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	reason_n	1,519	5	4.9993	4	false

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

God and the world that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries Who would have thought that any good Subject should have stumbled at this Is it an imputation to the Oath that 't is too clear What plain-meaning man is there who understood not these words till now he meets with this following cross and crabbed Comment To testify he tells you as importing something distinct from my acknowledging in the Rigour of the express words is to bear Witness to declare as distinct from professing is as it were to act the part of a judge in clearing a thing not so well known Surely this Catechism runs the fate of many Comments which is to be more obscure than the Text. For what exigence is there that these four words I acknowledg profess testify declare must have all distinct meanings Is it from the nature of the Law or Oath Evidently no. For since 't is the design of the Law-maker by the use of words to be clear and easy and since nothing conduces more to that design than synonimous words giving light to each other for some of necessity will be more obscure than others 't would be preposterous to expect from the nature of an Oath or Law a distinct Sence for every word Nay 't is against all Experience for both in the Canon and Civil Law in Statutes in Bonds in Indentures in Deeds and in the Breves and Bulls of Popes nothing is so frequent as redundance of words in the same Sence and all little enough to render the Acts or Obligations clear sure and binding Secondly Why must the words of this Oath be used in the most rigorous sence methinks the plain and common sence required by the Oath should not be always the most rigorous sence And I am very certain that if all words were used in their rigorous sence few would understand them and so they would be unfit for Oaths Thirdly what warrant has he that these words Testify and declare in my Conscience do import in rigour to bear Witness before a Judge and to act as it were the part of a Judge Since nothing is more familiar in plain and Common Sence than to Testify and declare a matter in a man's Conscience without the thought of any act of Jurisdiction Fourthly To testify and declare in a man's conscience that the King is rightful King is so far from questioning the Kings right that it places it beyond all question For whereas at the time this Oath was framed and before several Divines of the Society and others maintained the deposing and murthering Power which gave rise to the Powder-Plot this Oath was made wherein these words amongst others were industriously inserted to cut off all such pretended Power So that what question was about the Kings right was started by the men of deposing and murthering Principles against whom and their Doctrine this Oath was made Another Bone too hard for his Digestion is that he cannot Swear The King is Rightful and Lawful King of all his Dominions Because he knows not what they are or what Right the King has to them My Answer is That the Oath requires not that the swearer should know every spot of Land possessed by the King either in Europe Affrica or America but only that he swear in particular That he is Rightful and Lawful King of this his Realm and in general of all other his Dominions So that what ever change has been made of his Dominions since the framing of this Oath either by gain or by loss to the Crown nothing is more certain than that he is lawful King of all his Dominions we may therefore with all security in Conscience conclude that in the first Clause of this Oath there is neither Equivocation secret Reservation mental Evasion or any just cause to asperse this Oath His Bill of Charges runs thus First he denies it to be part of the Subjects Allegiance or Fidelity to assert the right of his Prince Secondly in defiance of reason and his own experience he requires in an Oath that every word have a distinct sense from others Thirdly he confounds the plain and common sense of words obvious to every understanding with their rigorous sense known to a few only Fourthly he forces the words testify and declare from their plain and common sense that he may fault the Oath Fifthly to declare the King 's right so that no body can justly take it from him he tells you is to question the Kings Right Finally he has a scruple to swear the King is Lawful King of his Dominions as if Dominion could be his and not his Reverend Father is this Christian Doctrine His Fifth Chapter Examined THe design of this Chapter is to render the takers of the Oath perjur'd as using secret reservations inconsistent with the Oath obliging them to the plain and common understanding of the same words without Equivocation mental Evasion or secret Reservation His first charge of perjury is from the third Clause or branch of the Oath which if you credit him is thus I declare in my conscience before God that the Pope neither of himself nor by any other means with any other can depose the King Had he been a fair dealer he would have cited the words as they are in the Oath thus nor by any other meanes with any other hath any power or Authority to depose the King Which differs from this other expression can depose the King For Authority in the Oath coming after Power does limit it to a just and Lawful Power whereas can depose implies a power either just or unjust to depose the King and the Oath meddles not with an unjust power of deposing him but because it is a Maxime in the Law id solum possum quod licite possum I will suppose he meant well What does he inferr from those words that neither the Pope nor King nor Prince nor Emperour hath any power or Authority to depose the King To this I answer him out of his own Instruction that by these words of the Oath nothing is designed but an Exclusion of the Popes Spiritual power to depose the King He resumes thus do the express words of the Oath bear this reservation I answer here is no Reservation but the plain and common sense of the words as they are understood by all man-kind for when mention is made of the Pope's Power of deposing Soveraign Princes who ever understands any other but such as Popes have claimed and what Pope ever laid claim to the deposing power or proceeded to the deposition of Soveraigns but by vertue of a Commission from Jesus Christ as being Vicar and Supreme Pastor upon earth Gregory the seventh was the first that made use of that power several others have followed his steps examin their pretences turn over their Bulls and publick Declarations and see if they plead not a Commission from

to one Proposition But what will the Catechist say to this who has found a knot in every Rush However since the Subscribers who are threescore at least do assert that it may be taken jointly why must we pass by them and yeeld our Assent to these Devines in Mascarade or to one Perot whom notwithstanding the Catechist himself in a former Print owns to have altered his Opinion if so quem sequntus es errantem sequere penitentem there being no reason alledged in his or their Defence But to convince them that such propositions may be taken jointly or separately I instance in this 'T is lawful to live honest or steal the sence either may be that 't is lawful to do either of them and then that proposition is taken jointly and is formally Heretical or the sence may be that 't is lawful to do some one of them and then the proposition is taken separately and is not heretical The same in proportion I affirm of this other proposition 'T is Lawful to Depose or Murther which taken jointly is formally Heretical because malum ex quolibet defectu but taken separately is materially heretical in respect of one part and formally in respect of the other nor is it inconvenient that one predicate may diversly affect different Subjects especially both sences being plain and common The third Reason is Because the Subscribing Doctors without cause affirm that the adjectives Impious and Heretical are to be taken formally in reference to the word Murthered and only materially in reference to the word Deposed nor can there be assigned any Reason why they are not to be taken univocally in one and the same proposition But to evince that a reason may be assigned I shall give him this that though the proposition be but one yet 't is equivalently two having two different subjects which are to be Deposed or Murthered and consequently the predicate may also be equivalently two or diverse in signification without any sin against Logick The fourth Reason is Because 't is not undoubted that the Pope cannot depose Princes in some cases since many Popes and Divines of good note have taught the contrary whom no body but rashly and unskilfully may accuse of material Heresy My Answer is That amongst the Sorbon Divines even those who were not required to subscribe much more amongst the Subscribers 't is certain the Pope has no power to depose soveraign Princes nor are they concerned what others doubt or doubt not for they hold not themselves oblig'd to doubt with others for company sake neither are they esteemed rash or unskilfull in their Art for charging that Doctrin with material Heresy since nothing is more frequent in the Schools than to charge the opinions of others nay and sometimes of Popes too with material Heresy and that without breach of union or any disrespect to the Holy See The fifth Reason is Because since the Subscribers do say that to depose is a doctrine only materially Heretical it seems 't is not lawfull for Catholicks to take the Oath because it is as it were a faith-profession where every word is to be taken in its formal not material sence as is expressed in the end of this Oath My Reply is that I find no such expression as formal but plain and common sence neither in the end nor throughout the Oath A plain man and a formal are very different Secondly What is only as it were a faith-profession is no faith-profession Thirdly If it be only a profession of what is materially Faith what harm is it if the doctrin in contradiction to it be esteemed and censured as materially heretical The Sixth reason is because the Subscribers do not permit Catholicks to swear but with a condition which neither the illiterate understand nor magistrates do allow of I answer that the swearer need not trouble his head with any thing conditional but onely plainly and honestly abjures the position as Heretical for whether it be either materially or formally Heretical or both terms which are known onely to the School so it be heretical his Oath is good and he in conscience secure nor do the subscribers require that the swearer do understand all their terms of explication The subscribing Divines have declared deposing and murthering to be against the Word of God this both the Litterate and Illiterate understand to be heretical and seek no farther The Seventh reason is because 't is manifest that all the Six professors of Sorbon with many other most learned Divines and all the regulars almost have refused to Subscribe Confidence may be a bolster for any thing otherwise I am more inclined to credit those whose care it was to propose the Oath to be subscribed by the Divines of Sorbon than these Cavillers who are ignorant of the whole transaction Now they do positively affirm that none of the Six Professors did ever refuse nor was any of them consulted but Monsieur Le Stocque and Monsieur Deperire both which notwithstanding offered to sign in case it had been proposed unto them by Authority And as for Monsieur Perot in whom these Cavillers so much glory he has declared in the presence of several Persons of quality of our own nation who consulted him about it that this Oath may with a safe Conscience be taken and that he censured no body for it for which reason our Catechist in one of his last prints proclaims him to be now byassed As to those other Divines when I know who and what they are I shall make reply in the mean time if they please they may be convinced by the Subscription it self that several of the Regulars have also signed and I may with truth add that few or none to whom it was proposed have refused to subscribe The conclusion is that neither the most famous nor the most ancient of the Sorbon have subscribed As to this I must refer the Reader to those who have the honour to be acquainted with the Chancellour of the University and the rest of the Subscribers who are all living and most of them reputed the very Flower of the Sorbon FINIS ERRATA Page 3. Line 14. to Sale p. 24. l. 6. Allegiance p. 53. l. 7. Oath-teachers p. 61. l. 20. Arms. p. 79. l. 9. Moral Certainty p. 84. l. 4. proceed upon p. 89. l. 5. Papist p 99. l. 23. Heissius p. 128. l. 11. upon by