Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	bind_v	heaven_n	loose_v	3,336	5	10.8622	5	false

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

Emperours and Kings doe which persecute the true and Orthodoxe Christians This is not the right using but abusing of the sword and authoritie committed to them So that the power and authoritie is the same to both but the difference is in the use or abuse of that Authoritie All the supremacie power and authoritie graunted from God to any Emperours Kings and Princes within their Dominions ought to be imployed for God and not against him in any sort And according hereunto the true Christian Emperours and Kings use their Civill swords and authorities for God and for advancement of his service truth and religion And although Heathen and Infidell Emperours and Kings doe commonly abuse that sword and authoritie which God hath given them against God and against his service servants and religion Ezra 1.2.3 c. Ezra 6.1.2 3 c. Ezra 7.12.13.14.15.16.17 18. c. Dan. 3.28.29 Dan. 6.24.25.26 Yet if any Heathen Emperour or King doe commaund any thing for God or for his service worship or religion as they may doe and sometimes have done as appeareth by the examples of King Cyrus King Darius King Artaxerxes King Nabuchadnezzar and others therein they are no lesse to bee obeyed then if it had beene commaunded by the godlyest best professed Christian King in the world And this you may see further declared in my first Booke Chap. 1. pag 7. and in my Reply pag. 44. 45. Wherefore it is evident that even Pagan and Heathen Kings have the same supremacie power and authoritie within their Kingdomes and Dominions to commaund for God his service religion which Christian Kings and Princes have although they doe not as they should evermore use extend and imploy that their power and authoritie accordingly for God and his religion and consequently the defect is not in respect of any power or authoritie which they want not but in respect of their understandings wils and affections which being depraved and corrupted and not rectified or sanctified nor converted to Christ and Christianitie doe carrie them awry and the wrong way But you propound unto mee yet further another question which is this What if the King of Slavonia or any other king misled by frailtie ignorance or malice should imploy their powers to force their subjectes from the true Religion and thereby subvert and ruinate not onely their owne soules but the soules of their subjects also Might not the King in this case being as you call him a scabbed sheepe all other meanes fayling of his recoverie be compelled by the Bishop of Rome to imbrace Gods true faith and religion and to permitte the same freedome unto his subjects I answer no. For first what right or authoritie from God hath the Bishop of Rome in this case to compell Kings and Princes more th●n other Bishops have Yea neyther the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath any such power or authoritie included or comprised within those their Ecclesiasticall callings and Ministeries as by worldly power and externall force of Armes to compell a King to the right religion It is true that the Ministers of Christ may exhort perswade the best they can a King erring in his Religion from his error and may doe what their Ecclesiasticall commission graunted them from Christ will warrant them to doe but no further may they goe for then doe they Fines alienos invadere Rom 13.4 Invade other mens bounds S. Bernard speaketh as kings have the temporall sword to commaund and to compell Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall have not that but another sword to use namely a spirituall sword or sword of the spirit which is the word of God Ephes 6.17 as S. Paul calleth defineth it And therefore these two swords must bee distinguished and not confounded Yea Christ Iesus himselfe whilst hee was here upon earth would not meddle with worldly or temporall matters For when one spake unto him desiring him to bid his brother to devide the inheritance with him Luke 12.13 14. Math 16.19 hee refused and said Man who made mee to be a Iudge or a devider over you If you object that Christ said to Peter Whatsoever thou bindest on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in heaven Remember that hee spake also the same thing plurally to all the Apostles giving to them all alike the same authoritie Math. 18.18 saying thus Quicquid ligaveritis c. Whatsoever yee binde on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven You cannot therefore by vertue of those wordes inferre that Peter or his successors had any more authoritie to depose Kings or to compell them in any sort to the right religion or to any thing else then eyther Iames or Iohn or the rest of the Apostles or any of their successors had in the like case For the same authoritie and in the same wordes is as you see graunted aswell to the one as to the other Neyther againe must you forget or omit the former part of those wordes spoken by CHRIST unto Peter which bee these I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16.19 For the subsequent wordes spoken to him of binding and loosing have reference thereunto and are therefore to bee expounded not of things earthly or concerning terrestiall matters or worldly kingdomes but of things concerning another world and kingdome namely concerning the kingdome of heaven And so also doth S. Bernard directly declare saying thus to Eugenius Bishop of Rome Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus Bernard de considerat ad Eugen. lib. 2. potestas vestra Quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistu claves regni coelorum Your power saith hee concerneth sinnes and not matters of possession because for those and not for these yee have received the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Yea that the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were also graunted equally and alike to all the Apostles I have further shewed very fully and plainely in my first Booke pag. 292. 293. 294. c. And that no part of the power of those keyes no not Excommunication it selfe were it never so justly or lawfully awarded is of any force by Gods law and institution to depose Kings or to disanall the duetie allegeance of subjects I have likewise shewed in the same my first Booke pag. 299. 300. 301. By what right or reason then shall or can the Bishop of Rome who is also revera no Minister of Christ at all but the very apparant grand Antichrist as I have proved at large throughout the third part of my first Booke clayme to have any such externall power coactive or compulsive over Kings But moreover this question here propounded by you was sufficently answered and resolved before by S Chrysostome in the case of king Vzziah otherwise called Ozias where hee putteth this difference

sophistically but substantially soundly and satisfactorily if he could so that if he could not make such an answer hee might have said so and so have beene excused But you are loth to disable your selfe and therefore as touching the answer you made to the two Chapters of that my first booke you say that I am not to judge whether it be substantiall sound and satisfactory but that the equall and indifferent Reader is to judge of it which I am well contented hee should doe by conferring my Reply with that your ananswer And therefore I proceede to my third request which consisteth of two partes for I make not foure requests or foure conditions as you surmise The first part of that my third request was this that I would have him whosoever was to be the answerer to answer in love and charitie and with an affection onely to follow Gods truth Thus far I am sure you cannot denie it to bee a reasonable request And as touching the other part of it whereby I desired him that would answer to put his name to his answer as I had done to that booke of mine although this be it you chiefly except against yet even this part of it also was not unreasonable and therefore did I justly reprove you for that in stead of your right name you gave your selfe the wrong false counterfeite name of Iohn at Stile But yet in your Reioy●der you herein seeke to excuse defend your selfe by the example of Abram who comming into Pharaoh● Court in Egipt Gen. 12.11.12.13 c. called Sarai his wife by the name of his Sister and you adde further and say that Matthew Sutcliffe a Protestant writer did put for his name unto his worke O.E. First concerning Abram though hee were an holy man yet hee had his faults and imperfections amongst which this is reckoned for one which you here alleage And can then that which was a fault in him make yours to bee no fault But yet in all that hee neyther changed his name nor his wifes name into a false and counterfeite name as you did For hee still called himselfe Abram and his wife Sarai without any alteration or change of those their proper names And as touching Doctor Sutcliffe the reason why hee put for his name those two letters O. E. was because the man whom hee answered had likewise for his name subscribed certaine letters but the case betweene you and mee is not like For I subscribed my name truely and as it was and therefore so should you also have done Howbeit at the first you excused your selfe herein by reason of the Statute of 2. Eliz. which doth say you in your first answer binde mens tongues and pennes within this kingdome with the cord of a Premunire from oppugning the Supremacie eyther by word or writing Vpon which answer of yours it is true I did and who could otherwise suppose but that you then thought whatsoever you say now that the penaltie for that your first offence against that Statute in oppugning the Kings Supremacie was a Premunire For to what end else doe you so specially mention that to bee the penaltie if you had not thought so I did not therefore wrong you as you now alleage in your Reioynder when I taxed you being a Lawyer See the Statute it selfe of 2. Eliz. cap. 1 made in Ireland with ignorance in your owne profession concerning that Statute For that Statute doth not as you then supposed for any mans first offence inflict the penaltie of a Premunire but as I then likewise tould you the losse of goods and chattels after once conviction and attainder it is indeede for the second offence a Premunire after twice conviction attainder it is for the third offence high treason Did you then account it a wrong done unto you that I supposed this to be your first offence against that statute Or would you have had me to think which was more then I knew at that time more then yet I know that you had bin once before convicted attainted of that offence that this was your second offence in that kinde For unlesse this were thus your second offence you needed not to have feared or mentioned a Premunire to have beene your penaltie in the case you might aswell as wisely have named mentioned the penaltie to have beene high treason in asmuch as for the third offence that Statute also maketh it to be high treason aswell as it maketh it for the second offence to bee a Premunire But I conceived as I thinke any man else not knowing any thing to the contrarie would have conceived that it was not any your second offence nor third offence that you then and there meant or had any reason or purpose to speake of but your first offence the penaltie of which first offence is by that Statute neyther Premunire nor high treason as I said before and consequently if you would deale ingenuously you must confesse that you then mistooke and were deceived in opinion whilest you thought the penaltie for that your first offence to bee a Premunire by that Statute But then you say that you will not bee so sawcie as to taxe mee with ignorance in my profession concerning the same Statute and yet you see not say you how the subscribing of your name unto the answer could have beene any legall plea to have saved you from penaltie if you had beene indicted upon that Statute Neyther doe I see how it could although you would faine wrest my words from their true sence unto that construction For whereas you have said that my requiring of the Answerer to put his name unto the Answer was in effect asmuch as to debarre any man from answering unto it I thereunto replyed that hee that in answering is required to put his name to his answere is so farre from being debarred from answering that cleane contrarywise hee is thereby that is by such requiring of him to answer in that sort permitted to answer if hee please so as hee put his name thereunto I did not say as you seeme purposely to misconstrue and mistake that by answering in that sort viz. with his name subscribed to his answer he was to be freed from all manner of penaltie contayned in that Statute of 2. Eliz. I was never so absurd or sencelesse to say or thinke it Yea you might have observed that I there shewed and expressely affirmed the cleane contrarie namely that the penaltie even for the first offence against that Statute whether with his name subscribed or not subscribed or howsoever was losse of goods and chattels And therefore whether this were ignorance of that point of the Statute in me or grosse perverse and malicious cavilling and quarrelling in you let the equall Reader judge But yet in your Reioynder you further say that you cannot imagine why I should so much covet the answerers right name unlesse it be by advantage of the