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	new_a	testament_n	2,897	5	7.9529	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

therefore according to the Seuenth Branch we ought to take it so in this Clause 3. Thirdly I maruell that you should so resolutely affirme without alledging any reason that without doubt the intention of the Law-maker is that wee should no lesse detest the one part of the proposition then the other especially seeing that Mr. Widdrington hath answered at large this obiection in his Confutation of Mr. Fitzherbert who vrged the same obiection more fully then you haue done and yet you vrge here Mr. Fitzherberts obiection and take no notice of Mr. Widdringtons answer to the same And is it possible that a man of your learning can imagine that his Maiestie doth detest no lesse that is in the same degree of detestation and falsity the doctrine of murthering Princes excommunicated or depriued of the Pope then he doth of deposing them Or that he conceiueth that the doctrine of murthering the said Princes is not more manifestly false and against Scripture then is the doctrine of deposing them If you had diligently perused his Maiesties bookes you might haue seene that against the doctrine of deposing Princes by the Popes authority hee bringeth many proofes both out of the old and new Testament but against the doctrine of murthering them hee doth not so much labour for that he supposeth it to bee so manifestly false that no Catholike or Christian Diuine could bee so temetarious as to approue the same 4. But howsoeuer his Maiestie bee perswaded yet his intention which in this Oath wee must chiefly regard and not his beleefe perswasion or opinion is for as much as by reason and his Maiestie declaration wee can coniecture that wee should take the words according to the common sense and vnderstanding of them as wee are expressely bound by the Seuenth Branch of the Oath which as Mr. Widdrington hath proued is that we are not bound to abiure both parts for hereticall And truely I wonder that whereas you may and are bound to expound the words in a fauourable sense you seeke all euasions and deuises to expound them in a sense most false and absurd to the ouerthrowing of the temporall estates of English Catholikes to the disgrace of his Maiesty and to the scandall of the Catholike Roman Religion Sect. 8. Obiection MOreouer Obiect the ground say you whereon the lawfulnesse of swearing that the doctrin which maintaineth the Popes authority to depose Princes after depriuation is hereticall is not so certaine For it is this sole rule In dubio melior est conditio possidentis In a doubt the condition of the possessor is the better which rule seemeth to mee to be vnderstood rather in vero dubio in a true doubt and when neither side hath probability as when the minde doth fluctuate betwixt two and can yeeld assent to neither part of the contradiction then otherwise but about the Popes power to depose Princes there is no such doubt or fluctuation but both parts by you are thought probable at the least speculatiuely Answer 1. BVT first Answ albeit this rule bee oftentimes cited by Doctors In causa dubia or In dubio c. In a doubtfull cause or In a doubt c. yet both the Canon and Ciuill Law and you your selfe aboue doe cite it In paricasu c. In the like case c. And why doe not you now cite it in the same manner as you did aboue In the like case c. but In a doubt Is it possible that you can imagine that when both sides haue probability non est par casus The case is not alike 2. Secondly not onely this rule In pari casu c. In the like case c. But also besides that other rule Cum sunt inra partium c. When the rights of the parties who are in strife are obscure or not cleare the Defendant is rather to be fauoured then the Plaintiffe The common doctrine of Diuines wherof some are cited in the New-yeares Gift k In the first obseruation nu 11. pag. 43. who vnderstand it not onely of a true but also of a probable doubt and who also in my iudgement proue the same by conuincing reasons And yet you bring no other reason or authoritie that it is to be vnderstood onely of a true doubt but your owne conceipt which rule seemeth to me say you to be vnderstood rather in a true doubt and when neither side hath probabilitie then otherwise Is this thinke you a sound and sincere confutation of Widdringtons doctrine in a matter which is so iniurious to the soueraigne right of Princes and so preiudiciall and dangerous to the soules and temporall estates of English Catholikes Sect. 9. Obiection AND although Lessius and others with you seeme to hold say you that none can bee depriued of his right vpon a probable title onely Obiect yet that must be vnderstood first if that right bee not retained with the wrong of others or the retaining of that right bee not the hinderance of a greater good Answer 1. BVT first Answ why do you vse those words seem to hold as though they did not in very deed hold that none can bee depriued of his right to that whereof hee hath possession vpon a probable power or title onely whereas it is manifest that they doe expressely hold the same 2. Secondly why did you omit those words vpon a probable power whereas there is a great difference betwixt a probable power to punish and depose and a probable title Lessius in his Singleton part 2. num 38. and Lessius speaketh expressely of a probable power to punish and to depriue one of that which he actually possesseth 3. Thirdly Lessius proueth the insufficiency of a probable power to punish by a conuincing argument For if it were any way doubtfull the person accused might except against the Iudge and not obey him And hereupon credit is not giuen to delegates to the preiudice of another man vnlesse by an authenticall Instrument they shew their authoritie so that no iust cause of doubt be further left And D. Kellinson * In his Treatise called The Prince and the Prelate cap. 11. pa. 235. with others proue the insufficiency of a probable title without possession by those two rules aboue cited In pari casu c. and Cum sunt iura partium obscura c. And Vasquez confirmeth the same as you shall see beneath l Sect. 10. num 2. by other reasons in his iudgement vnanswerable And yet you without bringing any authority reason or proofe at all affirme too too resolutely that it must bee vnderstood first if that right be not retained with the wrong of others by whom you meane the Pope and Church whereas they vnderstand it generally and also the former Authors speake expressely of the Popes power to depose wicked Princes where you falsly suppose a wrong done to the Pope and Church in resisting the Popes sentence of depriuation For a Prince being depriued

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