Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	apostle_n	church_n	word_n	1,489	5	3.9514	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67435	The controversial letters, or, The grand controversie concerning the pretended temporal authority of popes over the whole earth, and the true sovereign of kings within their own respective kingdoms : between two English gentlemen, the one of the Church of England, the other of the Church of Rome ...	Walsh, Peter, 1618?-1688.	1674 (1674)	Wing W631; ESTC R219375	334,631	426

to understand a power given to absolve from the Bond of Debt Again c. 14. To Peter was given spiritual power onely to remit sins nor can be do any thing in temporals but in foro conscientiae Aegid Rom. Q. de utraque potestat art 3. It is to be understood that Christ had a threefold power over bodies souls and temporal goods The first he us'd by curing infirmities c. The second viz. Spiritual he both us'd and delegated as much as is necessary and expedient for the good of Souls The third He neither us'd nor gave but rather forbad both to Peter and the other Apostles as is said And concludes In the Commission given to Peter his Vicar we read not temporal but onely spiritual power committed to him I will give Thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven he said not and Dominion over worldly things Wherefore he presently adds as explicating himself to mean onely spiritual power Whatever you shall bind c. Ambros Catharin upon Rom. 13. That the pope is Vicar of Christ is nothing to purpose to make us believe he has power given him to rule all the World in temporals It rather perswades us such power was not given him because Christ refus'd it and as he was man had it not in the World for after the Resurrection 't was said all power is given me c. But in this World he was subject to secular powers Wherefore he left the Pope Vicar of that Kingdom which was given him by his Father while he liv'd on Earth namely the spiritual Kingdom over his Sheep c. Otherwise if he be the Vicar of Christ absolutely according to all the power which Christ had he should have power over Angels and the Blessed which is ridiculous And again These powers are different from one another and no man can usurp either at his pleasure and to think and teach otherwise is most seditious and most horrible Anton. de Rosell de Protestat Imp. Pap. p. 1. c. 38. Whence I conclude 't is Heresie and Madness to say that the universal Administration of Temporals is or can be in the Pope Greg. Haimbarg de prim Pap. Whence it appears 't is a fable and invention that is writ in the Decretals that Popes have the plenitude of power givem them and such a Dominion that they are over Kings and Princes in Temporals They are smart fellowes these Schoolmen and speak home and yet are good Catholicks for all that and acknowledg'd to be so neither are they otherwise reprov'd or reprovable then as Scholars take the freedom to censure one another Mean time since a Catholick may unreprovably hold that the two powers were distinguisht by Christ and joyn'd by the Devil the temporal committed to Princes and the spiritual to Bishops who if they be Souldiers of God are not to meddle with secular business that while Bishops dispense divine Princes are to administer humane things that to the Clergy belong onely spirituals and the Popes power has nothing to do with possessions that dominion is forbidden him and onely the Rod of direction granted c. I hope you may quiet your fears and not suspect I shall either be disown'd or reprov'd by my Church if upon the security of so much Authority I deny your first Proposition and affirm the Popes Vicarship is confin'd to spirituals and that it hinders not Princes from being Gods Vicars as well as himself who if they manage all their trust are accountable onely to him second to whom they are and except whom they have none above them I mean in their own kind Onely I would not have you boggle at this that the Pope is not every where expresly nam'd For though the Order of Government require that the Head should have more power then an inferior Member as the Commission of a General must be larger then that of a private Captain yet I think none will doubt but the power of the Pope and the rest of the Clergy is all of the same kind and the more which belongs to him as Head of the Church signifies more of the same sort of actions not power of another nature But because I am to say nothing of my self let St. Leo tell you this and more in a Sermon inserted into the Churches Office on the Feast of St. Peters Chair at Antioch where speaking of the Confession of St. Peter and the promise made him upon it The force indeed says he of this power past into the other Apostles and the Constitution of this Decree of the keys descended to all the Princes of the Church but 't is not without cause that what is intimated to all is commanded to one For this is therefore particularly entrusted to Peter because the example of Peter is propos'd to all the Governors of the Church And so much to the first Proposition which though I have abstained from treating dogmatially yet I have said or rather shew'd you that others say what may abundantly quiet your fears and that a Catholick who confines the Popes power onely to spirituals is so far from contradicting my principle receiv'd amongst Catholicks that he has the warrant of great I had almost said all Authority on this side at least so much that is not well consistent with Catholick principles to oppose it But I pray mistake me not for though I have said nothing of my self yet I would not be misinterpreted so much as to have alledg'd ought which might be thought to question any not onely spiritual but even temporal power which may justly belong to the Church and which when it does she may without doubt justly use But 't is one thing to have power by agreement of men and another by Commission from Christ and I would say no more then St. Bernard has said before me that however such things may belong to the Church yet not by right of Apostleship Your Argument assum'd that a Vicar had the same power with him whose Vicar he is what I have alledg'd was only to answer that and as I am not oblig'd so I meant not to go farther What I shall adde in examination of your second Proposition you will perceive is more to satisfie your Friendship then your Argument for whether Christ had temporal Dominion or no if he gave it not to the Pope the Pope is never the near and your Argument sufficiently cleer'd Notwithstanding since I would not give you cause to complain I neglect any thing you propos'd let us consider how far this is true that Christ had all temporal as well as spiritual power But Friend I hope your feud to formalities is abated for I must tell you beforehand there is no discoursing on this subject without distinguishing the God from the Man Yow know in Christ the distinct properties of both Natures were so united that they both made but one Sacred Person to which person nothing can be deny'd which can with truth be affirm'd of God and none

nor governed as Worldly Kingdomes are by Treasuries and Officers and Armies To omit that a Kingdom of this World though received and governed another way then usually Kingdomes are is still a Kingdome of this World for the World is the World let it be governed how 't wil this seems to me to say that the Kingdom of Christ is no Temporal Kingdom For temporal Kingdoms can not subsist nor go on without such things and he that says his Kingdom had them not says plainly his Kingdom was such a Kingdom which needed none of those things Which in other words I think is to say it was not a Temporal Kingdom Again say they the Kingdom of Christ is therefore said not to be of this world because at that time most worldly Kingdomes were got by injustice and governed by wicked and idolatrous Laws and such the Kingdom of Christ was not But pray the Kingdomes now a days establisht with Justice and governed with equity are they not Kingdomes of this World Or did Constantine forfeit his worldly Empire by abolishing those Idolatrous Laws and making better in their places Strange Interpretors of Scripture Who would make worldly Kingdoms inconsistent with vertue and Kings cease to be Kings when they turn good men and most deserve to be so Besides if the world were divided into Kingdomes however unjustly got and wickedly governed t' was yet divided into Kingdomes and what Room was then left for Christ Would they have him a King and give him no Kingdome or a Kingdom no where Farther what can be said why he did not establish his just Kingdom in the place of those wicked ones and take so much injustice out of the World I think nothing but only this that his Kingdom was of another nature made to take away injustice from all Dominion from none I say nothing of the impertinence of alledging injustice in the beginning of Empires a position which would shake the Foundations of the most setled Governments and leave few Princes secure of their Titles A third answer is that his Kingdom is not of this World because not onely of this World but of Heaven and Earth and all Creatures as if this World and more were not this World Besides it mistakes the question too which is not of the extent of his Power to which every Body knows that every thing is subject but of the manner whether besides the omnipotence of his divine nature and the spiritual Regality of his humane there were in him a Temporal power and he were appointed by his Father as Saul to judge the People and go before them 1 Reg. 21.8 and fight their battles This is what the Scripture tells us People expect from their Kings and who speaks not to this speaks not to the question Farther they say that Christs Kingdom is not of this world because worldly Kingdomes are over Bodies his over Souls worldly Kingdomes require obedience to a Temporal Prince his knowledge of and obedience to the Prince of Heaven worldly Kingdomes are extinguisht by death or War c. his is perpetual and immortal c. And this is to say as plain as can be said that 't is spiritual and not temporal For Temporal Kingdoms are over Bodies and if Christs Kingdom be only over Souls 't is not temporal again 't is not temporal if it can not be extinguisht for no temporal thing is immortal Farther to contra-distinguish the temporal Prince from the Prince of Heaven is directly to yield the question and change sides That prejudice should be so strange a blindness and men think to answer by saying the very same with their Adversaries To that of the division of the Inheritance they answer that what Christ refus'd was to be made Arbitrator betwixt the two Brethren But besides that to understand the place of Arbitration seems a little violent for Arbitration requires the Consent of both Parties and there appears nothing but the complaint of one against the injustice of the other His answer imports that medling with Inheritances was a thing with which he had nothing to do and that whether he thought fit or no to become an Arbitrator temporal Matters belonged not to him Again they say his signify'd he was no Ordinary Judge whose Duty and Obligation it was to determine civil Controversies but that his Jurisdiction was Voluntary and Arbitrary And if this be not to say he was not a temporal King I understand nothing for a temporal King is oblig'd by his Office to do Justice and determine civil Controversies and his power is not Voluntary and Arbitrary but Coactive and Obligatory Thirdly They answer that Christ meant his judicial power was not by humane concession as if he could not have done the business as well by Authority from Heaven as from Earth and had not been that way more empowered and more oblig'd to perform his duty Fourthly That Christ came not into the World to judge temporal things though he had full power so to do which is just what the other side says that he was not sent or empower'd by his Father for that purpose though as God he might do what he pleas'd What a pleasant folly this unresolvedness to maintain a thing is which makes people bring for answer the very position they oppose Lastly He is said to have refus'd dividing the Inheritance because Division is the work of the Devil Division of hearts indeed is so but division of possessions is a work of peace and a necessary means to Union of hearts 't is a command from God and a duty in Kings This is chiefly what is said on both sides you will judge as you see cause I for my part believe none better acquainted with the truth then Christ himself and I mean to take his word and believe his Kingdom is not of this World and I care not who knows it If I mistake his meaning and that the Kingdom which he says is not of this World prove yet to be a worldly Kingdom I shall at least have the comfort to err in very good Company and good Company you know is a thing I love sufficiently St. Cyril of Alexan. speaking of the Hyacinth in the Mytre of Aaron The Hyacinth says he De ador in spir l. 11. signifies Heaven remember therefore Christ saying my Kingdom is not of this World for Christ is not an Earthly but a Heavenly King and has all creatures under his feet St. John Chrysostom Christ says he Hom. 87. in Mat. acknowledges himself a King but a Heavenly King ' which elsewhere answering Pilate he says more clearly my Kingdom is not of this World And in another place Hom. 39. in 1 Cor. 15. Stripture knows two Kingdoms one of Adoption and Familiarity another of Creation by the Law of Making and Creating he is King of all Jews Pagans Devils Adversaries by familiarity and care he is King of the Faithful and those who willingly commit and subject themselves to him

particular 'T is true as long as there is good intelligence betwixt Prince and subject and the Peoples affections carry them to their Soveraigns interests this shall not may do pretty well For no effect can follow from a Power which is hindred to work and 't will be alwayes easy enough to find a pretence for not doing what we are before hand resolved shall not be done Neither did I ever think the Pope's Power so stong that it was likely to prevail where Prince and People both joyn against it So that in this case your Can not and your Shall not are two lines which meet both in the same center no deposition But what becomes of a King if his subjects be not affected as they should A mule is not more humerous than the Multitude nor can boggle more extravagantly and upon less occasion And though they be well disposed are subject to be wrought upon by the artifice of those who are not and easily possest with a thousand jealousies and fears from which even those who possess them perhaps are free enough themselves If upon any capricious toy of their own or crafty suggestion from abroad they come to wish the Prince less Power then he has and that he stood in awe of some body 't will be the easiest thing in the World to perswade them that what they desire should be true is so and that he is subiected to the Pope whose claim is as fair as any if they would have him subject at all And where 's your Shall not then I fear he will go near to repent the modesty of his Polities and find too late that by delaying to fix the Pope's Can not in the minds of his subjects he has brought a worse Cannot upon himself a Can not avoy'd being turn'd out of his Throne If in such a posture of things he would but go about to perswade the People of the Pope's Can not on all likelyhood t' would incense them more and make them think it yet more just he should be deprived of his own right who would invade the right of another For if it be not truly the Pope's right why did he suffer it to pass uncontroul'd so long and now begin to question it when it makes against him But let them do what they will in other Countries and follow such Maxims as they conceive fittest for them Plain dealing suits best with the English Natures and will I believe prove the best Policy If they think good elsewhere to let their security depend on tricks much good may their Policies do them I should be sorry it should be taken for good Policy here However I recommend plain dealing to you for why should you go beating about the bush when your mark is fair before you But I forbear to press you now If your next please me not you are like to hear more I have nothing to do at present but to intreat you would dispatch it away by the first and to assure you I am Yours c. FRIEND I Have been neither busy nor sick but only of the lazy disease Idleness which is sickness and business both or as bad and should perhaps do better to continue idle still then be longer busy with this subject Your silence made me hope my last might have serv'd turn and excus'd me from dealing farther in an argument to which I have no fancy But it seems you are not satisfi'd When I know what 't is you stumble at I will do the best I can to keep you upright But when you talk of plain dealing I know not what you would have To acquaint you plainly with what People say is plain dealing in my judgment One can hardly dogmatize without some subtilty but the Historian is a plain man I hope you have no just cause of exception against my relation hitherto and I shall endeavor to give you as little in the progress which since you so much desire to know take it without more ado and take this consideration along with you that we are now come to the Triarii The Arguments which made up my last Letter were such as occur'd to Bellarmin when he had no opposition to help his fancy and expected none at least from those of his own communion Afterwards Barclay in France and Withrington in England write both against him And as opposition is the best whetstone of wit the sight of what can be said against us on the one side enlarging wonderfully our prospect of things and representing them in a clearer view and on the other the shame of being worsted and pleasure of victory streining our abilities and pressing from them all they will afford We cannot but look upon these later productions of his as the uttermost he was able to do For certainly he omitted nothing which he thought could be said in his defence You will therefore observe these Arguments with more attention while I relate them with the same fidelity They are principally four all in his Book against Barclay Schalkenius has the very same sometimes a little differently worded sometimes not all So that I perceive they are what they finally bide upon The first is this That it is certain and manifest that the Pope upon just cause may judg of temporals and sometimes depose temporal Princes we prove first from the common consent o● Writers whose words I have related at the beginning of this disputation where he had alledged no fewer than 70 For what Doctors teach with a common consent in different times and places that the Vniversal Church is believed to hold and teach For God therefore placed Pastors and Doctors in the Church Eph. 4. that the people should follow them as their guides and not reeede from them unless perhaps they see some one bring in some novelty against the common doctrine as Barclay at this time has done This is the first Argument which speaks big and makes a magnificent shew engaging no less than the Universal Church it self But sure Bellarmin either forgot himself or thought his Readers would when he objects novelty to Barclay Novelty was the very thing objected against his opinion when it first broke out in the world in the time of Gregory VII This Novelty not to call it haeresy was not yet crept into the World Vin. B●ll c. says one That the indepency of the two supream Powers was the true opinion of all the antients and if doubts be newly started by a sinister desire of pleasing in many let the old be recalled says another Cusan And does he now pretend antiquity He who of all the men in the World a body would think has the least reason when the most ancient Author himself can alledg in prof of this old doctrine of his is Greg. VII the man who began this bustle and was charged with novelty for doing so and after all liv'd but in the 11th age Since Christ 's time what is once new in the Church is alwaies