Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	authority_n	bishop_n	pope_n	1,901	5	6.4042	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19220	The Catholike moderator: or A moderate examination of the doctrine of the Protestants Prouing against the too rigid Catholikes of these times, and against the arguments especially, of that booke called, The answer to the Catholike apologie, that we, who are members of the Catholike, apostolike, & Roman Church, ought not to condeme the Protestants for heretikes, vntill further proofe be made. First written in French by a Catholike gentleman, and now faithfully translated. See the occasion of the name of Huguenots, after the translaters epistle.; Examen pacifique de la doctrine des Huguenots. English	Constable, Henry, 1562-1613.; W. W., fl. 1623.	1623 (1623)	STC 5636.2; ESTC S109401	62,312	88

space the Pope neither once called any general Councell nor sat President in it The first of Nice was called by Constantine the great That of Constantinople by Theodosius Senior That of Ephesus by Theodosius Iunior That of Chalcedon by Marcianus the Emperour The same also may bee affirmed of those that sat President in them In the Councell of Nice was Hosius Bishop of Corduba in Spaine President In the Councell of Ephesus Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria And thus much may suffice for so euident a truth Secondly he answers That it is nothing repugnant to the equity of a great Prince to bee both Iudge and Partie In so much as a Soueraigne Prince is perpetually Iudge vntill hee bee lawfully declared to haue forfeited his principality although the suite bee commenced against himselfe But I say that there is still a third which arbitrates betwixt the Prince and his Subiects when there is a suit betweene them And although the Iudge bee the Princes Officer yet may he pronounce sentence against him which himselfe cannot repeal and there is no Prince but a Tyrant that would reuerse that iudgment as the Pope hath done in disanulling the decrees of the Councels of Basil Constance made against himselfe But admit I should confesse that a Prince might bee Iudge in his owne cause yet ought that to be vnderstood in a suit of mean consequence but when the controuersie be whether he be a lawfull King or not we may well assure our selues that he would neuer bee deposed if hee might bee his owne arbitrator and of this nature is the first Article of the processe against the Pope The Huguenots deny him to be head of the church How then I pray shall this Controuersie bee decided if there be no other Iudge besides himselfe Thirdly hee shewes by examples that Pope Marcelline Sixtus the third Symachus Leo Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria Cyril and Leo the first were Iudges in their owne causes As for S. Marcelline saith he when as hee had offered Incense vnto Idols hee went and accused himselfe in the Councell of Sinuessa and yet durst no man denounce Sentence against him but all the Bishops cried out with one consent Father iudge thy selfe with thine own mouth To which I answer That it is easie to discouer this to be but a forged Councell which brings in the Emperor Dioclesian talking with S. Marcelline at Rome and enticing him to Idolatry whereas Dioclesian was at the same time at Nicomedia a City of Bithinia Secondly there is a great deale of difference betweene a plaine case a right in question For S. Marcelline was accused of an act of which he was most apparantly guilty So that the Bishops perceiuing that the Pope denied not the fact and that hee was penitent for it offered to referre themselues to that sentence which hee would giue against himselfe lust as if a man should say to a Theefe that were taken in the manner Thou seest thy selfe openly guilty thou knowest likewise the punishment ordained by the law for such offences What thinkest thou that thou hast deserued Speake a Gods name and bee thine owne Iudge surely this would bee very acceptable to all malefactors to conclude thereupon that they should haue no other Iudges goe vpon them but themselues His second example is of Sixtus the third who being saith hee accused of adultery would haue a Synode called by th' Emperours authority But they would not nor indeed durst they saith hee meddle with his Cause before all the Bishops were met and that they vnderstood the Popes pleasure whether hee were willing to haue them so decide his businesse or not I answer that this was but a singular fauour shewne him by the Emperour Valentinian by reason of his innocency For the Pope himselfe was willing that other men should haue beene Iudges in his businesse But it followes not hereupon that euery Pope in euery cause ought to clayme the same priuiledge but the contrary rather viz. That Pope Sixtus the fift who would not suffer himselfe to bee indged by any other man ought to haue beene so because Sixtus the third who would haue been so was not What necessity is there in censuring him whose innocency is cleare and as it was a token of innocency in the one to submit himselfe vnto censure so to refuse all mens verdicts but his own is an euidence that hee findes himself guilty But I demand now whether that singular priuiledge granted vnto Sixtus must thenceforth be taken for a leading cause or not If he answers no then is this instance nothing to his purpose if yea The Catholikes will oppose it for Bellarmine confesseth that in case of heynous crymes a Councell may be called to sit vpon the Pope But the thinks not peraduenture that Sixtus was accused of any heinous crime which as I thinke is the reason that hee names not his fault because he barely intimates that he was accused of Adultery whereas indeed hee was accused for defiling of a Nunne which wee good Catholikes style not Adultery but Incest by reason of the spirituall consanguinity which is betwixt a Priest and a Nunne His third example is of Symachus whose consent saith hee was required euen for the calling of that Councell wherin himselfe was accused The Huguenots will desire no more at the Popes hands then to doe as Symachus did for albeit his consent went to the calling of the Councell yet when it was called hee tooke not vpon him the part of a Iudge in it but with all humblenesse purged himselfe before the Councel of those crimes which hee was charged withall The fourth example is of Leo the third of which passage the troath is this The Romans bearing a spleene to Leo for that Charlemaigne the Emperour had inforced them to sweare alleageance to him out of meere malice laid many slanders vpon him But Charlemaigne appearing at Rome they for feare of him durst not stand to it to prosecute their proofes against him but at the very first canuasse they all cryed out That the Apostolike Sea could not bee iudged by any man Which clamour testifies nothing else then That is the nature of the vulgar to fall from one extreame to another And therefore they hauing slandered the Pope before out of malice they afterwards thought to curry fauour againe by flattering him for feare But let vs heare what followes Did not Arrius saith hee heretofore dispute the case in a matter of faith with Alexander Notwithstanding was this Alexander iudge in the Councell of Nice Was not Cyril President in the Councell of Ephesus notwithstanding hee was one of the parties And who but Leo sat President at the Counsell of Chalcedon notwithstanding that all the difference then was betwixt him and Dioscorus I answer That the controuersies which then were betwixt Alexander Cyril Leo and the foresaid Heretiques concerned them no more then it did the rest of the Bishops of the Church whereas