Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	church_n	doctrine_n	rome_n	2,813	5	6.6425	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A35138	The catechist catechiz'd: or, Loyalty asserted in vindication of the oath of allegiance, against a new catechism set forth by a father of the Society of Jesus To which is annexed a decree, made by the fathers of the same Society, against the said oath: with animadversions upon it. By Adolphus Brontius, a Roman-Catholick.	Cary, Edward, d. 1711.; England. Parliament.	1681 (1681)	Wing C722; ESTC R222415	68,490	195

faces of his own Fathers But grant saies he they did subscribe to the Censure did they swear to what they subscribed Again where is old Honesty Will not a Religious honest man swear to what he will not refuse to subscribe If what he subscribes to be true what harm is there in due Circumstances to swear it If it be not true what honesty can subscribe to it Is not this still to bespatter his French Fathers He advances thus Can the Subscription of Sixteen Jesuits make the Doctrine of deposing Heretical I answer no. But this argues that some Jesuits have two Faiths in their pockets one for Rome and another for Paris they at Rome professing it to stand with the Word of God and they at Paris declaring it to be against the Word of God and is not this to play at Blind-mans-buff with his own Fathers Next he asks whether the French Oath of Allegiance be the same with the English and he answers himself no but adds that the Oath-teachers use to say it was the same My reply is that if he fancy any such Oath-teachers he may fight against his own dream for I know of none who use to say so nor do I see what great need there is of such a Oath in France for those men of your Society whose Books were burnt in Paris for teaching the deposing Doctrin do restrain the Pope's Power of deposing to the cases of Heresy and Apostacy Now the French Kings living in communion with the Church of Rome and fearing no danger from the deposing Doctrin it may be reason of state in them not to meddle with the Pope's Power in their Oath of Allegiance But should the French Kings recede from the Roman Communion as the Kings of England have done or should the deposing men be found in a secret Conspiracy against their Lives as the Powder-Traitors were at Westminster who acted by the deposing Principles can he tell us what Oath the French King would then frame If he cannot let him learn from the Decrees already made against that Doctrin both by that Church and State When I had in defence of the Oath of Allegiance declared that a Moral Certainty was a sufficient assurance to justify an honest man in his Oath and consequently that there was no necessity that the thing sworn should be so absolutely true in it self that it could not possibly be otherwise for then no Oath or at least but few could be taken but onely that it should be true to the judgment of the Swearer when I say I had declared this the Catechist both in his former print and also now inveighs against me as encouraging the greatest dishonesty imaginable and yet poor man he is lap'st into the same errour but sees it not for he assures us he has the same Certainty in swearing the King to be the right and Lawful King of this Realm as he has of Innocent the 11th being Pope who not-withstanding he confesses may possibly be no Pope as not being Baptized Ordained or being simoniacally Elected c which is not to swear the truth of a thing in it self but as it is in the swearers judgment who has for warrant of his honesty a moral Certainty whatever the truth in it self may possibly be Is not this to play at blind-buff and contradict himself At the winding up of his Catechism he propounds to himself a question of all hitherto it may be the most Important 'T is thus How comes it to pass saies he that the Pope's Declaration binds to a Compliance in not taking the Oath even with the loss of Liberty Life and Fortunes seeing the Precepts of the Church do not oblige with so much rigour and he answers himself in the words following because saies he the Law of God obliges me not to take an Unlawful Oath and the Law of God is indispensable Now the Pope declares my Obligation of not taking the Oath to be a part of God's Law from whence it follows that 't is indispensable On the contrary the Precepts of the Church are dispensable and oblige not to the forfeiture of Lives and Fortunes The Question put I confess is clear and easy but in his answer he confounds himself though from both I conclude his sence must be thus that the Oath is not therefore indispensable because it is prohibited by the Pope for that would not oblige us with the hazard of Lives and Fortunes but because it is against the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition and the Pope now as God's Vicar declares it to be so and consequently 't is Indispensable This I say must be his sence if he has any For when he tells us that God obligeth us not to take an unlawful Oath the Question returns what makes an Oath Unlawfull If it be the Pope's prohibition onely that 's dispensable if it be the Law of God antecedent to the Pope's prohibition 't is therefore indispensable This being so I ask whether this prohibition or declaration of the Pope be a definition of Faith or no If it be where is the thing defined without which 't is impossible there should be a Definition Besides is not every man free to maintain any one clause or proposition of the Oath without doing the least injury to the Popes prohibition or declaration For whoever affirms that the Pope's Prohibition falls upon any particular Clause is too rash as not having any warrant from the Pope for his bold Assertion Since then every part of the Oath may separately be maintain'd without infringing the Pope's Prohibition how can the Prohibition of the Oath be a Definition of Faith Clearly then the Pope's declaration by his Breves is bottom'd upon his own private Opinion unto which though all due respect is to be pay'd yet why it should oblige the Catholicks of England with the loss of Liberty Fortunes and Lives since he owns the precepts of the Church do not I expect to be instructed by another Catechism nor do I think he values his own life so little as to hazard it upon the private Opinion of the Pope though never so Learned and Holy But if he will he must pardon others who are not of his mind To convince him that some Breves of Popes may pass un-obey'd I instanced in Nicolas John Caelestin Alexander and most particularly in Boniface the Eight who in his Bull against the French King declared himself not only Supream in Spirituals but also in Temporals and that all were Hereticks who held otherwise To these Objections he sends me to Bellarmin to receive my Answer and I at the same time sent him and another to Withrington and to John Barclay Father and Son who to a tittle have made good the Objection against Bellarmin To say as he does that those Errours were the private Opinions of Popes is to yield the cause and own that Popes may err in their private Opinions and consequently that his Commands such as is the prohibition

Subiects whereof some were Roman-Catholicks vigorously opposed them From hence 't is evidently concluded that the Power of Deposing and Absolving from the Oath must be understood of Spiritual Power in the Pope or Church and that no secret Reservation intervenes since nothing is concealed which by clear and undeniable circumstances is not revealed So ends this Chapter The summe of his gains in this fifth Chapter is this First he corrupts the words of the Oath Secondly he will have words to signify without rule Thirdly in signification of words he has no regard to subjecta materia or the matter in hand Fourthly by vertue of his Logick he can make one to be two or two to be one Fifthly he minds no Circumstances in the understanding of words Finally to beat down the Oath he forces the word Absolve out of his proper to an improper sence Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrin The Sixth Chapter Examined THis Chapter speaks loud promiseth much and performs little a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels for the game which he thought was in his hand is beyond his reach Three things he attempts in this Chapter First to justify the Popes Breves Secondly to stop the mouth of his Adversary Thirdly to clear himself of his Loyalty God send him a good Deliverance The method to his design is to charge the fifth branch of the Oath with a small parcel of Heresies or Articles repugnant to Faith in number no more than five The Pope though he declares in his Breve that there are many things against Faith in the Oath yet in his wisdom thought it fit to conceal them nay being from time to time with humble supplication sollicited to declare them would never condescend to any discovery How came the mystery to be now reveal'd Is this Catechist the Pope's Nuncio has he any warrant from him to define what is Heresy If not he is deeply guilty of usurping a power of defining no more appertaining to him than to the King and Parliament against whom he is so earnest for using their judgment only of discretion in Censuring a proposition for Heretical The Clause of the Oath which he now attacks runs thus And I do farther swear that I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as Impious and Heretical this Damnable Doctrin and Position that Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any whatsoever Before I enquire into the Heresies with which he chargeth this Clause I have two exceptions against him the first is that he permits so many synominous expressions to pass uncontrouled in this Clause for which he so hotly inveighed against the first For Doctrin and Position abhor and detest to swear against and abjure seem to march in synonymous couples My second exception is that he passeth by this censure as Impious tacitly allowing the Doctrin abjur'd to be Impious though not Heretical Whereas in truth there is the same rule for both the repugnance to the Word of God giving both denominations and therefore whoever may swear to abhor aposition as Impious may abjure it as Heretical But these are only points of incogitancy his Eyes and Thoughts being fixed upon a bunch of Heresies which hangs from this branch of the Oath The First Article against Faith in this Clause he declares to be for a Secular Power much more a Protestant to usurp the Supremacy due to the Church in deciding what is Heretical Had he been pleased to have term'd it against good manners for the Secular or Protestant Power to have gone before the Spiritual or Church in deciding what is Heretical it had been more moderate but to say 't is against Faith 't is unpardonable For what if a General Council should afterwards define the same Doctrine to be Heretical which King James and his Parliament have done in this Oath which for ought he knows in good time it may would they have acted any thing against Faith meerly because they prevented the Council If so then all those Pious Christians who declared Arianism Eutychianism Berengarianism and the like to be against their Faith before the three Councils defined the same did all act against Faith Nay the hot De-fide-men of the Schools who so highly value themselves upon their Doctrine crying out The Church the Church at every turn and knocking their Adversaries on the head with hoc est Hereticum will not be exempt from this censure since a thousand propositions have been by them declared Heretical never thought of by any Council Nothing is more frequent amongst the Censors of Books than such Qualifications and shall it be said they have all usurp't the Supremacy of the Church in so doing or that they have acted against Faith If so let them be all Hereticks for company The second point he defines to be against Faith in this Clause is a complyance in the Swearer with that Usurped Power it being sayes he an Approbation of that Usurpation Is it not pleasant that what he has concluded against the Maker and Swearer of this Clause may all be true and yet the Clause it self be clear and innocent So it is for a bare Usurpation of the Supremacy in declaring what is Heretical as also a bare compliance with that usurpation are the faults of the persons not of the Clause which may be very good and orthodox whilst the Usurper and Complyer are not How then comes it to be concluded that this is against Faith in this Clause The third Heresy he fastens upon this Clause is That it makes a doctrine Heretical which has never been condemn'd by the Church I answer that neither the Oath-maker nor the Church her self can render by their condemnation a doctrine Heretical which was not so before their Condemnation If then the Doctrine which by this Clause is declared to be Heretical be such in its self before the declaration as it may be for any thing now opposed how can the declaration of it in this Clause be against Faith Again do not Catholicks as well as Protestants repute that to be Heretical which is repugnant to the clear Word of God Do not the Divines in the Schools censure that for Heretical which is in Opposition to an evident consequence derived from Faith And is not either of these the plain and common sense of this word Heretical Why then in the acceptation of that word must we be ty'd up to his humorous Notion since common use which gives life to words has left us at liberty And seeing the Law-maker's Rule of Faith in whose sence we are to swear is the Word of God written if what in this Clause is declared to be Heretical be truly against that Rule how is it possible this Clause should be inconsistent with Faith Is not this an odd piece of Doctrine to be put into a Catechism His fourth and fifth charge against this clause of the Oath are that it makes that to be