Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	authority_n	canonical_a	church_n	4,930	5	4.6276	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03944	An adioynder to the late Catholike new yeares gift, or explication of the oath of allegeance Wherein certaine principall difficulties, obiected by a very learned Roman-Catholike, against the sayd New-yeares gift, and explication of the oath, are very clearely explained. Published by E.I. the author of the New-yeares gift.	Preston, Thomas, 1563-1640.	1620 (1620)	STC 14050; ESTC S100127	50,683	158

any man his goods yet it is not cleare in Scriptures although it be otherwise certaine that these goods are an other mans but this must be proued out of Scripture And although it be cleere in Scripture that we must not kill and consequently an vndoubted lawfull King yet it is not cleare in Scripture although it be otherwise certaine either that this particular killing of a priuare man is don by priuate and not by publike authoritie or that part cular man to bee a lawfull King or a King yea or to be a man but these must bee proued by principles which are no Scriptures Many other examples may be brought out of the new Testamēt as of Priests to remit sins of Popes to be the chiefe Pastors of the Church of Sacraments to be effectuall outward signes of inuisible grace for that out of Scripture only we cannot proue any man whatsoeuer to bee a true Priest any Pope whatsoeuer to bee a true Pope or any Sacrament whatsoeuer to bee a true Sacrament but to proue them to bee such one of the premisses must be taken out of the holy Scripture 2 But least you should obiect that to draw one to an inconuenience is not to solue the argument Secondly I answere directly that it is very vntrue in my iudgement and also repugnant to the common doctrine of Diuines that to make a Conclusion to bee faith and the contrarie hereticall both the premisses must be expresly and formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures but it is sufficient that one onely of them bee expressed in the holy Scripture and the other certaine by naturall reason Ad fidem aliquîd pertinet dupliciter c. To faith a thing belongeth two waies saith S. Thomas 2.2 q. 11. ar 2. one way directly and principally as the Articles of faith an other way indirectly and secondarily as those things from which doth follow the corruption of some article Which words of S. Thomas Bannes declareth more plainely distinctly in these words Illa secundùm D. Thomam indirectè sunt fidei c. Those things according to S. Thomas are indirectly of faith by the denying wherof it followeth necessarily by a good consequence that to be false which is affirmed firmed by faith As if one deny Christ to haue power to laugh doth erre in the Catholike faith consequently and indirectly Because it well followeth by a consequence knowne by the light of nature that Christ is not a perfect man 3 Et notandum est aliquam propositionem esse de fide duobus modis c. And it is to be noted saith Franciscus de Christo h Pag. 23 that a proposition is of faith two waies one way proximè and immediately of which sort is euery proposition which is formally and expresly conteyned in the holy Scripture as that Abraham had two sonnes the other way a proposition is of faith mediatly of which sort is euery proposition which by a good consequence is deduced from that which is immediately of faith as that Christ had not power to vnderstand that he had not a will c. Therefore that proposition which is deduced from that which is formally conteyned in the holy Scriptures is of faith and the proposition repugnant to that is hereticall Thus he And Franciscus Pegna in his Annotations vpon the Directorie of the Inquisitours part 2. Comment 27. citing for the same Cardinal Turrecremata and other Doctours putteth in the second place or degree of Catholike verities those which are by a necessarie consequence deduced from the holy Scriptures And a little after he affirmeth that those propositions are to be accounted hereticall which are repugnant to these Catholike assertions And therefore I meruaile that you should conceiue that proposition not to be heretical which is deduced from two premisses whereof the one is expresly repugnant to the holy Scriptures and the other deduced necessarily from the light of naturall reason or sensible experience although wee should take hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington doth take it For according to your principles M. Widdrington could not maintaine that it is hereticall to affirme that Christ had not humane vnderstanding and will and that euery Tyrant may and ought lawfully meritoriously be slain by any whatsoeuer c. which neuerthelesse are expresly condemned by Generall Councels for hereticall Because to proue these propositions to be hereticall one of the premisses is only deduced from the light of naturall reason which is no Scripture 4 And if perchance you should answere that these propositions are therefore hereticall because Generall Councels haue condemned them for heretical now you fly from taking the word hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington with most Catholike Diuines and all Protestants doe take the word hereticall who hould that the definition or declaration of the Church doth not make any Catholike veritie or any doctrine hereticall but suppose it declare it make it known to all Catholikes which neuerthelesse before any declaration or definition of the Church was indeed Catholike veritie or hereticall doctrine and also knowne so to be to diuerse learned men who euidently saw the necessarie consequence from both the premisses For also as wel writeth Molina a most learned Iesuite Concursus Molina 1. part q. 1. ar 2 disp 1. quo spiritus sanctus praesto adest Ecclesiae c. The assistance wherewith the holy Ghost is present with the Catholike Church is not to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but onely that she do not erre in declaring those things which mediately or immediately belong to faith Wherefore as in the Church there is not power authority to make any thing of faith which before was not of faith but only to declare to the faithful which is certainly to be held of faith so also neither is there power and authoritie to make any sacred Scripture or to add to it any canonicall booke or any part but onely to iudge betwixt canonicall bookes and not canonicall Thus he wherein as you haue seene aboue i In the third Sectiō he agreeth with the common doctrine of Diuines 5 Now to that Logicall maxime That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part which is the chiefe ground of your obiection I answer that althogh it bee frequent in euerie mans mouth yet you are not ignorant that it is not by learned men vnderstood and expounded alike And first if you will vnderstand it without exception limitation or declaration how will you make good Aristotles saying in his first booke of the Priors cap. 10. When the Maior proposition is necessarie and the Minor de inesse the Conclusion is necessarie and not de inesse if the Conclusion doe alwaies follow the weaker part 6 Secondly you know that many learned Diuines whom Molina the Iesuite in the place aboue cited doth follow expound it thus That the Conclusion followeth the weaker part quoad certitudinem euidentiam in respect of certitude

the Pope himselfe but his meaning is to haue vs to sweare or at least acknowledge by Oath that the Pope hath no true reall and lawfull power to depose and which may be a sufficient ground and foundation to practise the deposition of any absolute Prince notwithstanding this their conceit imagination or opinion 9. But perchance you will obiect that both the power to depose and also the practice it selfe is approued for lawefull and sufficient not onely by the ancient Schoole-Diuines who peraduenture as you insinuate aboue might not haue marked all Widdringtons grounds but also by our owne moderne Doctours who no doubt haue seene the reasons and examined the grounds on both parts therefore the Pope hath at least wise a probable lawfull and sufficient power to practise the deposition of Princes But this obiection hath beene answered at large in the Neweyeares Gift * Cap. 9. num 9. For those Doctors who approue the practice of deposing Princes by the Popes authoritie doe ground their doctrine vpon a very false principle and which all the world now seeth to bee false and absurd to wit that it is certaine and vnquestionable among Catholikes that the Pope hath authoritie to depose Princes or else they did not obserue the manifest difference betwixt the lawfull practise of a probable power concerning fauour and punishment But that doctrine ought not to bee accounted probable in respect of extrinsecall grounds or the authority of Doctors when it is grounded vpon a principle which is knowne to bee manifestly false as is this that it is not now a controuersie among Catholikes whether the Pope hath authority to depose Princes or no. Neither can you alledge any one ancient or moderne Doctour who holding the doctrine for the Popes power to depose Princes to bee but probable approueth the practice thereof to bee lawfull For which cause they haue so much laboured these latter yeeres to proue it to bee certaine and of faith but all in vaine And therefore they haue now thought it best to bee silent then to write any more of this controuersie lest their further writings proue the doctrine which they in times past would haue had to be certaine to bee now scarse probable Yet I cannot but commend the ingenuity of Becanus who although some yeeres past was as hot in this question Becanus in Tract de fide ca. 15. q 4. as any of the rest for before hee affirmed that it is certaine at the least f In Controuersia Anglic. cha 3. q. 3. that the Pope hath authority to depose Princes yet now hauing some occasion to treat thereof againe is content to leaue it as a difficultie or controuersie Certum est c. It is certaine saith he that if we regard onely the Law of God or Nature hereticall Princes are not depriued of their Dominions or Iurisdiction de facto But whether a Prince may by the Law of the Church and the Popes sentence be depriued of his Dominion and Iurisdiction it is a difficulty And therefore Card. Peron now in his last booke cap. 91. p. 633. expressely affirmeth That this controuersie ought not to hinder the re-vnion of those who should bee reconciled to the Church In so much that he laboreth also to excuse Card. Bellarmine and sayth that Card. Bellarmine hath admonished his Readers that what hee propounded concerning the Popes power indirectly in temporals he did not propound it as a doctrine of faith and whereof wee must needs hold the one part or the other vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema which is as much as to say that albeit Card. Bellarmine did hold it to be a doctrine of faith yet he did hold it to bee so onely in his owne priuate opinion which others of the contrary opinion were not bound to follow vnder paine of Excommunication and Anathema As likewise although the Iesuites in times past held their doctrine de auxilijs gratiae to bee of faith yet because they held it to bee so onely in their priuate opinion they knew right well that the Dominicans who held the contrary were not bound to follow their priuate opinion vnder pain of Excommunication and Anathema and therfore they did not thereby cause a Schisme in the Church by seeking to exclude them from Sacraments and Ecclesiasticall Communion Neither ought they now according to Card. Peron his doctrine proceed otherwise in this controuersie of the Popes power to depose Princes 10. And if you obiect again which you vrge beneath Sect. 11. concerning a probable title that if a probable power to depose and punish bee not a sufficient and lawfull power to practise it is as good as no power at all I answer that for as much as concerneth practice it is in very deed as good as no power at all for that a probable power cannot bee a sufficient ground to punish or depriue any man of that which he possesseth as Lessius and P. Kellinson well obserued yet speaking generally your consequence is not good for no power is good for nothing but a probable power to punish and depose is good for this to haue the matter examined by a lawful and vndoubted Iudge who in respect of the deciding of the Popes power to depose Princes can onely be a lawfull and vndoubted Generall Councell as hath beene declared sufficiently in the New-yeeres Gift And this may suffice for the cleering of this difficulty Sect. 3. Obiection SEcondly I finde say you another difficulty about your exposition of the fourth Branch for I cannot see how any with safety of conscience can swear that the doctrine which maintaineth That Princes which be excommunicated and depriued may bee deposed or murthered by their owne subiects c. is impious and hereticall though wee should take hereticall in that sense which you doe take it which yet in my conceit is not so proper with vs nor Protestants who most of them hold that for hereticall which subuerteth the foundation of faith and not that which is contrarie to Scripture Answer 1. BVT before I goe any further Answ to set downe and examine the proofes of what here you say it is strange to mee that a man of your learning and reading should conceiue that the taking of hereticall in that sense wherein Widdrington doth take it to wit for that false doctrine which is contrary to the holy Scriptures is not so proper neither with vs nor Protestants For the Protestants hold the Scriptures to bee the onely rule of saith and consequently that to bee hereticall or against faith which is contrary to the Word of God which is the rule of faith And therefore euery falshood which is repugnant to the Word and testimony of God contained in the holy Scriptures is in the doctrine of Protestants and also of the most Catholike Diuines hereticall and repugnant to diuine and supernaturall faith though it be only in a poynt of some historicall narration as to deny Euod 3. that God appeared