Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	aaron_n	bishop_n	time_n	25	3	3.3706	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19951	An oration made on the part of the Lordes spirituall in the chamber of the Third Estate (or communality) of France, vpon the oath (pretended of allegiance) exhibited in the late Generall Assembly of the three Estates of that kingdome: by the Lord Cardinall of Peron, arch-bishop of Sens, primate of Gaule and Germany, Great Almenour of France &c. Translated into English, according to the French copy, lately printed at Paris, by Antoine Estiene. Whereunto is adioyned a preface, by the translatour.; Harangue faicte de la part de la chambre ecclésiastique en celle du Tiers-estat sur l'article du serment. English.	Du Perron, Jacques Davy, 1556-1618.	1616 (1616)	STC 6384; ESTC S116663	77,855	154

who seeth not that it is a Sacriledge that hath at all times drawne the Ire Wrath and Vengeance of God aswell vpon Kinges and Princes as vpon particuler Persons who haue attempted the same Euery one knoweth that Saul (a) 1. Reg. 13 15. was deposed from the right of his Royalty and died a miserable death because he would take vpon him the office of a Sacrificer We know that Oza (b) ● Reg. 6. was punished with a sudaine death for putting his hand to the Arke that seemed to sway to the one side We know that King (c) 2. Paralip 26. Ozias was stroken with leprosy and excluded from the administration and gouernment of his Kingdome for taking the Censar into his hand And holy Writ saith (d) Malach 26. The lippes of the Priest shall keepe knowledge and the Law they shall require of his mouth because he is the Angell of the lord of Hostes. And the Prophet Esay (e) Esay 54. saith to the Church Euery tongue resisting thee in iudgment thou shalt iudge And againe (f) Idem 60. The King shall walk in thy light the people in the brightnes of thy rising And King Iosaphat distinguisheth the boundes of the one and the others Iur●diction in these wordes (g) 2. Paral●p 19. Amarias saith he the Priest and your Bishop shal be chiefe in these thinges that appertayne to God and Zabadias the sonne of Ismael who is the Prince in the house of Iuda shal be ouer those workes which perteyne to the Kinges office And our Sauiour (h) Matth. 19. saith himselfe VVhosoeuer shall not heare the Church let him be vnto thee as an Ethnick and a Publican And S. Paul speaking vnto Pastors (i) Act. 20. saith The Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his owne bloud And speaking to the Laytie he saith (a) Heb. 3. Obey your Prelates for they watch hauing to render an accompt of your soules And againe (b) Heb. 5. Neither doth any man take the honour to himselfe but he that is called of God as Aaron And therefore we see that the first Christian Emperours were euerso respectiue and Religious as they would neuer make themselues Iudges neither of matters of faith nor of matters of the Churches discipline nor of the Bishops causes among themselues for feare of violating the rectitude that Gods Ministers ought to bring to Ecclesiasticall Iudgments by the feare of temporall Iurisdictions And that if they published any lawes in such cases it euer was after the Bishops had passed them and to further the temporall execution of the decisions formerly made by Ecclesiastique authority It is not lawfull forme saith (c) Ruff. l. 10. Eccles h●st c. 2. Constantine the Great who am placed ouer temporalities to censure and iudge the causes of Bishops And the Emperour Valentinian (d) Sozom. l. 6. c. 7. the first said It is not lawfull for me who am of the Laitie to arrogate to my selfe the curiosity of searching into these matters And the Emperour Theodosius the second (e) Epist ad Sinod● Ephes writing to the Councell of Ephesus sayth It is not lawfull for him who is not of the ranke of Bishops to intermeddle himself with the decision of the affaires of the Church And the most glorious and victorious of all our Kinges which was Charlemaine confirming the answere that Censtantine made saith (f) Carol. m●g● l. 6. cap. 301. The Emperour Constantine answered vpon the accusations of the Bishops To me who am placed ouer temporalities it is not lawfull to iudge the Bishops causes And confirming that which the Emperour Valentinian had said he vsed these words (a) Ibid. Your busines is aboue vs and therefore iudge among your selues of your owne causes For you are aboue vs. And when on the contrary the hereticall Emperours would take vpon them to meddle with Ecclesiasticall iudgmentes the holy Fathers resisted them contradicted them with all manner of constancy We are not permitted said Hosius to the Emperour (b) Epist ad Const apud Athā in ep ad solit vit agent Constance to hold the Empire on earth nor to You to lay hand on the Censar and to vsurpe the authority of Religion And S. Athanasius sayth (c) Athan. epist ad solit vitam agen When was it euer heard in the memory of man that the iudgments of the Church tooke their force from the Emperour And againe (d) Ibidem He treateth not of matters of the Roman Cōmon wealth where there may be credit giuen to you as to an Emperour but he speaketh of a Bishop And a little after (e) Ibidem Who is he who seeing an Emperour occupying the chiefest place in matters of the Church would not iudge that it were the abomination of the desolatiō fortould by Daniel And Gregory Nazianzen (f) Greg. Naz. orat adcities ti percuis Princip irascent saith Will you heare a free word which is That the law of Iesus Christ subiecteth you to my Iurisdiction to my tribunal For we are Emperours also namly in an Empire greater and perfecter then yours And S. Ambrose (g) Ambr. ep 32. ad Imper. Valent innior saith Who maketh any doubt if we regard the order of the Scripture or the antiquity of the Church but that the Bishops in causes of faith haue a custome to iudge of Christian Emperours And againe Your Father said It is not for me to iudge betweene Bishops And your Clemency saith It apperteineth to me to iudge And S. Martin the renowned ornament of the Gaules saith (h) Apud Seuer Sulpit l. 2. sacrae hist It is an impiety new and not heard of before that a secular Iudge should iudge of matters of the Church And against this it helpeth not to alleage that the Emperour Constantine did call himselfe (a) Euseb l. 4. de vit Constant cap. 24. a Bishop out of the Church For Constantine by that meant nothing lesse then to say that he had iurisdiction and superintendency ouer the externall forme and discipline of the Church Els wherfore should he haue desired with so great instance the authority of the Councell of Nice for the decision of the day of Easter But he meant only to say that what the Bishops did by their preachings among the Christians within the Church that did he out of the Church by his Edictes against the Infidells He ordayned sayth ●usebius by his Edictes and gaue order to the Gouernours of the Pagans to cause them to keep the Sunday also aswell as the Christians and to honour the dayes of the Martyrs and the feastes appointed in the Churches And therof it came that hauing one day feasted some Bishops he called himselfe Bishop in their presence saying vnto them God hath placed you Bishops within the Church and me a Bishop out of the Church But me thinkes I heare You already say that

notwithstanding what Azarias the high Priest said vnto him taken the Censar in hand to offer incense before the Altar the high Priest iudging it to be the leprosy did thrust him out of the Temple and from conuersing with the people by that meanes caused that the administration and gouernment of the Kingdome was taken from him and transferred to his sonne though among other nations the leprosy depriued none of conuersation with others nor of the gouernment of the Common wealth witnesse wherof is Naaman 4. Reg. 5. who was Generall of the warfarre of the King of Syria and Gouernour of his whole Kimgdome Finally to passe from thinges figured to things literal 1. Mach. 2. seq they allege the story of Matathias high Priest the head of the family house of the Machabees who seeing Antiochus who raigned in Iury to haue an intent to force the Iewes in their ancient customes and to ouerthrow their law and to persecute them by punishmentes torments death tooke armes gathered Gods dispersed seruantes together who effected wrought so much vnder his cōduct and his sonnes as they deliuered the people from the yoke of the Seleucides and tooke from them the Kingdome of Iury and by that meanes conserued the religion of the Iewes which without such a resolution fauoured by Gods visible assistance had els beene quite exterminated and abolished out of the land Those who hold the negatiue part come downe to the new Testament and cite for themselues this passage of S. Rom. 13. Paul where he writeth Let euery soule be subiect to higher Powers 1. Petr. 2. For he that resisteth the power resisteth the order instituted of God And this of S. Peter Be ye subiect whether it be to Kings as more excelling or to Rulers And by this they inferre that obedience to Kinges is of Right Diuine and therefore cannot admit dispensation by any authority neither spirituall nor temporall The maynteyners of the affirmatiue part answere to this that these passages do not in any sort touch the knot or difficulty of the controuersie For the question say they is not whether it be de Iure diuino to obey Kinges whilest they are Kinges or knowne for Kinges But the question is if it be de Iure diuino that he who hath beene once known acknowledged for King by the body of Estate may cease to be that is that he may do some thing by which he commeth to loose and forgo his rights to cease to be acknowledged for King Now these two questions be farre different For to take an example euen of him vnder whome S. Peter suffered martyrdome it was de Iure diuino to obey Nero whilest he was Emperour But it was not de Iure Diuino say they that he could not fall from his Imperiall rightes and be deposed and declared an enemy of the Common wealth It was de Iure diuino so long as Antiochus was by the Community of the Iewes acknowledged for King that the Iewes should obey him in matters that were not against God For he was no lesse temporall soueraigne of the Iewes then was the Emperour Claudius vnder whome S. Peter wrote But after that Mattathias the high Priest and the rest of the nation of the Iewes who liued conforme to their owne law had declared him a Tyrant and a violatour of the consciences of the people of God therefore no more their lawful Prince the particuler Iewes were then no longer bound to yeild him obedience And not only the defenders of the affirmatiue parte but euen M. Barcklay himselfe who is the principall propugner of the negatiue part vseth this distinction and sayth Controuers Menarch Mach. l. 4. cap. 16. There is not any case wherin the people can rise against a Prince ruling after an insolent manner so long as he continueth King For this commandement of God is alwaies against it Honour the King and he that resisteth power resisteth God And therfore the people cannot haue by any other means authority ouer him vnles he do something by which he by right ceaseth to be King And els where they adde 1. Petr. 2. what S. Peter writeth Rom. 13. Be subiect to euery creature whether it be to King as excelling or to Rulers as sent by him And S. Hebr. 13. Paul Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers And the same Apostle writeth els where in more expresse words thus Obey your Prelates and be ye subiect vnto them For they watch for your soules as those who ought to render accompt Hence it ariseth that it is as wel de iure diuino to yeild spirituall obedience to Prelates as it is to yeild temporall obedience to Princes And yet it followeth not that it is de iure diuino that the Prelates no not the Pope himselfe cannot fall from their rights of Prelacy nor that it is de Iure diuino to continue to obey them after they haue lost their right But the defendours of the negatiue part obiect that the Church which liued vnder the first Pagan Emperours neuer made vse of this right of absoluing in the spirituall Court the Christians from the Oath they had made vnto them And contrariwise that the first Christians preached not any other thing then obedience that they yeilded to the Emperours To this againe the maynteyners of the affirmatiue part answere many thinges For first they say that the Church not hauing absolued the Christians of the Oath of fidelity by thē made to the Pagan Emperours all the Christians in particuler were bound euen in conscience to obey them and pray to God for the safety and prosperity of their Empire And as touching the cause for which the Church did not take away the spirituall obligation the Christians had to obey them they bring three reasons The first is For that it had beene ouer great imprudency and folly to irritate and incense the Pagan Emperours by such a declaration in a time when they were the Lordes of the whole world for that such an act could haue beene not only vnprofitable but also absolutly domageable pernicious to the Christians against whom to incense the Emperour at such time as they had all the forces and the world within their handes was not to succour or promote religion but to precipitate ouerthrow it cleane For it is not sufficient to say that the Church is bound to doe some thing because she may lawfully do it vnlesse she also can doe it with prudence and profit The second reason is For that there is great difference betweene the Pagan Emperours vnder whome the Church began to lay her first foundations and to take the first rootes and the Princes who should now fall into Heresy or into Apostacy from Christian religion and should become either Arians or Mahometans or Pagans For the Pagan Emperours who then were had not yet at that tyme done homage to Christ nor yielded

time the Christian people hath by the conuersion of Emperours and Empires and by the reduction of Kinges and Kingdomes beene gayned and consecrated to Iesus Christ his temporal raigne it cannot any more be vsurped nor possessed by way of right by the enemies of Christs name And hence it is that whatsoeuer Conquest the Turke maketh of the Christians and whatsoeuer possession of long continuance it be he cannot by any tract of tyme gaine the least inch of prescription ouer Christian people who were formerly subiect to Christes temporall tribunall before any such Conquest by him made And to say the contrary were not only to imbrace and hod one of Luthers errours who hath taught that the warre that the Christians made against the Turkes was vniust and vnlawful not only to cōdemne the authority of so many Councells which haue decreed the expeditions of the holy Land for the ayding of the Christians of the East for the deliuering of them from the yoke and seruitude of the Infidells which had beene a thing vniust For the Accessary followeth the Principall and if the Christians of the East had beene lawfull subiectes to the Mahometan Princes they neither could haue reuolted from them nor rebelled against them But also euen to anathematize and accurse the memory of so many Christian Worthies and to affirme that so many Knightes Princes and Kinges among them our most glorious S. Lewis who dying in that warre as Champious maynteyners of Christes cause pretended to gayne the Crowne of Martyrdome dyed in a cause vniust and worthie of damnation But those who defend the negatiue part reply and say that in tyme of the first Arian Emperours Constantius and Valens before whome the Empire had already acknowledged Christ Iesus the Church vsed not such manner of proceeding nor acquited the Christians of their obedience On the contrary that the Bishop Hosius writing vnto the Emperour Constantius Apud Athana in epist desolit vit agen saith vnto him in these wordes As he who would spoyle you in your Empire should resist Gods ordenance So I feare that your vsurping the authority of the Church will make you culpable of a great cryme To this then the defendants of the affirmatiue part answere two thinges The one that the Custome of obliging Princes to make an expresse oath vnto God and to their people to liue and to die in the Christian and Catholique Religion had not yet place in the tymes of the first Heretique or Apostata Emperours was not brought in but afterwards namely then when they would stay and hinder Religion from falling into the same perills wherin it was vnder them The other that the Church vsed not this proceeding not for default of Right but for want of force and strength not for want of power in it to ordeyne it but through want of ability in the Christian people to execute it For it is not inough to bind the Church to declare Princes Infidells to haue lost their rightes to exhort their subiects to depart from their obedience that she may lawfully do it but it is further necessary that she be able to do it prudently and profitably And therefore S. D. Tho. 2.2 2. q. 10. art 10. Thomas after he had said Infidells by the desert of their Infidelity be worthy to loose their power ouer the faithfull addeth But this the Church sometimes doth and sometimes doth it not And if we should conclude that because the ancient Church hath not declared the first Arian Emperours excluded from the right they had from God of commaunding Catholiks that therefore she had not the authority to do it we then should conclude the very same that because it excommunicated them not it had no authority to do it For we find not that any either Pope or Councell did euer namely and personally excommunicate the Arian Emperours Not for that the Church cānot excōmunicate them as wel as other Ariās whome it excōmunicated from tyme to tyme but for that it deemed it a matter of imprudency and pernicious to Religion to exasperate them not hauing forces to represse and curbe them And as touching Hosius they āswere that he saith not that the Church cānot absolue in the spiritual Court the Catholiks from the obedience of Cōstantius if she should haue thought it profitable possible and necessary for them to attempt the deliuery of themselues from his tyranny Neither saith he that if the Emperour Constance being a Catholique Prince had not beene dead and that he had declared and proclaymed warre against his brother Constantius as he threatned he would do if he ceased not to persecute the Catholikes the Catholikes of the East would not haue ioyned taken part with him and would not haue belieued that the Church could haue dispensed with them about their oath of fidelity they had made to Constantius Theod. hist Eccles lib. 2. cap. 9. alibi But they say that Hosius speaketh of them who of their priuate authority and of their owne ambition raised themselues against Constantius to depriue him of the Empire and to become Tyrantes themselues Yet Lucifer Calaritanus maketh no difficulty Lucif Cola. rit lib. de non parcend in Deum delinq to call Constantius himselfe A Tyrant and the Antiochus of his age and protesteth that he is not bound towardes him to obserue the modesty of wordes which the Apostle commaundeth to be obserued to Princes and Magistrates for as much as the Apostle speaketh of Princes who haue not yet belieued in Christ and not of such Princes as haue reuolted from Christ I adde saith he that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and Magistrates which haue not yet belieued in the only Sonne of God whome we should by our humility and meeknes and long patience in aduersity and most great obedience in thinges reasonable prouoke to belieue in him But those who hold the negatiue part Socrat. hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 19. reply that the Christians might well haue deposed the Emperour Iulian the Apostata For when the Emperour Iouian who was elected after his death Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1. answered the soldiers of the Army Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 1. that he would not haue a commaund ouer men who were not Christians they replyed that they were Christians And to this againe they who maynteyne the affirmatiue part want not their answere For on the contrary they auerre that the Church could not do it prudently nor profitably For besides that the Christians were so deuided as the faction of the Arians alone ioyned with the Heathens without speaking of other Heretikes or of the cold Catholikes who as S. Gregory Nazianzene saith Greg. Naz. in Iul. orat serued the tyme and had not as he further addeth other law then the Emperours will held their foote vpon the Catholike Churches throate And besides when Iulian was Emperour he was so far from persecuting the Catholikes at the first as that in

yet these be at this day the writers whome they celebrate extoll and whome they haue in their eyes For so an authour say something against the Pope and that he put as much as he please the safetie of Kinges vnder the peoples feete him they imbrace applaude and adore And of this we neede not any better proofe then the edition of Gerson which they who haue beene the first authors of the Article that is now proposed vnto vs haue caused to be imprinted eight yeares since with inscriptions pictures and elogies or testifications of his prayses because he seemeth vnto them to haue writen against the Pope For in his sermō made in the presence of King Charles the 7. in the name of the Vniuersitie of Paris Gers serm ad Regem Fran. nomine vniuersit Paris after he had made Sedition to speake which wills that vse without exception and indifferently be made of this rule of Seneca There is not a sacrifice more pleasing vnto God then the killing of Tyrants and that it is to be put in vre against all sortes of persons accused of Tyranny and vpon all manner of suspitions and of defamatory libels and Dissimulation that wills on the contrary that we neuer vse it but that we endure all Tyrants he bringeth in Discretiō that teacheth when it is to be vsed in these wordes Gers ibid. We conclude further that if the head or any other member of the Commō wealth should incurre such an incōuenience as he would swallow vp the deadly poyson of Tyrany euery member in his place should oppose himself by al his possibility by expediēt meanes such as should not make the matter worse seing it were to small it purpose when the head aketh that the hand should strike it but rather folly For nether is it necesary to cut it off by by to separate it from the rest of the body but we must cure it sweetly aswel by good words as otherwise lyke prudent wise Phisitians There could not be any thing more against reason of greater cruelty then Tyrany by a seditiō I cal sedition a rebellion of the people without cause and without reason which is oft tymes worse thē tyrany c. There needeth great singuler discretion prudence and temperance about the expulsion thrusting out of tyranny and therefore we must heare and giue credit to wise Philosophers Lawyers Deuines to men of good life of good and naturall prudence of great experiēce of whom it is said In old men is found experience For though a Prince and Lord sinne in many cases yet he must not for that be presently censured a Tyrant So he there And in his worke of ten Considerations against the flatterers of Kings where he recapitulateth a part of the discourse of his Sermon Gerson Considerat 7. contra adulat he sayth It is an errour to belieue that a terrene Prince is not bound in any thing during his raigne to his subiects For according to diuine right and naturall equity and the end of true gouernement as the subiects owe fidelity ayd succour and seruice to their Lord So the Lord oweth agayne faith and protection to his subiects And if the Prince manifestly pursue and persecute them and with obstinacy in iniury and by fact then this naturall rule It is lawfull to repell force by force and this saying of Seneca There cannot be a more acceptable Sacrifice immolated and made to God then by taking away of a Tyrant taketh place And notwithstanding this which is more strange those who haue caused this to be reprinted haue not vouchsafed to add either in the beginning of his workes or in the margent of these wordes any obseruation or note for the censuring of them or for aduertisement of the Reader to take heed But indeed how could they haue done it without condemning themselues Themselues I say who during the fury of these last troubles had been Ensigne-bearers or rather had caried the burning torches of this pernicious doctrine and had maynteyned and publisht it against King Henry the third by propositions disputed and printed For these be their words It is most certaine that by right both diuine and naturall the Estates be aboue Kings And againe It was lawfull for all the people of France most iustly to take armes against the Tyrant that is to say agaynst King Henry the third And a litle after They who consider matters attentiuely and diligently will iudge that the eternall enemies of the Religion and of the Country ought to be pursued not only by publique armes but also by the sword and plotts of particuler persons And that Iames Clement the Dominican was not put forwards by any other desire then by the loue of the Lawes of his Country and of the zeale of Ecclesiasticall discipline by which this restorer of our Liberty hath put vpon his owne head grace and vpon our neck a coller of gold and the heauenly collers of the Church Thus there This I say not to scandalize them for I conceale their names nor to reproach them with that that the bounty and clemency of the King hath buried vp and forgotten but to shew that they should be content to attend the rest of their dayes to the cancelling and washing away of their offence with their teares and not to meddle themselues with the making of lessons of the seruice of Kinges to them who alwaies well and faithfully serued them euen then when they persecuted them But these are violent spirits who being transported to one extreme and not being of power to hold the meane thought that the best meanes for the iustifying of themselues was to passe ouer to the other extreme and to put their hand to pen to write and fight against the Pope Wherin as they are found conforme or at least very like vnto the Churches enemies they haue beene so set on and plyed by those our enemyes and by some that dissembled with them as they haue beene induced thrust on vnder a pretence of the Kinges seruice to sow the seedes of schisme But Syrs the King desireth not to be serued after this sort his will is not that prouision be made for his safety by schisme and by the Churches diuision In the ruines whereof is comprehended the ruine and ouerthrow of his owne safetie spirituall and temporall he is a Catholike and the eldest child of the Catholike Church he is the first Catholike of all the Kinges and the first King of all the Catholikes He feareth not to fall into Heresy and standeth not in doubt of the Popes censures nor dreadeth the Churches threates against Heretikes He is the prime and principall protect our of the one and the other He is the heire both of the Crowne and of the name and of the faith of that glorious S. Lewis who was the Churches support and piller and the Popes defence retrait He is descēded from a mother no lesse Catholike pious and