opinion be thought more true then the former To disproue the Canonists thus he writeth Ex Scriptur is nihil habemus Bellar de Ro. Pont l. 5. c. 3. nisi datas Pontifici claues regni coelorum declauibus regni terrarium nulla mention fit Traditionem Apostolicam nullam aduersary proferunt Out of Scriptures we haue nothing but that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen were giuen to the Pope of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth no mention is made at all Apostolical tradition our aduersaries produce none Hereby it seemeth the Cardinall goeth about to proue against his aduersaries that because the keyes of the kingdome of the earth are no where mentioned in the Scripture to be giuen to Peter and his sucsessors therefore the Pope hath not any direct authoritie to depose the Princes of the world nor dispose of their temporals insinuating that the keyes of the kingdome of heauen promised and granted to Peter or to the Church in the person of Peter can worke no such effect nor were granted to depriue Christian Princes or others of their scepters and regall dignities but onely by censures and spirituall authority to exclude vnworthy sinners from eternall felicitie and admit such as are truly penitent to the kingdome of heauen If this argument be good against the Canonists then why is it not also good against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe when as he can no more produce Apostolicall tradition to confirme his indirect authoritie then the other their direct And of the keyes of the kingdome of the earth required for deposing Princes and disposing of temporals no mention is made in all the Scriptures no not for his indirect or casuall authoritie Consider besides I pray you for it is worth the noting how obscurely and ambiguously he writeth of the Popes power to depose thereby haply intending to seeke some starting hole of equiuocation if occasion serue and meane while leaue his reader doubtfull and still to seeke of his meaning which in my simple Judgement is such as the iudicious wit can hardly conceiue nor tell what he would say As for example that the chiefe Bishop as chiefe Bishop hath not any power meerly temporall c. as is noted before lib. 5. cap. 6. and in the same chapter The Pope as Pope cannot ordinarily note depose c. no not for a iust cause mary as he is the chiefe spirituall Prince he may depose and dispose c. Helpe me good Reader to vnderstand this riddle how these two differ in some essentiall point Pope and chiefe spirituall Prince I must confesse that I vnderstand not how he is the chiefe spirituall Prince but as he is Pope that is the Father of Fathers or chiefe Pastor of soules in the Church of God It is wel knowne that this title Pope or Papa in Latin hath bene attributed to many ancient Patriarchs and Bishops as well as to the Bishop of Rome though principally to him and now is appropriated to him alone and for nought else but for being Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Princes of the Church and for that cause only not for being a temporal Prince Peters successor hath his denomination Which in effect D. Kellison affirmeth saying D. Kellisons Reply to M. Sutel ca. 1. f. 9. Bern. lib. 2. de consid I grant with S. Bernard that the Pope as Pope hath no temporall iurisdiction his power as he is Pope being onely spirituall If then it be so that the Pope as Pope

yeares from her beginning to depose Iulian Constantius Valens and other hereticall Princes and therefore permitted Christians to obey them in temporals Saint Cyprian saith that in his time the number of Christians were verie great Cypr. in Demetrianum Tertul. in Apologet. And Tertullian writeth thus Were we disposed not to practise secret reuenge but to professe open hostilitie should we want number of men or force of armes Are the Moores or the Parthians or any one nation whatsoeuer more in number then we that are spread ouer all the world We are not of you and yet we haue filled all the places and roomes which you haue Your Cities Ilands Castles Townes Assemblies your Tents Tribes and Wards yea the Imperiall Pallace Senate and seate of judgement Euseb l. 3. de rita Constan Niceph. l. 5. c. 25. c. Eusebius likewise and Nicephorus report That the whole world as it were vnder Constantius was Christian and the greater part Catholicke How then is it true that the Church in her nouitie wanted forces And therefore she permitted Christians to obey their Princes in temporals saith the Cardinall Euen so permitted as father Parsons in his letter to the Catholickes of England against the Oath of allegiance affirmeth that Pope Clement by a Breue had permitted ciuill obedience to our King and recommended to all Catholickes soone after his Highnesse entrance vnto the Crowne As if ciuill obedience had not bene otherwise due but by his Holinesse permission Who would haue thought such an imprudent and strange kind of phrase could haue so escaped his pen But it seemeth he had learned the same out of Cardinall Bellarmines writings and so presumed it would passe as current without controlement And may not the world maruell be it spoken with due reuerence to his great dignitie which I haue euer and in heart still do honour that a man so excellently learned will teach that Christian subiects vnlesse they be permitted by the Church are not bound to render obedience to their lawfull Kings and Princes if they become heretickes or aduersaries to true religion and persecutors Princes infidels lose no right but are the true and supreme Princes of their kingdomes as he himselfe teacheth Lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 2. for dominion is not founded either in grace or in faith so as the Pope hath no authoritie to meddle with them Marry if these become Christians and after fall to heresie what then In that case saith he Potest regna mutare vni auferre Cap. 6. alteri conferre He may change kingdomes and take from one and giue to another saith he Then is their condition worse as touching temporall possessions then it was when they were infidels worse then the conditiō of the basest of their subiects But Christian religion depriueth no man of his right who had right in infidelitie cannot lose the same by receiuing the grace and faith of Christ which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Cardinall howsoeuer he seemeth sometime to teach contrary to himselfe Bellar. lib. 5. de Ro. Pont. c. 3. Christ did not saith he nor doth take kingdomes from them to whom they belong for Christ came not to destroy those things which were well setled but to establish them And therefore when a King becometh a Christian he doth not lose his earthly kingdome which by right he held but purchaseth a new interest to an euerlasting kingdome otherwise the benefites receiued by Christ should be hurtfull to Kings and grace should destroy nature If Christian Kings lawfully attaining to their dominions by right of nature enioy the same as cannot be denied and so are to be obeyed why not also if they happen to fall backe into heresie or infidelitie their right not being founded in grace or in faith To say that such Princes or magistrates are not to be obeyed cometh neare the heresie charged vpon Wickliffe and condemned in the Councel of Constance and is repugnant to the doctrine of the holy Ghost in sacred Scriptures and practise of all blessed Saints and Martyrs who most promptly without any permission of the Pope or Church obeyed Pagan Princes vnder whom they were subiect in all ciuill causes onely in defence of faith and Gods truth made choice rather to shed their bloud then by obeying Caesar to disobey God And where such a permission was euer granted as to obey Iulian or other hereticall Emperour cannot be found in any generall Councell or ancient Fathers writings before the dayes of S. Thomas of Aquine 2.2 q. 12.2.2 of whom the Cardinall learned his doctrine of permission to obey till such time as they had forces to depriue them of their Empire Consider I pray you that S. Paul hauing receiued his doctrine immediatly from heauen writing to the Christians in Rome permitted not for a time but strictly commanded them euer to obey higher powers Rom. 13. Sap. 6. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers Was this meant trow ye for onely higher powers Christians or heathen onely for a time No but for all sorts of rulers and as long as there be superiors and inferiors The holy Apostle in this and other his Epistles often inculcateth this necessary vertue of obedience diligently exhorting and commanding as well subiects to be obedient to their Princes as seruants to their masters and all inferiors to their superiors And were not these maisters and higher powers for the most part Pagans Were they not enemies to Christian religion whom they were taught to obey Was any sort of inferiors exempted from obeying S. Iohn Chrysostome will put you out of doubt that such subiection is commanded to all sorts Priests Monkes Chrysost in cap. 13. Rom. hom 23. August in lib. expositionis quorundam propos ex epist ad Rom. and secular men as the Apostle himselfe declareth in the verie beginning Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit etiam si Apostolus sis si Euangelista si Propheta siue quisquis tandem fueris neque enim pietatem subuertit ista subiectio Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers yea if thou art an Apostle if an Euangelist if a Prophet or finally whosoeuer thou art Marke well For this subiection subuerteth not pietie or religion And he specially noteth that S. Paul saith not simply Obediat but subdita sit And why because power is of God Non est enim potestas nisi à Deo For there is no power but of God Quid dicis saith this holy Father to S. Paul Omnis ergo Princeps à Deo constitutus est Istud inquit non dico Neque enim de quouis Principum sermo mihi nunc est sed de ipsa re What saist thou O Paul is then euery Prince constituted of God This saith he I say not For neither of euery Prince do I now speake but of the thing it selfe that is of power And the Apostle