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	church_n	pope_n	2,238	5	6.4146	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

the King S. So that one for being a Priest according to Law is a false Traitor that is guilty of Treason And consequently I swearing to discover all Treason swear to discover all Priests to some Informer and to concur with the intent and title of the Act of Parliament to the discovering and suppressing Popish Recusants What can be thought of more repugnant to faith M. You have quieted me as to this point yet I have one demand to make S. What is that M. You know divers misled some for interest some for other ends some for want of due Reflection have taken the Oath are they therefore bound to discover all Priests S. No no more than Herod was obliged to cut off St. John's head The reason is that such a discovery being unlawful and damnable in it self an Oath which is a sacred act of Religion cannot be a bond of iniquity and oblige me to what is unlawful M. I am ready to subscribe that you have made good the unlawfulness of the Oath First by reason of the title of Parliament exacting it 2. For want of truth in all the clauses of the assertory part 3. For want of Justice in the clause of the promissory part Lastly for want of necessity there being a necessity under a grievous sin as the Pope declares for the not taking it S. I could not fail of your approbation of what I learned of you CHAP. IX Of the Pope's prohibition of the Oath of Allegiance M. IS not the Pope our Soveraign Judg in Spirituals S. Yes as our King in Temporals M. Why am I rather to obey the Pope in refusing the Oath than the King in taing it S. Because the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an Oath as a point of Conscience lies within the verge not of a Temporal but of a Spiritual Jurisdiction M. Hath not the King the right to tender an Oath of Allegiance S. He has but this Oath contains much more than Allegiance in it which renders it unlawful M. Hath the Pope no Prerogative above other Judges S. Yes according to the general sentence of Catholicks he has that of Infallibility in points of Doctrine M. Do you hold the Pope Infallible S. I do but not as an Article of Faith because it has never been defined by a general Council though I judge it definable M. In what degree then do you hold it S. I hold it with a great certainty not being able to doubt of the contrary For who can think the Rock can fall who can judge efficacious Christ's prayer for Peter that his Faith might not fail who can imagin that the spirit of Infallibility which assists the whole Church should abandon the Head of it who can surmise that Christ who tenderd his Church above his own Life should permit its Pastor not to feed it but to poison it with false Doctrine M. I must interrupt you for I know you might and would say much more as to this point and solve the difficulty to the contrary but you have said enough to infer that if submission be due to other Judgges who are Fallible it is without doubt due to the Pope who has too much reason to be judged Infallible But not to bring more into Dispute than what purely concerns the Oath supposing him as Fallible as other Judges is he not to be Obeyed S. The case being supposed equal if he may be disobeyed in points of Conscience why may not secular Judges be disobey'd in Temporalls and so adue all Government and Loyalty M. Though Judges be supposed Fallible are not private persons as fallible as they S. Much more Fallible as being byas'd by Interest Passion and Engagement which are not so incident to Judges M. What if a Judge be misinformed doth his sentence hold S. His sentence holds until such time as that sentence be repealed either by himself better informed or by a Superiour Authority If a private persons pretence of misinformation could render a sentence void what sentence would hold might not every Plaintif or defendant who is cast always pretend misinformation and would not this be to place every private person above the Judge M. May one be Judge in his own cause S. In some Cases he not only may be but must be Judge and to deny it is to Authorize all Rebellion Has not the King right to judge in points concerning his Prerogative and to suppress Rebellion to pretend he cannot is it not to place another judge over the Suprem You will say the judge is a part he is so but head and governs the whole Were it not to unchair the Pope to say he cannot be Judge in spirituals because a part he is a part but the ruling part he is the head of the Church and as such ought to be obeyed Consult the Canon and Civil Law and you will find they both defeat that pretence For the cause of the Church or the state wherein the Episcopal or Royal Authority is concerned is not termed a private or personal cause of the man who is Bishop or King and for that reason doth not ground an exclusion of that same man to judge in it M. You having premised what is necessary and evidently true and what it behooves secular Princes to maintain as well as the Pope I pray come to the Popes Breves condemning the Oath how many are they and of what nature S. They are four Three of Paul the Fifth and one of Urban the eighth Paul the Fifth given in the year 1606 sets down the Oath word by word and having taken notice of several other things in the act enjoyning the Oath condemns the Oath as containing things contrary to faith which Breve directed to the English Catholicks was delivered to Mr. Blackwel then Arch-Priest who notwithstanding his inclination to the contrary accepted it and divulged it by which it became so publick that K. James himself owned it to be the Popes and as such inserted it word by word in his answer to it so that it could not be doubted whether it were the Popes or no. Learned men in Italy France and Spain employed their pens in the defence of it The year after it being pretended that the Breve was surreptitious and he mis-informed the Pope in a second Breve condemns it again after long and serious deliberation and being perfectly informed as he declares and ex certa scientia This also though with the same unwillingness was published by Mr. Blackwell but he being deposed for taking the Oath and Mr. George Birket made Arch-Priest in his place Birket published them absolutely as did also Doctor Worthington Assistant of the Archpriest as also a third of Paul the fifth recalling the faculties of such as held or abetted the Oath Prestons books in favour of the Oath Printed the one 1611. the other 1613. were by the same Pope condemned 1614. for all these Breves there wanted not some as the said Preston and others animated by that Presbyterian Arch-Bishop

inconsiderable number in the Church which defends Personal Infallibility do they hold the Pope otherwise Infallible than defining Faith ex Cathedra And will any man assert the Pope's private Letters to the Catholicks of England for so Eudaemon one of your Fathers terms them to be Definitions of Faith If so pray what point of Faith is defined by these Breves can there be a definition of Faith and nothing defined Again was it ever heard that a Definition of Faith was sent in a Letter to a small number of men and not directed to the Whole Church Besides where are all the Formalities all the Ceremonies which the de-side men themselves seek for for in Faith-definitions Is not this to render the Catholick Faith more absurd than her very enemies could wish it But for a more easie dispatch of the Errour of our Catechist who engages for Popes more than they will for themselves I shall shew you what sence some of the greatest and humblest of Popes had of their own frailty in being often surprized by mis-informations upon which by an exigent of feeble nature they were forced to ground themselves Gregory truly the great seeing some to wonder that a Pope should be by misinformation circumvented replies thus Why do ye wonder that we are deceived being but men Have you not observed that David a King who had the Spirit of Prophecy gave an Unjust Judgment against the Son of Jonathan Who therefore will think it strange that Impostors should surprize us sometimes Us I say who are no Prophets We are overwhelmed with affairs and our spirits being diverted by so many things are the less attentive to any thing in particular and so may be more easily mistaken in some one thing Greg. Dialog 1. Chap. 4. After him I offer you Alexander the Third who in his Breve or Letter to the Arch-Bishop of Ravenna which is now a Law in the Canon declares thus If it happen sometimes that we send to your Fraternity such Decrees as you are not satisfied with trouble not your self at it for you may either with reverence put them in execution or give us an account why you think you ought not And we shall take it well at your hands that you execute not any decree which might bave been procured from us either by Surprize or Artifice Cap. Siquando in rescrip Thus may you see these two great Prelates confuting our little Catechist by owning that in their Letters or Breves they may be Circumvented by Surprize and Artifice Personal Infallibility he confesses is no Article of Faith but I judge it saith he definable Well then we are in a fair way of having a new Article of Faith if the Church will rely upon his judgment But if I mistake not the Church will have more than his pretended Certainty which he assures us is very great but to what degree whether of a high Probability Moral Physical or Metaphysical Evidence he knows not To evince this Certainty whatever it be he drops two or three Topicks with this enforcement Who can think this who can judge that who can imagine or surmise another thing So that if you do but think judge or imagine otherwise his Topicks are non-plust And I cannot blame him to touch them onely gently since he knew both Protestants and Catholicks had often answered them beyond reply Quitting at last his post or his pretence to personal infallibility he brings into a parallell the Spiritual with the Temporall Judge thus If the Pope may be disobey'd in the point of Conscience why may not Secular Judges be disobey'd in Temporalls I answer that neither of them against the Law of God is to be obey'd And whereas he would conclude as from a maxim that a sentence of a Judge passed upon Misinformation ought to stand good untill it be repealed by himself better informed or by a Superiour Nothing is more certain than that every sentence of a Judge be he Pope or King which is repugnant to the Law of God is ipso facto void or null and that without farther demur This he tells you is a way to pervert all Judicature and to place every private person above the Judge My reply shall be to put him in a Circumstance where his Superiour or General to whom he has vow'd Special Obedience layes his Commands upon him which in his Judgment clearly controul the Law of God Then I ask him What he would do in that case Will he obey 't will be a sin against his Conscience which dictates to him out of the Gospel That he must obey God rather than man Will he disobey That cuts the throat of his own Argument for then the Objection returns upon him that this is to confound all and place every private person above the Judge What this Catechist will do in this case I cannot resolve but for my part I would do what all good men have done upon the like occasion that is I would make use of my Reason which God has given me and if it be clear unto me that my Superiour be he Pope or King commands me to sin against the Law of God I should freely disobey him but with this submission to receive what penalty he shall inflict upon me within his sphere for this the nature of all Government requires Now by doing this I cannot be said to judge the actions of my Superiour with the judgment of Authority but I make use of the Judgment of Discretion by which I and every man is to govern his Actions And if this Rule be observed there can be no danger of placing a private person above the Judge for he submits to the punishment of the Judge and onely prefers God before Man His next position is That the Pope may judge in his own Cause To this I answer as I did in my last though according to his custome he over-leaps it that where there is a just cause of Dispute as he owns there is betwixt the Pope and all Kings in point of Deposing there is truly party and party nor can either of them be Judge For though both of them will Judge for themselves because neither will own that the other has a just cause to dispute yet if truly there be just cause of dispute neither of them can be properly Judge for if one be Judge the other must submit to his decision and so can have no just cause to dispute Our former discourse has been built upon the supposition that the Pope had authentickly prohibited by his Breves the Oath to be taken so that what follows as it is in the dark so if it were allow'd him for true 't would advance nothing to his conclusion But I cannot let pass his Confidence in being so positive that Mr. Blackwell published the two Breves of Paul the fifth whereas it is evident both out of Mr. Blackwell's own writings that he was so far from publishing them that he severely reprov'd Dr. Worthington for doing it

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